Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A comprehensive light curve model of the very fast nova V1674 Herculis

T0 review · 4 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 This paper claims that V1674 Her is a thermonuclear runaway on a 1.35-solar-mass white dwarf, with one model reproducing the full optical light curve, the reappearance of orbital and spin modulations, and the gamma-ray, hard X-ray, and…

desk verdict First full-cycle model for V1674 Her with real timing successes, but the absolute V calibration borrows A_ff from a different composition, so the WD mass claim is softer than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04615 v1 pith:TEOHG2ZJ submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.SR

Mariko Kato , Izumi Hachisu , Hideyuki Saio This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords novaecataclysmicvariableswhitedwarfstarsopticallythickwindsnovalightcurvestime-stretchingmethodV1674Herculisintermediatepolar
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

This paper claims that the extremely fast nova V1674 Her is a thermonuclear runaway on a $1.35\,M_\odot$ white dwarf accreting at $1\times10^{-11}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and that this single model reproduces the observed optical V light curve from a rise of more than ten magnitudes through the fast decay. The model's expanding photosphere reaches $21\,R_\odot$, engulfing the $0.26\,M_\odot$ companion about 2.7 hours after the runaway begins, and the companion re-emerges 5.3 days later, which matches when orbital modulation appears. The decay phase is shown to be a sequence of steady-state wind solutions, and the time-stretching method then gives a V-band distance modulus of $16.3\pm0.2$, a distance of $8.9\pm1$ kpc, and reddening $E(B-V)=0.5\pm0.05$. If correct, V1674 Her hosts a near-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf, and the paper's interpretation of the gamma-ray, hard X-ray, and radio emission as an internal shock follows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sequence of optically thick wind solutions that replaces the hydrostatic surface condition when the envelope approaches the Eddington luminosity, joined to an inner Henyey-type evolution calculation. The optical light curve is carried by the free-free emission formula $L_{V,\mathrm{ff}}=A_{\mathrm{ff}}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}^2/(v_{\mathrm{ph}}^2 R_{\mathrm{ph}})$, where $A_{\mathrm{ff}}$ is a calibrated coefficient that sets the absolute magnitude scale; the rising phase depends on the mass-accretion history, while the decay phase follows a steady-state sequence that does not. The time-stretching method, which overlays nova V light curves on a logarithmic time axis using a horizontal factor $f_s$ and a vertical shift $\Delta V$, carries the distance determination. The internal shock mechanism, in which faster post-maximum wind catches slower pre-maximum ejecta, carries the gamma-ray, hard X-ray, and radio interpretation.

