Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

On accretion in the polar V379 Vir

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read V379 Vir accretes about ten times faster than its X-ray emission alone implies, so the system is a polar in an unusually long-lived low state.

desk verdict A careful SED analysis gives V379 Vir a WD mass and a higher Mdot, but the single-spot cyclotron model's systematic error is likely larger than the quoted uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17674 v1 pith:NNMHCENF submitted 2025-06-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

M.V. Suslikov , A.I. Kolbin , N.V. Borisov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords V379VirpolarsAMHerculisstarslowaccretionrateperiodbouncersbrowndwarfscyclotronemissionspectralenergydistribution
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

V379 Vir is a magnetic cataclysmic variable (a polar) with an 88.4-minute orbital period and a brown-dwarf donor, and this paper re-measures how fast it is accreting. From twenty years of survey photometry the system shows no high/low state transitions, and infrared observations with Spitzer catch strong cyclotron radiation from the accretion spot. Modeling the full ultraviolet-to-infrared spectral energy distribution with the white dwarf, the brown dwarf, and a cyclotron-emitting heated spot gives $\dot{M}\approx(3.1\pm0.3)\times10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, about ten times the earlier X-ray-only value. Because this rate is far above the roughly $10^{-15}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ that a brown-dwarf wind could supply but typical of polars in low states, the paper concludes that V379 Vir is a polar caught in an unusually long-lived low state, not a wind-fed pre-polar.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a spectral energy distribution model that adds three components: Koester hydrogen atmosphere spectra for the white dwarf, BT-Settl spectra for the brown dwarf, and cyclotron emission from an accretion spot computed in the bombardment regime, where the infalling protons stop by Coulomb collisions and no shock forms. The cyclotron spectrum is obtained by solving two-mode polarized radiative transfer with Faraday rotation using the temperature profile of Woelk & Beuermann (1993) and the absorption coefficients of Chanmugam, Dulk (1981). Fitting this model to mid-infrared Spitzer fluxes at the bright phase fixes the local accretion rate $\dot{m}$, the viewing angle $\theta=32^\circ\pm6^\circ$, and the spot angular diameter $\theta_{\rm cyc}$; the total rate follows either as $\dot{M}=\dot{m} S_{\rm spot}$ with $S_{\rm spot}=\pi\theta_{\rm cyc}^2 d^2/4$, or from $L_{\rm acc}=GM_1\dot{M}/R_1$ using the summed X-ray and cyclotron fluxes.

