X-ray spectroscopy method of white dwarf mass determination in intermediate polars. External systematic uncertainties

K. Werner (IAAT; L. Ducci; University of Tuebingen); V. Doroshenko; V.F. Suleimanov

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

X-ray spectroscopy method of white dwarf mass determination in intermediate polars. External systematic uncertainties

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Modeling white dwarfs in intermediate polars with warm, thick hydrogen envelopes raises X-ray-derived average masses from 0.78 to 0.82 solar masses, matching optical measurements and explaining a previously puzzling deficit.

desk verdict Solid systematics study whose headline +0.04 Msun shift rests on one unconstrained envelope model, so the optical-mass agreement is suggestive but not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03711 v1 pith:DTPJSG5F submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

V.F. Suleimanov , L. Ducci , V. Doroshenko , K. Werner (IAAT , University of Tuebingen) This is my paper

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE

keywords intermediatepolarswhitedwarfmassesX-rayspectroscopypost-shockregionsmass-radiusrelationhydrogenenvelopesSwift/BATcataclysmicvariables

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the long-standing small deficit between white dwarf masses derived from hard X-ray spectra of intermediate polars and those derived from optical observations disappears once the white dwarfs are modeled with warm hydrogen envelopes. The authors build a new grid of post-shock X-ray spectra using a mass-radius relation for white dwarfs with thick ($10^{-4}$ solar mass) hydrogen envelopes at a surface temperature of 30 kK, together with finite magnetospheric radii, rotation, and accretion-flow inclination. Fitting Swift/BAT spectra of 47 intermediate polars with this grid raises the average white dwarf mass from $0.78\pm0.19$ to $0.82\pm0.18$ solar masses, matching the optical average of about 0.82 solar masses in cataclysmic variables. The conclusion is that for luminous intermediate polars the assumptions of small accretion columns and magnetospheric radii near corotation are basically correct, while masses derived for low-luminosity systems should be treated as lower limits.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a modified mass-radius relation for white dwarfs with finite-temperature hydrogen envelopes, specifically thick envelopes of relative mass $10^{-4}$ solar masses at 30 kK as tabulated in published evolutionary models. The new post-shock region spectral grid uses this relation to compute the accretion-flow velocity before the shock, so a fixed observed $M/R$ maps to a higher white dwarf mass than with the cold zero-temperature relation. The grid also incorporates a finite magnetospheric radius (assumed at 0.75 of the corotation radius), centrifugal corrections from magnetospheric rotation, accretion-flow inclination relative to the surface, and a high mass accretion rate that keeps post-shock columns short; of these, the warm-envelope mass-radius relation produces the dominant mass shift.

What would settle it

Measure the surface temperature and envelope thickness of several luminous intermediate polars directly, for example from UV or soft X-ray spectra during a low-accretion state, and compare the derived radii with the assumed 30 kK, $10^{-4}$ solar-mass envelope models; alternatively, obtain independent dynamical masses for a few luminous intermediate polars from eclipses or donor-star radial velocities and check whether the X-ray masses with the warm-envelope correction are systematically higher by the predicted 0.04 solar masses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 0.04 solar-mass offset between X-ray and optical average white dwarf masses is a systematic artifact of using a zero-temperature mass-radius relation. Because accretion heats the white dwarf envelope, the same observed spectral hardness (the ratio $M/R$ fixed by the shock temperature) corresponds to a slightly more massive star than the cold zero-temperature relation predicts. With a 30 kK thick hydrogen envelope, the new grid shifts each derived mass upward by about 0.04 solar masses, more for low-mass white dwarfs, bringing the Swift/BAT sample average to $0.82\pm0.18$ solar masses, equal to the optical average in cataclysmic variables. The paper therefore concludes that the X-ray spectroscopy method is reliable for luminous intermediate polars and that the agreement with optical masses validates the model assumptions for those systems.