What would settle it

An independent distance to V1674 Her from a future astrometric parallax or radio parallax would settle the distance claim: a value outside about 8--10 kpc would invalidate the time-stretching result and the reddening estimate. A second direct test is to compute $A_{\mathrm{ff}}$ for the exact envelope composition used in the model; if the resulting absolute V magnitudes shift by more than a few tenths in a way that cannot be absorbed by the distance modulus, the claimed match to the light curve collapses. A third is to observe a similar very fast nova during its X-ray flash and measure the flash duration, which the model predicts to be roughly one hour for a $1.35\,M_\odot$ white dwarf at this accretion rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a $1.35\,M_\odot$ white-dwarf model with a low mass-accretion rate (model A) follows the observed V light curve of V1674 Her from the earliest rising phase through the decay, and does so better around optical maximum than the higher-accretion-rate model B. The photosphere expands to $21\,R_\odot$, so the companion star, at separation $a=1.41\,R_\odot$, is engulfed 2.7 hours after the onset of thermonuclear runaway and reappears 5.3 days later; the model's photospheric-radius evolution is consistent with the observed epochs at which orbital and spin modulations appear and disappear. The X-ray flash lasts only 0.96 hours, and after the optically thick winds stop the shrinking photosphere explains why spin modulation is absent around day 12 and detected by days 37--54. The paper also confirms that the whole decay phase is well approximated by a sequence of steady-state envelope solutions independent of the accretion history, and it derives $(m-M)_V=16.3\pm0.2$ by time-stretching the light curve against slower novae, giving $d=8.9\pm1$ kpc with $E(B-V)=0.5\pm0.05$. Finally, an internal shock that forms just after maximum expansion, with a 5000 km/s inner wind overtaking a 3000 km/s shell, yields a 4 keV post-shock temperature, a shock energy consistent with the hard X-ray and gamma-ray luminosities, a column density matching the X-ray absorption, and a shock lifetime of about 65 days that brackets the radio turn-around.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute brightness scale of the model is set by taking the free-free coefficient $A_{\mathrm{ff}}$ from a $1.35\,M_\odot$ steady-state model with the closest composition in the database, because $A_{\mathrm{ff}}$ is not specified for the chemical composition adopted for V1674 Her; if that coefficient is wrong, the V-band comparison shifts and the inferred white-dwarf mass and distance weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The white dwarf in V1674 Her is near the Chandrasekhar limit at $1.35\,M_\odot$, and the model's recurrence time for the adopted low accretion rate is about 156,000 years.
  • The companion star is engulfed about 2.7 hours after the runaway starts and re-emerges 5.3 days later, so any optical modulation in the first days reflects asymmetric ejecta rather than the companion or disk.
  • The X-ray flash in such a system lasts only about an hour, setting a concrete target for future observations of very fast novae.
  • The decay phase of a nova light curve can be modeled as a sequence of steady-state wind solutions independent of the mass-accretion history, which is why the same $1.35\,M_\odot$ model fits the post-maximum decline regardless of the assumed quiescent accretion rate.
  • The internal shock that forms just after optical maximum explains the onset of GeV gamma-rays near day 0.4, the 4 keV hard X-ray temperature, the observed column density, and the radio turn-around near day 65.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-Chandrasekhar-mass inference holds, V1674 Her becomes a useful local testbed for whether very fast Galactic novae can grow white dwarfs toward the Chandrasekhar limit, a question the paper does not itself address.
  • The engulfment-and-reappearance timing could be used as a geometric diagnostic for other close-binary novae: observing the day when orbital modulation resumes gives a direct handle on the photospheric radius of the expanding envelope.
  • The model assumes spherical symmetry around the white dwarf and ignores the binary companion and accretion stream; a three-dimensional simulation could test whether the engulfment and shock geometry still produce the same light-curve and modulation epochs.
  • If future parallax confirms the distant value of about 8.9 kpc rather than the earlier 2--6 kpc estimates, it would strengthen the time-stretching method as a distance tool for novae.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 1.35 M_sun white-dwarf nova model with a quiescent mass-accretion rate of 1e-11 M_sun/yr, and compares the resulting theoretical light curves with the very fast nova V1674 Her. The model is evolved through a full shell-flash cycle, including the optically thick wind phase, and the authors compare the free-free V-band light curve, the X-ray flash, the photospheric radius evolution, and the epochs of appearance of orbital and spin modulations with observations. They also derive the V-band distance modulus using the time-stretching method and obtain d = 8.9 ± 1 kpc and E(B-V) = 0.5 ± 0.05 from extinction maps. The central claim is that the 1.35 M_sun model with Mdot = 1e-11 M_sun/yr explains the overall properties of V1674 Her, including the very fast optical rise and decay.