What would settle it

Phase-resolved spectropolarimetry of V379 Vir across the bright phase could measure the cyclotron harmonic widths and the spot's ingress and egress. If the inferred spot radius is several times smaller than $\theta_{\rm cyc}$ from the SED fit, the total rate would drop proportionally and the 'prolonged low state' reading would need revision. A simpler check is continued optical monitoring: a future transition to a high state in ZTF or similar surveys would show that the twenty-year stability is a low-state episode rather than a permanent wind-fed configuration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that V379 Vir's true accretion rate is $\dot{M}=(3.1\pm0.3)\times10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ once both the X-ray and cyclotron channels are counted, roughly ten times the $3.4\times10^{-14}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ inferred from X-rays alone by Stelzer et al. (2017). The authors derive this from a simultaneous spectral energy distribution fit that pins the white dwarf at $M_1=0.61\pm0.05\,M_\odot$, $T_{\rm eff}=10930\pm350$ K, the donor at $T_{\rm eff}=1600\pm180$ K (an L6-L8 brown dwarf of radius $0.095\pm0.018\,R_\odot$), and the cyclotron spot at a local accretion rate $\log\dot{m}=-3.6\pm0.2$ in g cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ with $B\approx6$ MG. The spot area implied by the fit, a fractional area $f=0.017\pm0.008$, is much larger than the $10^{-5}$--$10^{-3}$ usually found in polars. Since twenty years of optical and nine years of mid-infrared monitoring show no state transition, the authors interpret the low rate as a prolonged low accretion state rather than wind-driven mass transfer, which would be lower by about two orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the spot is a single homogeneous circular region radiating in the bombardment regime, with its area taken directly from the fitted angular diameter; if the spot is patchy, partly hidden by the white dwarf, or has a different temperature structure, the derived local and total accretion rates, and the unusually large spot fraction, would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total accretion rate of V379 Vir is about ten times the X-ray-derived value, so estimates of accretion luminosity in low-state polars that ignore cyclotron radiation are incomplete.
  • At $\dot{M}\approx3\times10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ the measured rate matches other polars observed in low states, such as AR UMa and EF Eri, supporting the low-state interpretation.
  • The rate is roughly two orders of magnitude below the gravitational-radiation-driven minimum for a Roche-lobe-filling donor, implying that if the donor fills its Roche lobe, its mass transfer is being suppressed by magnetic activity.
  • The absence of state changes over about twenty years indicates that V379 Vir's low state is unusually long, although the comparable case of EF Eri shows such episodes can last at least a decade.
  • SED fitting that includes cyclotron emission can recover accretion rates in low-accretion-rate polars, and for stronger-field systems the cyclotron component may be observable from the ground in the optical and near-infrared.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If V379 Vir is a low-state polar rather than a wind-fed pre-polar, other systems now classified as pre-polars or low-accretion-rate polars may likewise be ordinary magnetic CVs in protracted low states, blurring the boundary between these populations.
  • The unusually large spot fraction $f\approx0.017$ may signal that the single homogeneous-spot model is oversimplified; a spot with a bright core and a cooler extended periphery would naturally explain the wavelength-dependent bright-phase duration while requiring a smaller total accretion rate.
  • The factor-of-sixty gap between the measured rate and the gravitational-radiation-driven minimum could be tested by directly measuring the donor's Roche-lobe filling factor, since the paper only sets a lower limit $R_2/R_L\gtrsim0.67$.
  • If the long low state is caused by starspot suppression near the inner Lagrange point, brown-dwarf magnetic cycles could produce multi-decade episodes; continued mid-infrared monitoring would reveal whether the cyclotron spot's brightness changes on decade timescales.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival ultraviolet, optical, and infrared observations of the polar V379 Vir, a period-bouncer candidate with a brown-dwarf donor, to constrain the system parameters and accretion rate. Long-term light curves from CSS, PTF, ZTF, Pan-STARRS, and WISE spanning roughly two decades show no large-scale state transitions. SED modeling yields a white-dwarf temperature of 10930\pm350 K, mass 0.61\pm0.05 M_sun, and a donor temperature of 1600\pm180 K with radius 0.095\pm0.018 R_sun. Cyclotron emission detected by Spitzer/IRAC is modeled with a single homogeneous spot in the bombardment regime, giving a local accretion rate log mdot = -3.6\pm0.2, B = 6.0 MG, and a viewing angle 32 deg. Two total accretion-rate estimates are derived: Mdot = (6.4\pm2.8)e-13 M_sun/yr from mdot times spot area, and Mdot = (3.1\pm0.3)e-13 M_sun/yr from L_acc = L_x + L_cyc. The authors conclude the system is in a long-lived low accretion state, with a rate about two orders of magnitude above the expected wind-driven mass-loss rate.