Load-bearing premise

The whole correction rests on assuming the accreting white dwarfs carry thick hydrogen envelopes with relative mass $10^{-4}$ and a surface temperature of 30 kK; if real envelopes are thinner, cooler, or hydrogen-poor, the mass shift shrinks or changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The previous 0.04 solar-mass deficit between X-ray and optical average white dwarf masses is explained by warm envelopes, not by a flaw in the X-ray spectroscopy method.
For luminous intermediate polars, the derived masses are accurate enough to compare with optically measured cataclysmic variable masses; the averages agree at about 0.82 solar masses.
Every individual X-ray mass should still be read as a lower limit, because actual magnetospheric radii may be smaller than assumed and tall accretion columns would reduce the inferred mass.
The new 30 kK spectral grid, released for general spectral fitting, lets other observers re-derive masses while accounting for magnetospheric radius, rotation, and flow inclination.
For low-luminosity systems such as EX Hya, DO Dra, and XY Ari, the X-ray method gives only lower limits, explaining the apparent tension with optical masses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extending beyond the paper: one could test the envelope assumption through nova-recurrence statistics, since recurrent novae that leave thinner residual envelopes than $10^{-4}$ solar masses would reduce the mass correction.
A related testable prediction is that independent dynamical masses for luminous intermediate polars, when they become available, should be higher than cold-relation X-ray masses by roughly 0.04 solar masses.
One could also apply the same warm-envelope correction to polars, whose accretion columns are often taller and whose white dwarf temperatures may differ, to see whether their mass calibration shifts as well.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a careful, honest piece of work, and the new grid is a real step forward for the IP X-ray mass method. But the 0.04 Msun shift that makes the X-ray and optical averages agree comes almost entirely from the choice of a 30 kK, 10^-4 Msun hydrogen envelope, and the paper never tests how sensitive that result is to the choice. Treat the agreement as a motivated interpretation, not a measurement.

The genuinely new things: they write down and integrate the accretion dynamics along a dipole field including centrifugal force and field-line inclination (Appendix A, Eqs. 8-13), and they correctly note these effects matter only when rm is small and rm is close to rC. The new spectral grid with the heated-envelope M-R relation is a useful deliverable, and fitting it to 47 Swift/BAT objects gives a clean comparison with the old grid. The paper is also admirably explicit about which objects should be treated as lower limits (low-luminosity IPs, unknown spin periods) and about the ~0.1 Msun BAT-vs-NuSTAR systematic.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The 30 kK, 10^-4 Msun envelope is a guess anchored in Townsley & Gansicke and Fontaine, and the paper says the mass and composition of CV accreted envelopes are poorly known in Section 6. The average mass shift is basically the envelope correction; Fig. 11 and the text say so. Since the validation is that the new average matches the optical average, the argument is close to circular: choose a thicker and warmer envelope and you get a bigger shift. They also adopt rm = 0.75 rC for all sources and halve the rotation correction factor with a hand-wavy justification (Section 4, item 3). These are minor compared to the envelope issue, but they do affect individual masses.

I don't think there is a load-bearing error. The paper overclaims a little in saying the assumptions are basically correct based on the average coincidence, but the abstract and Section 6 both flag the envelope uncertainty, so it is visible to the reader. The right fix is a sensitivity study: vary envelope mass fraction, temperature, and composition, and show how the mean mass shifts. That should be referee-requested, not grounds for rejection.