Significance. If the calibration issues are resolved, this would be the first quantitative model of the pre-maximum rise of a classical nova over more than ten magnitudes, and the connection between the photospheric radius evolution and the reappearance of orbital and spin modulations is a novel and testable result. The internal-shock interpretation linking the wind velocity evolution to the gamma-ray, hard X-ray, and radio timing is physically appealing and produces specific, checkable predictions. However, the absolute V-band normalization is not fixed for the adopted composition, and the SSS phase requires a mass-accretion rate four orders of magnitude larger than the quoted quiescent rate, so the current manuscript does not yet provide a robust determination of the white-dwarf mass and distance.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.7, Eq. (3)] The V-band luminosity is computed as L_V,ff,winds = A_ff Mdot^2/(v_ph^2 R_ph), but the coefficient A_ff is taken from a 1.35 M_sun steady-state model in the authors' database because 'the coefficient A_ff is not yet specified for our adopted chemical composition' (§2.7). Since A_ff encodes the emission-measure and gaunt-factor dependence on the wind abundances, adopting a value from a different composition leaves the absolute scale of Model A uncalibrated for V1674 Her. The comparison in Fig. 7, which is used to argue that 1.35 M_sun is appropriate (§3.1), therefore depends on an unverified normalization. Please compute A_ff for the actual Model A composition (X=0.55, Y=0.29, XN=0.14, Z=0.02) or, failing that, show that the light-curve comparison is unchanged when A_ff is varied within the range spanned by the CO3 and other database compositions.
  2. [§4.5, Table 1] The abstract and Section 1 identify 1e-11 M_sun/yr as the mass-accretion rate of the successful Model A, but Section 4.5 reproduces the observed ~40-day SSS phase only by assuming Mdot = 3e-7 M_sun/yr during the outburst. This is a four-orders-of-magnitude difference from the quiescent rate and is introduced as an ad hoc assumption without a calculation of how irradiation and disk evolution produce it. As written, the paper does not show that a single mass-accretion history explains both the early rise/decay and the SSS duration; it uses two different rates. Please either model the accretion enhancement self-consistently or state explicitly that the quiescent rate alone does not explain the SSS phase.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A2)-(A4)] The distance modulus (m-M)_V = 16.3 ± 0.2 is derived by time-stretching against LV Vul, KT Eri, and V339 Del, whose distance moduli are taken from the authors' earlier publications. This is not an independent distance determination, and the ±0.2 uncertainty reflects the scatter among three template fits rather than a propagated error budget. Since the absolute V calibration in Fig. 7 uses this modulus, the distance and reddening values in §4.1 should be treated as model-dependent estimates. Please provide a quantitative fit statistic for the three template alignments and discuss likely systematics from the template distance moduli.
  4. [§3.1 and §4.4.2] The claim that the 1.35 M_sun WD is the appropriate mass is based on visual agreement of the model V light curve with the data (Fig. 7) and on a by-eye ranking of the database models in Fig. 11. No residuals, rms deviations, or fit statistics are given, and the X-ray count-rate fits in Fig. 11 are vertically shifted arbitrarily. Please quantify the comparison (e.g., chi-square or rms over the first 20 days for Models A and B and for the 1.3, 1.33, 1.35, and 1.37 M_sun sequences) so the mass preference is not purely qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 vs. §5, point 1] Section 4.3 states Model A is brighter by 0.64 mag, while Conclusion point 1 states 0.94 mag; please reconcile this numerical inconsistency.
  2. [§3.1] The origin t=0 is set so that the model matches the rising phase of the Evryscope data; the paper should state how sensitive the comparison is to this choice, since the pre-maximum slope is one of the strongest constraints.
  3. [Fig. 7] The Evryscope g-band data are compared directly with V-band model curves without a color-term correction; please state the assumed g-V color or justify the approximation.
  4. [§4.2 and §2.7] The caveat in §4.2 that the adopted carbon mixing is too simple should be explicitly linked to the A_ff normalization issue in §2.7, because both affect the reliability of the absolute V scale.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Distance scale and absolute V normalization rest on the authors' own calibrated templates and steady-state database, but the fast-rise/decay shape is an independent model result.

  1. self citation load bearing [Appendix A.2, Equations (A1)-(A4)]
    "we adopt (m−M)_V,LV Vul = 11.85 from I. Hachisu & M. Kato (2018a). ... we adopt (m−M)_V,KT Eri = 13.4 from I. Hachisu et al. (2025) and (m−M)_V,V339 Del = 12.2 from I. Hachisu et al. (2024). Thus, we obtain (m−M)_V,V1674 Her = 16.33 ± 0.2."

    The distance modulus that anchors every model-data overlay is obtained by time-stretching against template novae whose V-band distance moduli are cited only to previous papers by the same authors. Those template moduli were themselves produced by the same time-stretching method, so the quoted d=8.9±1 kpc is a self-calibrated scale rather than an independent geometric distance. The model comparison then inherits this scale; this is load-bearing self-citation, though it is not an algebraic identity with the nova evolution calculation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.7, Equation (3)]
    "Because the coefficient A_ff is not yet specified for our adopted chemical composition in V1674 Her, we have determined the A_ff (= the absolute magnitude of the light curve) using the 1.35 M_sun steady state model in Figure 11 that has the closest chemical composition among our database models."

    The absolute V-band scale of Model A is not computed from first principles for V1674 Her's composition; it is imported from a 1.35 M_sun CO3 steady-state model in the authors' database. Later, the same database family (Figure 11b) is used to declare the 1.35 M_sun CO3 model the best fit to the V light curve. Thus the vertical normalization of the comparison is anchored by the very model being selected, partially reducing the 'explains the optical light curve' claim to a calibration choice. The rise/decay shape remains an independent model output.

full rationale

The core envelope evolution is not circular: Model A and Model B are time-dependent Henyey solutions with optically thick wind matching, and the fast rise/decay shape, photospheric radius history, X-ray flash duration, and shock-formation epoch are model outputs compared with external observations. The strongest circularity concern is the absolute V normalization: A_ff is taken from the authors' steady-state database because the coefficient for V1674 Her's composition is unspecified, and the same 1.35 M_sun CO3 database family is later used to justify the WD mass choice. This weakens the absolute-brightness part of the fit, but it is a calibration transfer rather than a fit to V1674 Her itself. The distance scale is also load-bearing on self-citations, because the template distance moduli in Equations (A3)-(A4) come from prior papers by the same authors using the same time-stretching method. Neither step reduces the central rise/decay calculation by construction, so the score is 4 rather than 6 or higher. The composition mismatch in A_ff is best treated as a quantitative uncertainty in the model normalization, not as an equation-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central modeling rests less on novel entities than on calibrated inputs: a quiescent accretion rate chosen to reproduce the fast rise, a carbon-mixing increment chosen to mimic enrichment, an A_ff normalization borrowed from the authors' steady-state database, and a post hoc accretion enhancement during the SSS phase. These are the main items that, if wrong, change the resulting light curve or distance.