Who this is for: anyone using or applying X-ray PSR grids for CV masses. It deserves a serious referee and a conditional accept leaning positive, with the envelope sensitivity test as the main request. I would cite it for the grid and the systematics catalog, but I would not quote the 0.82 Msun average as established without the sensitivity numbers.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates external systematic uncertainties in the X-ray spectroscopy method for determining white dwarf (WD) masses in intermediate polars (IPs). It examines the effects of finite magnetospheric radius, WD rotation, accretion-flow inclination, finite shock height, and, most importantly, the WD mass-radius relation for accretion-heated hydrogen envelopes. The authors construct a new spectral grid for high-luminosity IPs using a 30 kK, 10^-4 M_sun hydrogen envelope mass-radius relation and fit Swift/BAT spectra of 47 IPs. They find the average WD mass rises from 0.78 +/- 0.19 M_sun (old grid) to 0.82 +/- 0.18 M_sun (new grid), which they argue coincides with the average WD mass in CVs obtained by optical methods, thereby supporting their model assumptions for high-luminosity IPs.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper resolves a long-standing 0.02-0.05 M_sun discrepancy between X-ray and optical WD mass determinations in CVs and provides a new spectral grid that accounts for finite WD envelope temperatures. The systematic treatment of rotational and geometric corrections (Section 3 and Appendix A) is a useful contribution, and the authors are transparent about the poorly constrained nature of accreted envelopes. The paper also appropriately flags low-luminosity IPs as cases where individual tall-column models are required. The main weakness is that the headline +0.04 M_sun shift is essentially an adopted input (the envelope model) rather than an empirically constrained parameter, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, item 1; Section 5, Fig. 11; Section 6] The central numerical result, the +0.04 M_sun increase in the average WD mass (Section 5, Fig. 11), is not an empirical measurement but a direct consequence of the adopted envelope model: a hydrogen envelope of relative mass 10^-4 at 30 kK (Section 4, item 1). Section 3.1 and Section 6 explicitly state that the mass and chemical composition of accreted envelopes in CVs are poorly known, and Section 3.1 notes that post-nova envelopes in single WDs are often much thinner (~10^-6 M_sun). Equation (5) predicts envelope temperatures between 10 and 50 kK depending on mean mass accretion rate, yet the grid is computed for a single temperature. No sensitivity test is presented; for example, using Table 2 one could recompute the mass shift at 10 or 20 kK, or with a 10^-5 M_sun envelope, to show the range of plausible shifts. If plausible envelope variations change the shift by more than the 0.02-0.05 M_sun deficit the paper aims to explain, the claimed agreement with the optical average (Section 5, end) is not robust. This is load-bearing because the agreement is used to conclude that the model assumptions are 'basically correct.'
[Section 5, first paragraph; Section 3.4; Table 3] The fitting with the new grid assumes rm = 0.75 rC for all sources with known spin periods, and rm = 60 otherwise (Section 5). The paper itself identifies the magnetospheric radius as the main uncertainty for individual IPs (Section 6) and shows in Fig. 7 that masses can be underestimated by up to 0.3 M_sun for rm ~ 2. Because the grid includes rm as a free parameter (Section 4), the assumption rm = 0.75 rC acts as a restrictive prior that prevents the data from exploring substantially smaller magnetospheric radii, which would shift the derived masses upward. The subsequent conclusion that the assumptions are 'basically correct' (abstract) is therefore not a genuine test of the corotation-radius assumption; it is built in. A sensitivity test with, e.g., rm = 0.5 rC or with rm fitted freely without the scaling would show how much of the optical coincidence is due to this prior.
[Section 5, last paragraph and Section 6] There is a logical tension between the statement that 'each individual mass should be considered a lower limit' (Section 6) because the actual magnetospheric radius may be smaller, and the use of the average mass 0.82 +/- 0.18 as coinciding with the optical average to validate the model. If individual masses are only lower limits, the sample average is also a lower limit to the true mean WD mass; the fact that the optical average lies at (or slightly below) this lower limit does not by itself confirm the model assumptions, because the true average could be higher. The validation conclusion would require a statement of whether the lower-limit character applies to the entire sample or only to the flagged subgroups (IGR sources, low-luminosity IPs) and, if the latter, an explicit exclusion of those subgroups from the average before comparing with optical values.

minor comments (4)