free parameters (5)
  • Quiescent mass accretion rate Mdot (Model A) = 1e-11 Msun/yr
    Chosen to reproduce the very fast optical rise of V1674 Her; Model B with 5e-10 Msun/yr does worse near the peak. Not independently measured for this object.
  • Carbon mixing increment at ignition = carbon +0.1, helium -0.1 by mass
    Adopted to mimic heavy element enrichment; the paper acknowledges in §2.1 this is too simple and that the resulting ejecta abundance differs from estimates for V1674 Her.
  • A_ff normalization for free-free V light curve = not given numerically; taken from closest-composition 1.35 Msun steady-state model in the authors' database
    Sets the absolute V magnitude scale in equation (3). The paper states A_ff is not yet specified for V1674 Her's composition, so the value is borrowed from the authors' own database.
  • Model time origin t_B = JD 2459377.68
    Fit so that the early rising phase of the model matches the Evryscope data (§3.1). A shift in this origin changes the apparent agreement of the rise.
  • SSS-phase mass accretion rate during outburst = 3e-7 Msun/yr
    Introduced post hoc in §4.5 to lengthen the supersoft X-ray phase from about 10 days to about 40 days. No independent evidence for this accretion enhancement is presented.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Optically thick wind solutions with boundary condition BC1 can replace the hydrostatic envelope once the luminosity approaches Eddington.
    Invoked in §2.1 to continue the Henyey calculation through the extended phase; if this patching is invalid, the computed photospheric radius, wind mass loss, and light curve are not reliable.
  • domain assumption Optical and NIR flux is dominated by free-free emission from the wind.
    Assumed in §2.7 with citations to earlier work; A_ff is not independently measured for V1674 Her's composition, so this assumption calibrates the absolute V magnitude scale.
  • domain assumption Ejecta and envelope are spherically symmetric for the light curve and shock calculations.
    Figure 9 caption states 'We assume that ejecta are spherically symmetric.' Binary engulfment and modulation windows are compared only through radius, not full 3D radiative transfer.
  • domain assumption X-ray light curves have no absorption outside the photosphere.
    Section 2.4 states 'We assume no absorption outside the photosphere.' This affects the computed X-ray flash duration and the supersoft X-ray light curve.
  • domain assumption Companion mass is 0.26 Msun and orbital period is 3.67 hr, from Quimby et al. 2024.
    Used for binary separation a=1.41 Rsun and for the companion engulfment and reappearance timing in §3.1 and Figure 6. A different companion mass changes the engulfment narrative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comprehensive light curve model of the very fast nova V1674 Herculis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEOHG2ZJ

@misc{pith2026250604615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comprehensive light curve model of the very fast nova V1674 Herculis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEOHG2ZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04615}
}
abstract

V1674 Her is one of the fastest novae, of which the very early phase is well observed including optical rise to the peak over 10 magnitudes. We present a full theoretical light curve model of V1674 Her. Our $1.35~M_\odot$ white dwarf (WD) model with the mass accretion rate of $1\times 10^{-11}~M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ explains overall properties including a very fast rise and decay of the optical $V$ light curve. The WD photosphere expands up to $21 ~R_\odot$, thus, a $0.26 ~M_\odot$ companion star orbiting the WD every 3.67 hours, is engulfed 2.7 hours after the onset of thermonuclear runaway, and appears 5.3 days after that. The duration of X-ray flash is only 0.96 hours. The evolution of the expanding envelope and temporal change of the photospheric radius are very consistent with observed optical and X-ray modulations with the orbital and spin (501 s) periods. We confirmed that the decay phase of nova light curve is well approximated by a sequence of steady-state envelope solutions. Using time-stretching method of nova light curves, we obtain the $V$ band distance modulus of $(m-M)_V= 16.3\pm 0.2$, and determine the distance to be $d=8.9\pm 1$ kpc for the interstellar extinction of $E(B-V)= 0.5 \pm 0.05$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The H-R diagram of one cycle of hydrogen shell flashes for our outburst models of a 1.35 M⊙ WD with the mass accretion rate of M˙ acc = 1 × 10−11 M⊙ yr−1 (left panel: Model A) and M˙ acc = 5 × 10−10 M⊙ yr−1 (right panel: Model B). Selected stages during a shell flash are denoted counterclockwise direction starting from the bottom of the cycle. A: quiescent phase before the shell flash. B: the epoch when Lnuc reaches… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a shows the temporal change of each energy flux during the thermonuclear runaway in model A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The supersoft X-ray light curve (0.3–1.0 keV) during the X-ray flash of our 1.35 M⊙ models: Model A (black line) and Model B (red line). The open circles cor￾responds to stage E when the optically thick winds emerge from the photosphere. The dotted part corresponds to the wind phase, in which X-rays may be self-absorbed by wind outside the photosphere. Here, no absorption is assumed outside the photosphere [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The internal structure at stage G (maximum expansion). The temperature (upper red line labeled T ), density (blue line, ρ), photon flux (lower black line, Lr), lo￾cal Eddington luminosity (lower red line, LEdd,r), velocity (upper black line, V ), and escape velocity (u…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The pre- and post-maximum evolutions of the density and velocity profiles of the envelope for some selected stages. The label B, D, E (winds emerge), G, I, and J correspond to each stage in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of our theoretical V light curve with the observational data in the first 20 days of the V1674 Her 2021 outburst. We assumed the origin of time (t = 0) to be JD 2,459,377.68. Blue filled circles: Evryscope g-magnitudes taken from R. M. Quimby et al. (2024), …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Theoretical optical V and X-ray (0.3–1.0 keV) light curves of our 1.35 M⊙ models as well as the observational data. The black lines are for model A (M˙ acc = 1 × 10−11 M⊙ yr−1 ) and the red lines for model B (M˙ acc = 5 × 10−10 M⊙ yr−1 ). The lower abscissa show th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic illustration of ejecta configuration of V1674 Her in the post-maximum phase. A shock wave arose just after the maximum expansion of the photosphere and has already moved far outside the WD photosphere (and the bi￾nary). The three emission/absorption line syst…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distance-reddening relations toward V1674 Her whose galactic coordinates are (ℓ, b) = (48. ◦ 71, +6. ◦ 31). The black line denotes the relation of Equation (8) together with (m − M)V = 16.3 for V1674 Her. The thin magenta lines are the sample distance-reddening re…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The model V light curves, for the distance modulus in the V band of (m − M)V = 16.3, and X-ray (0.3-10.0 keV) light curves, for different sets of WD mass and chemical composition. The all V and X-ray model light curve data are taken from I. Hachisu & M. Kato (2025). T…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Our model V and X-ray light curves for V1674 Her as well as the observed V and X-ray light curves. The model has the 1.35 M⊙ WD mass for the chemical com￾position of CO3 (same as that in Figure 11b). Two mass￾accretion rates are assumed during the nova outburst, i.e.,…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Two V light curves of V1674 Her and LV Vul are overlapped along Equation (A1). The text “LV Vul V+2.05, 0.1 t”, for example, means fs = 0.1 and ∆V = +2.05, for the template nova LV Vul against the V light curve of the target nova V1674 Her (“V1674 Her V, 1.0 t”). …

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

  1. Optical detection of the X-ray flash in the very fast nova V1674 Her: Optical contribution of the irradiated accretion disk

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The earliest optical data of the fast nova V1674 Her are consistent with an irradiated accretion disk and companion star during the X-ray flash phase of a 1.35 solar mass white dwarf, the first such optical detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 62, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Izzo, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 62, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb 2020

  2. [2]

    V., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Aydi, E., Sokolovsky, K. V., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2021, ATel, 14710, 1

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1964, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1914

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Miko/suppress lajewska, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1964, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1914

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1914 2023

  4. [4]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae,R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  5. [5]

    C., Anupama, G.,C., et al

    Bhargava, Y., Dewangan, G. C., Anupama, G.,C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 28, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3870

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3870 2024

  6. [6]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  7. [7]

    Buckley, D. A. H., & Tuohy, I.R. 1989, ApJ, 344, 376, https://doi.org/10.1086/167806

    work page doi:10.1086/167806 1989

  8. [8]

    E., Yungelson, L

    Chen, H.-L., Woods, T. E., Yungelson, L. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1678, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2644

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2644 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 48, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502 della Valle, M., & Livio, M. 1995, ApJ, 452, 704, https://doi.org/10.1086/176342

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Denissenkov, P. A., Herwig, F., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2013, ApJ, 762, 8 https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/8

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Ness, J.-U., Page, K

    Drake, J. J., Ness, J.-U., Page, K. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L42, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac34fd

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Beckwith, S., et al

    Ennis, D., Becklin, E. E., Beckwith, S., et al. 1977, ApJ, 214, 478, https://doi.org/10.1086/155273

    1977 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  6. [14]

    1966, MNRAS, 132, 317, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/132.2.317

    Friedjung, M. 1966, MNRAS, 132, 317, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/132.2.317