[Reference list] The entry 'Echevarría et al. 2016' appears twice with identical bibliographic data; please remove the duplicate.
[Throughout] Numerous words contain stray spaces from LaTeX (e.g., 'di fference', 'di fferences', 'e ffect', 'Su fficiently'); these should be corrected in the final version.
[Figure 7] The solid and dashed curves are not labeled in the figure or its caption; a legend or explicit callout distinguishing rotating and non-rotating cases would improve clarity, especially because the caption describes two separate scenarios.
[Table 3] The table notes use asterisks to indicate lower limits for the IGR sources and for the low-luminosity group, but the meaning of the symbol for the three sources without known spin periods is only explained in the text; consider adding a consistent footnote to the table itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the +0.04 M_sun shift is a stated consequence of an externally motivated envelope model, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central result, a mean WD mass of 0.82 +/- 0.18 M_sun, is obtained by fitting Swift/BAT spectra with a new grid whose only substantive change is the adoption of a heated-envelope mass-radius relation. The paper is explicit that the +0.04 M_sun shift relative to the old grid is the direct consequence of this adopted relation: Section 5 states that 'the main reason for the differences is the new M-R dependence, which takes into account the hydrogen WD envelope with the finite surface temperature of 30 kK,' and Section 6 repeats that the increase 'leads to an increase of the measured WD masses by approximately 0.04 M_sun, assuming the envelope surface temperature is 30 kK.' This is a transparent model-dependent systematic correction, not a parameter fitted to the optical average. The envelope parameters (10^-4 M_sun hydrogen envelope at 30 kK) are taken from external sources: Fontaine et al. (2001) for the envelope models and Townsley & Gaensicke (2009) for the accretion-heated temperature scale, with the latter expressed in Eq. (5). Neither is an input derived from the optical WD mass average, so the comparison with the optical values (Zorotovic et al. 2011; Pala et al. 2022) is an independent consistency check rather than a circular validation. The paper also explicitly flags the limitation that 'the mass and chemical composition of the accreted envelopes in the CVs are poorly known,' which is a correctness/model-uncertainty concern, not a circularity. Self-citations to Suleimanov et al. (2016, 2019) provide the previous grids, data, and baseline masses being improved; they are not used to forbid alternative M-R relations or to justify the envelope ansatz by appeal to the present authors' authority. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the sense required by the circularity analysis, with the envelope assumption being an external, explicitly acknowledged input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities, but its central result depends on several chosen parameters: the envelope mass and temperature, the rm = 0.75 rC scaling, the half-factor for rotation, and the fixed accretion rate and footprint area. These are all external or ad hoc inputs rather than fitted to the target data, so the ledger captures the assumptions that a reader must accept to trust the derived masses.

free parameters (7)

Hydrogen envelope mass fraction = 10^-4 M_sun
Assumed for all IP white dwarfs to compute the new mass-radius relation; directly sets the radius increase and the +0.04 M_sun mass shift.
Envelope surface temperature = 30 kK
Chosen from Townsley & Gansicke (2009) as typical for high accretion rate CVs; controls the radius correction and the final mass shift.
Relative magnetospheric radius scaling = rm = 0.75 rC
Ad hoc assumption applied to all IPs with known spin periods when fitting BAT spectra; if the real rm is smaller, masses are underestimated.
Corotation radius prescription = rC = 10 if rm < 10, else 1.25 rm
Fixed relation used to set the relative corotation radius in the grid; a modeling choice that affects the rotation correction.
Rotation correction reduction factor = 0.5
The paper 'took only a half of the correction' for the non-coaxial case (Section 4, item 3); an ad hoc factor with no derivation.
Mass accretion rate in grid = 10^17 g/s
Adopted to keep PSR heights small in the grid; previously 10^16 g/s gave tall columns for massive WDs.
PSR footprint area fraction = 5 x 10^-4
Fixed relative area of the accretion column footprint; from prior models and kept constant.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The plasma velocity before the shock is the free-fall velocity from the magnetospheric radius, modified by rotation and column height (Eq. 3).
This is the foundation of the X-ray mass determination method, adopted from previous PSR models and stated in Section 2.
domain assumption The post-shock region is one-dimensional, optically thin in X-rays, and follows the dipole geometry of the magnetic field.
The PSR hydrodynamical models from Suleimanov et al. (2016) are reused; this is a standard but unverified approximation.
standard math The mass-radius relation for cold WDs (Nauenberg 1972) is adequate as a baseline for comparison.
Used as the reference for computing corrections; the paper evaluates its accuracy against Hamada & Salpeter (1961) models.
ad hoc to paper A thick (10^-4 M_sun) hydrogen envelope at 30 kK is representative for IP white dwarfs.
Introduced as 'a first approximation' (Section 4) and acknowledged as speculative in Section 6.
ad hoc to paper Plasma passing through an oblique shock is heated and changes velocity and density in the same way as through a normal shock.
Stated in Section 3.3; used to apply inclination corrections without a full oblique shock treatment.
ad hoc to paper The magnetospheric radius is 0.75 times the corotation radius for all fitted IPs.
Stated in Section 5; a uniform assumption with no individual justification, though the paper notes it is an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray spectroscopy method of white dwarf mass determination in intermediate polars. External systematic uncertainties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTPJSG5F