    1966 doi

  7. [15]

    S., & Ney, E

    Gallagher, J. S., & Ney, E. P. 1976, ApJ, 204, L35, https://doi.org/10.1086/182049

    1976 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Truran, J

    Gehrz, R. D., Truran, J. W., Williams, R. E., & Starrfield, S. 1998, PASP, 110, 3, https://doi.org/10.1086/316107

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Zucker, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1405, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3295

    Dubovsky, P.A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1405, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3295

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2006, ApJS, 167, 59 https://doi.org/10.1086/508063

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2006, ApJS, 167, 59 https://doi.org/10.1086/508063

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 680, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/680

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2010, ApJ, 709, 680, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/680

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 76, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/76

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2015, ApJ, 798, 76, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/76

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2016a, ApJ, 816, 26, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/26

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2016a, ApJ, 816, 26, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/26

    doi

  15. [23]

    2018a, ApJ, 858, 108, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabee0

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2018a, ApJ, 858, 108, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabee0

    doi

  16. [24]

    2018b, ApJS, 237, 4, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/aac833

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2018b, ApJS, 237, 4, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/aac833

    doi

  17. [25]

    2019a, ApJS, 241, 4, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab0202

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2019a, ApJS, 241, 4, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab0202

    doi

  18. [26]

    2019b, ApJS, 242, 18, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b43

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2019b, ApJS, 242, 18, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b43

    doi

  19. [27]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 27, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/abd31e

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2021, ApJS, 253, 27, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/abd31e

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Hachisu, I., Saio, H., Kato, M., Henze, M., & Shafter, A. W. 2020, ApJ, 902, 91, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb5fa Light Curve of V1674 Her 21

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 1 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac9475

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2022, ApJ, 939, 1 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac9475

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 78, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdfd3

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2023, ApJ, 953, 78, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdfd3

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    2025, ApJ, in press, arXiv.2503.13384

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2025, ApJ, in press, arXiv.2503.13384

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Walter, F. M. 2025, ApJ, 980, 142, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adae08

    2025 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 49, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a45

    Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Matsumoto, K. 2024, ApJ, 965, 49, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a45

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 22, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/22

    Hachisu, I., Saio, H., & Kato, M. 2016, ApJ, 824, 22, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/22

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    Henze, M., Darnley, M., Williams, S. C. et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 68, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab6a6 HI4PI Collaboration, 2016, A&A, 594, A116, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, https://doi.org/10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  29. [38]

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I., 1994, ApJ, 437, 802, https://doi.org/10.1086/175041

    1994 doi

  30. [39]

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I., 2011, ApJ, 743, 157, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/157

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    2009, ApJ, 704, 1676, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1676

    Kato, M., Hachisu, I., Cassatella, A. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1676, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1676

    2009 doi

  32. [41]

    The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects - IV

    Kato, M., Hachisu, I., & Saio, H. 2017a, PoS, GOLDEN 2017, 56 in Proceedings of the Palermo Workshop 2017 on “The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects - IV”, eds. F. Giovannelli et al. (Trieste: SISSA PoS), 315, 56, https://doi.org/10.22323/1.315.0056

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Kato, M., Saio, H., Henze, M. et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 40, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/40

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    2022a, PASJ, 74, 1005, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psac051

    Kato, M., Saio, H., & Hachisu, I. 2022a, PASJ, 74, 1005, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psac051

    doi

  35. [44]

    2022b, ApJL, 935, L15, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac85cl

    Kato, M., Saio, H, & Hachisu, I. 2022b, ApJL, 935, L15, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac85cl

    doi

  36. [45]

    2022c, Research notes of the AAS, 6, 258, https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aca8af

    Kato, M., Saio, H, & Hachisu, I. 2022c, Research notes of the AAS, 6, 258, https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aca8af

    doi

  37. [46]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 666, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/pase038 K¨ onig, O., Wilms, J., Arcodia, R., et al

    Kato, M., Saio, H, & Hachisu, I. 2024, PASJ, 76, 666, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/pase038 K¨ onig, O., Wilms, J., Arcodia, R., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 248, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04635-y

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 401, https://doi.org/10.1086/305280

    Kovetz, A. 1998, ApJ, 495, 401, https://doi.org/10.1086/305280

    1998 doi

  39. [48]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, L97, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slac117

    Lin, L, C.-C., Fan, J.-L., Hu, C.-P., Tanaka, J., & Li, K.-L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L97, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slac117

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    1992, ApJ, 393, 516, https://doi.org/10.1086/171524

    Livio, M. 1992, ApJ, 393, 516, https://doi.org/10.1086/171524

    1992 doi

  41. [50]

    D., & Skillman, D

    Mallama, A. D., & Skillman, D. R. 1979, PASP, 91, 99, https://doi.org/10.1086/130449

    1979 doi

  42. [51]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1942, ApJ, 95, 428, https://doi.org/10.1086/144414

    1942 doi

  43. [52]

    D., Hasco¨ et, R., Vurm, I., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Hasco¨ et, R., Vurm, I., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 713, https://doi.org/10.1093.mnras.stu844

    2014

  44. [53]

    D., Finzell, T., Vurm, I., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Finzell, T., Vurm, I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2739, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv742

    2015 doi

  45. [54]

    van, et al

    Mroz, P., Burdge, K., Roestel, J. van, et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, No. 14720, 1

    2021

  46. [55]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 45, https://doi.org/10.103847/1538-4357/ac63be

    Orio, M., Gendreau, K., Giese, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 45, https://doi.org/10.103847/1538-4357/ac63be

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    2022, ApJL, 940, L56, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac9ebe

    Patterson, J., Enenstein, J, de Miguel, E., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L56, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac9ebe

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    1995, ApJ, 445, 789, https://doi.org/10.1086/175741

    Prialnik, D., & Kovetz, A. 1995, ApJ, 445, 789, https://doi.org/10.1086/175741

    1995 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Metzger, B

    Quimby, R. M., Metzger, B. D., Shen, K.J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 17, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad887f

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    H., & Lebofsky, M

    Rieke, G. H., & Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 288, 618, https://doi.org/10.1086/162827

    1985 doi

  51. [60]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 6150, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2900

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    1997, A&A, 318, 73 Schlafly, E

    Schandl, S., Meyer-Hofmeister, E., & Meyer, F. 1997, A&A, 318, 73 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    1997 doi

  53. [62]

    Vanlandingham, K. M. 2007, ApJ, 657,453, https://doi.org/10.1086/5106611

    2007 doi

  54. [63]

    L., Luna, G

    Sokoloski, J. L., Luna, G. J. M., Mukai, K., & Kenyon, S. J. 2006, Nature, 442, 276, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04893

    2006 doi

  55. [64]

    V., Johnson, T.J., Buson, S., et al

    Sokolovsky, K. V., Johnson, T.J., Buson, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521,5453, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad887 Starrfield, S., Bose, M., Iliadis, C. et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 70 , https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d23

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    M., Starrfield, S., & Shore, S

    Vanlandingham, K. M., Starrfield, S., & Shore, S. N. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 87, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/290.1.87

    1997 doi

  57. [66]

    N., & Sonneborn, G

    Shore, S. N., & Sonneborn, G. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 563 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/282.2.563

    1996 doi

  58. [67]

    1992, AJ, 104, 725, https://doi.org/10.1086/116268

    Williams, R. 1992, AJ, 104, 725, https://doi.org/10.1086/116268

    1992 doi

  59. [68]

    E., Banerjee D

    Woodward, C. E., Banerjee D. P.K., Geballe, T.R. et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L10, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac3518 22 Kato et al

    2021 doi

  60. [69]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398, https://doi.org/10.1086/428435

    2005 doi

Pith tools

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