@misc{pith2026250603711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray spectroscopy method of white dwarf mass determination in intermediate polars. External systematic uncertainties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTPJSG5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03711}
}

abstract

The masses of white dwarfs (WDs) in intermediate polars (IPs) can be determined from the shape of their hard X-ray spectra. Here we study the importance of all possible systematic uncertainties in this X-ray spectroscopy method, including finite radii and rotation of magnetospheres, finite accretion column height and accretion-flow inclination relative to the WD surface. We also investigate the importance of accretion-heated envelopes on WD surfaces in IPs which are increasing WD radii. Their presence changes the commonly used mass-radius relation for cold white dwarfs. As a first approximation we use thick ($10^{-4}M_\odot$) hydrogen envelope models with a surface temperature of 30 kK. We present a new model grid of hard X-ray spectra of high-luminous IPs computed among other things with using a new mass-radius relation. This grid is used for fitting Swift/BAT spectra of 47 IPs. The average WD mass in this sample is 0.82 $M_\odot$ and coincides with the average WD mass in cataclysmic variables obtained by optical methods. This means that the calculated hard X-ray spectra and the assumptions made that the magnetospheric radii in IPs are close to the corotation radii, and the relative heights of the accretion columns are small are basically correct, because most IPs have high luminosities. But this universal grid (as well as previous universal grids) cannot give correct results for the low-luminous IPs with probably relatively tall accretion columns on the WD surfaces. Such IPs have to be investigated with individual accretion column models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03711 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** WD mass-radius relations for different effective temperatures of the hydrogen envelope (Fontaine et al. 2001). The relation suggested by Nauenberg (1972) for zero temperature WDs is shown with the black dashed curve. The blue dashed curve is the fit for 50 kK envelope temperature, see Eq.14 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Dependences of the M/R ratio on the WD mass for different envelope temperatures, T = 0 (black dashed curve), and T = 30 kK (red solid curve). For fixed M/R, the second relation gives a larger WD mass. MH/MWD = 10−4 showed a similar WD radii increase (Wood 1995; Fontaine et al. 2001). In fact, the computed WD radius depends on the envelope chemical composition and its relative mass and, apparently, the envelopes of h… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Dependence of the square of the ratio of the plasma velocities at the WD surface, computed by integration of Eq. (A.9) and predicted by Eq. (8), on the ratio RC/Rm for various values of rm. Approximations obtained using Eq. (11) are also shown with dashed curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Geometry of the oblique accretion flow at the WD surface. The solution of this equation is v 2 0 = 2GM R 1 − r −1 m − ω 2 s R 2 r 2 m − 1 , (7) or in another form v 2 0 = v 2 ff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Corrections to the WD masses determined using zero temperature WD mass-radius relation (Nauenberg 1972) depending on the relative magnetospheric radius rm with rC = 10 or rC = 1.25rm if rm ≥ 10 (solid curves). Corrections computed for non-rotating WDs are shown with …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Corrections to the WD masses determined using zero temperature WD mass-radius relation (Nauenberg 1972) depending on the relative accretion column height hsh. Differences between WD masses found using hard X-ray observations (Suleimanov et al. 2019) and using optical …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Comparison of the WD masses from the Swift/BAT sample found using the old published spectral model grid ipolar and the new model grid. Lines of equal masses (dashed red) and shifted to 0.04 M⊙ (solid red) are also shown. A linear fit is displayed by the blue line. mim…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Cataclysmic Variables Photometric Periods from TESS
astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

TESS photometry yields coherent periods for 1,362 CVs, including roughly 465–565 first determinations, and confirms the 2–3 h period gap with a median period near 3.68 h.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

1973, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 49, 1184 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M

Aizu, K. 1973, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 49, 1184 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M. A. P., Rodríguez-Gil, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5805 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M. A. P., Rodríguez-Gil, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3314 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M. A. P., Shahbaz, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A218

work page 1973
[2]

Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

2021
[3]

2013, MNRAS, 435, 2822

Bernardini, F., de Martino, D., Mukai, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2822

2013
[4]

& Reinsch, K

Beuermann, K. & Reinsch, K. 2008, A&A, 480, 199

work page 2008
[5]

& Reinsch, K

Beuermann, K. & Reinsch, K. 2024, A&A, 686, A304

work page 2024
[6]

2009, A&A, 496, 121

Brunschweiger, J., Greiner, J., Ajello, M., & Osborne, J. 2009, A&A, 496, 121

work page 2009
[7]

W., Norton, A

Butters, O. W., Norton, A. J., Mukai, K., & Tomsick, J. A. 2011, A&A, 526, A77

work page 2011
[8]

Canalle, J. B. G., Saxton, C. J., Wu, K., Cropper, M., & Ramsay, G. 2005, A&A, 440, 185

work page 2005

Show all 60 references

[9]

D., & Shen, K

Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 391

2021
[10]

1998, MNRAS, 293, 222 de Martino, D., Bernardini, F., Mukai, K., Falanga, M., & Masetti, N

Cropper, M., Ramsay, G., & Wu, K. 1998, MNRAS, 293, 222 de Martino, D., Bernardini, F., Mukai, K., Falanga, M., & Masetti, N. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1209

1998
[11]

A., Herwig, F., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

Denissenkov, P. A., Herwig, F., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2013, ApJ, 762, 8 Echevarría, J., Ramírez-Torres, A., Michel, R., & Hernández Santisteban, J. V . 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1576 Echevarría, J., Ramírez-Torres, A., Michel, R., & Hernández Santisteban, J. V . 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1576

2013
[12]

C., Pringle, J

Fabian, A. C., Pringle, J. E., & Rees, M. J. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 43

1976
[13]

W., Mori, K., Bridges, G., et al

Filor, L. W., Mori, K., Bridges, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.11273

2024 arXiv
[14]

2001, PASP, 113, 409

Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Bergeron, P. 2001, PASP, 113, 409

2001
[15]

2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Kato, T., & Matsumoto, K. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 261, The Physics of Cataclysmic Vari- ables and Related Objects, ed. B. T. Gänsicke, K. Beuermann, & K. Reinsch, 629

2002
[16]

& Salpeter, E

Hamada, T. & Salpeter, E. E. 1961, ApJ, 134, 683

1961
[17]

A., Patterson, J., Thorstensen, J

Haswell, C. A., Patterson, J., Thorstensen, J. R., Hellier, C., & Skillman, D. R. 1997, ApJ, 476, 847

1997
[18]

& Ishida, M

Hayashi, T. & Ishida, M. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2267

2014
[19]

1997, MNRAS, 291, 71

Hellier, C. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 71

1997
[20]

& Sala, G

Hernanz, M. & Sala, G. 2002, Science, 298, 393

2002
[21]

Joyce, S. R. G., Barstow, M. A., Casewell, S. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1612

2018
[22]

O., Kleinman, S

Kepler, S. O., Kleinman, S. J., Nitta, A., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1315

2007
[23]

2011, ApJS, 194, 28

Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J. 2011, ApJS, 194, 28

2011
[24]

Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1987, Fluid Mechanics, Second Edition, Perga- mon, Oxford

1987
[25]

J., et al

Lutovinov, A., Suleimanov, V ., Manuel Luna, G. J., et al. 2020, New A Rev., 91, 101547

2020
[26]

2023, MNRAS, 520, 4315

Lyutikov, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4315

2023
[27]

2017, PASP, 129, 062001

Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001

2017
[28]

A., Lipunova, G

Mushtukov, A. A., Lipunova, G. V ., Ingram, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4061

2019
[29]

A., Suleimanov, V

Mushtukov, A. A., Suleimanov, V . F., Tsygankov, S. S., & Ingram, A. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1202

2017
[30]

1972, ApJ, 175, 417

Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417

1972
[31]

B., et al

Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 4

2018
[32]

2001, A&A, 373, 542

Orio, M., Covington, J., & Ögelman, H. 2001, A&A, 373, 542

2001
[33]

E., Xiao, L., Collazzi, A

Pagnotta, A., Schaefer, B. E., Xiao, L., Collazzi, A. C., & Kroll, P. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 1230

2009
[34]

F., Gänsicke, B

Pala, A. F., Gänsicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6110

2022
[35]

G., Gänsicke, B

Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4473

2017
[36]

2000, MNRAS, 314, 403

Ramsay, G. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 403

2000
[37]

2010, ApJ, 717, 363

Rauch, T., Orio, M., Gonzales-Riestra, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 363

2010
[38]

2010, A&A, 513, A63

Revnivtsev, M., Burenin, R., Bikmaev, I., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A63

2010
[39]

2009, A&A, 507, 1211

Revnivtsev, M., Churazov, E., Postnov, K., & Tsygankov, S. 2009, A&A, 507, 1211

2009
[40]

D., Kepler, S

Romero, A. D., Kepler, S. O., Joyce, S. R. G., Lau ffer, G. R., & Córsico, A. H. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2711

2019
[41]

E., Gruber, D

Rothschild, R. E., Gruber, D. E., Knight, F. K., et al. 1981, ApJ, 250, 723

1981
[42]

Schaefer, B. E. 2024, ApJ, 969, 34

2024
[43]

R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T

Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T. P. G. 2016, MNRAS, 455, L16 Article number, page 12 of 14 Suleimanov et al.: White dwarf masses in IPs. External uncertainties

2016
[44]

N., Revnivtsev, M

Semena, A. N., Revnivtsev, M. G., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1123

2014
[45]

W., Heinke, C

Shaw, A. W., Heinke, C. O., Mukai, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3457

2020
[46]

V ., & Werner, K

Suleimanov, V ., Doroshenko, V ., Ducci, L., Zhukov, G. V ., & Werner, K. 2016, A&A, 591, A35

2016
[47]

2005, A&A, 435, 191

Suleimanov, V ., Revnivtsev, M., & Ritter, H. 2005, A&A, 435, 191

2005
[48]

F., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K

Suleimanov, V . F., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3622

2019
[49]

F., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K

Suleimanov, V . F., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4937

2022
[50]

F., et al

Tavleev, A., Ducci, L., Suleimanov, V . F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A335

2024
[51]

Townsley, D. M. & Gänsicke, B. T. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1007

2009
[52]

2018, MNRAS, 474, 1564

Wada, Y ., Yuasa, T., Nakazawa, K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1564

2018
[53]

2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars

Warner, B. 2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars

2003
[54]

Wood, M. A. 1995, in White Dwarfs, ed. D. Koester & K. Werner, V ol. 443, 41

1995
[55]

1994, ApJ, 426, 664

Wu, K., Chanmugam, G., & Shaviv, G. 1994, ApJ, 426, 664

1994
[56]

1995, ApJ, 455, 260

Wu, K., Chanmugam, G., & Shaviv, G. 1995, ApJ, 455, 260

1995
[57]

2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 045003

Yu, Z.-L., Xu, X.-J., & Li, X.-D. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 045003

2022
[58]

2010, A&A, 520, A25

Yuasa, T., Nakazawa, K., Makishima, K., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A25

2010
[59]

& Schreiber, M

Zorotovic, M. & Schreiber, M. R. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1080

2020
[60]

R., & Gänsicke, B

Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2011, A&A, 536, A42 Article number, page 13 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. IP_sys_arx Appendix A: Accretion on the magnetic dipole Dipole magnetic field lines are curved. Hence, the dynamics of the accretion flow is complica...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1973, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 49, 1184 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M

Aizu, K. 1973, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 49, 1184 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M. A. P., Rodríguez-Gil, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5805 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M. A. P., Rodríguez-Gil, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3314 Álvarez-Hernández, A., Torres, M. A. P., Shahbaz, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A218

work page 1973

[2] [2]

Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

2021

[3] [3]

2013, MNRAS, 435, 2822

Bernardini, F., de Martino, D., Mukai, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2822

2013

[4] [4]

& Reinsch, K

Beuermann, K. & Reinsch, K. 2008, A&A, 480, 199

work page 2008

[5] [5]

& Reinsch, K

Beuermann, K. & Reinsch, K. 2024, A&A, 686, A304

work page 2024

[6] [6]

2009, A&A, 496, 121

Brunschweiger, J., Greiner, J., Ajello, M., & Osborne, J. 2009, A&A, 496, 121

work page 2009

[7] [7]

W., Norton, A

Butters, O. W., Norton, A. J., Mukai, K., & Tomsick, J. A. 2011, A&A, 526, A77

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Canalle, J. B. G., Saxton, C. J., Wu, K., Cropper, M., & Ramsay, G. 2005, A&A, 440, 185

work page 2005