Significance. If the accretion-rate estimate is robust, the paper provides a valuable data point for a polar in a prolonged low state and demonstrates a method for extracting accretion rates from infrared cyclotron SEDs. The work combines a long-baseline variability study with SED decomposition, and the cross-check between the mdot×S_spot and L_acc estimates is a positive feature. However, the central claim—the specific value of Mdot—rests on a single-zone cyclotron model that the manuscript's own light curves suggest is oversimplified, and the quoted uncertainties do not reflect the systematic spread between the two methods. The paper is a useful case study, but the headline accretion rate and its interpretation require additional modeling or an honest treatment of systematic errors before the conclusions can be fully trusted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Modeling, Eq. (3) and 'Spectral Energy Distribution'] The cyclotron fit assumes a single homogeneous spot with uniform mdot and a single angular diameter theta_cyc. Yet the paper itself states in the 'Spectral Energy Distribution' section that the bright-phase duration increases with wavelength, which the authors interpret as a hot inner core plus a cooler periphery, and in the 'Modeling' section notes that I2–I4 minimum fluxes show an excess possibly due to a secondary cyclotron-emitting region. These statements directly contradict the single-zone assumption used for the cyclotron SED fit. A single-zone model fitted to the bright-phase midpoints will bias both theta_cyc and mdot, and this systematic error is not included in the quoted uncertainties. The factor-of-two disagreement between the two derived rates, Mdot = (6.4±2.8)e-13 from mdot×S_spot and Mdot = (3.1±0.3)e-13 from L_acc, should be treated as an indication of systematic uncertainty, not dismissed; the headline value should carry an error that accounts for the spread between the two methods.
  2. [Abstract and 'Modeling'] The abstract states that 'modeling of the cyclotron emission from the accretion spot' gives Mdot ≈ 3e-13 M_sun/yr, but this value is actually obtained from the accretion-luminosity argument L_acc = L_x + L_cyc (Eq. 4), not from the cyclotron SED fit itself. The cyclotron SED fit yields Mdot = (6.4±2.8)e-13 M_sun/yr via Mdot = mdot S_spot. The abstract should be rewritten to attribute the value correctly and to acknowledge the systematic spread between the two estimates.
  3. [Modeling, spot fraction f] The derived spot fractional area f = 0.017±0.008 is roughly an order of magnitude larger than the typical polar range of 1e-5 to 1e-3 that the paper itself cites. This discrepancy is a strong indication that the single-homogeneous-spot interpretation overestimates the coherent spot area, or that the emission originates from a more complex structure such as a ring, multiple spots, or an extended heated region. The paper notes the discrepancy but does not discuss its implications for the accretion-rate estimate. Because Mdot depends linearly on S_spot in the mdot×S_spot method, an overestimated spot area would directly inflate that accretion rate, and the L_acc method would still inherit the model dependence through F_cyc.
  4. [Modeling, Eq. (4) and X-ray flux scaling] The derivation of Mdot = (3.1±0.3)e-13 from Eq. (4) uses an X-ray flux F_x = 3e-13 erg cm^-2 s^-1 that is obtained by scaling the phase-averaged Stelzer et al. (2017) value by a factor of two, with the statement 'based on the X-ray light curve' but without presenting that light curve or the scaling procedure. The quoted uncertainty ±0.3 appears to propagate only the photometric flux errors and does not include the uncertainty in the scaling factor or the systematic uncertainty in the cyclotron flux F_cyc, which is computed from the same single-zone model criticized above. The error budget for the headline accretion rate is therefore incomplete.
  5. [Modeling, cyclotron fit constraints] The cyclotron-spot fit uses at most five bright-phase fluxes (K_s and I1–I4) to determine four free parameters (log mdot, B, θ, and θ_cyc). With one degree of freedom, the fit is weakly constrained, and the paper does not provide a residual plot, confidence contours, or a discussion of degeneracies among the parameters. In particular, B and θ are known to be strongly degenerate in cyclotron models, and θ_cyc is partially degenerate with mdot through the flux normalization. The quoted parameter uncertainties (e.g., ±0.2 in log mdot) are not justified without a covariance analysis. This directly affects the reliability of both accretion-rate estimates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'Modeling of the cyclotron emission ... gives an accretion rate of Mdot ≈ 3e-13 M_sun/yr' misattributes the source of the 3.1e-13 value, as detailed in Major Comment 2; this should be corrected.
  2. [Modeling, notation] The symbol θ is used both for the viewing angle in the cyclotron fit and as a subscript in θ_wd, θ_bd, θ_cyc for angular diameters. This is confusing and should be clarified, for example by using ψ for the viewing angle.
  3. [References] The reference list contains several typographical errors: entry 8 (Chanmugam & Dulk) lists the year as 2017 instead of 1981; entry 13 has a malformed author bracket '[, P..P. Eggleton]'; entries 4, 21, and 23 contain Cyrillic initials instead of Latin ones. These should be corrected.
  4. [Discussion] In the sentence 'the donor in V379 Vir is likely has a mass of M2≈0.04 M_sun', the grammar should be 'is likely to have a mass'.
  5. [Modeling, criterion units] The bombardment-regime criterion mdot (B/10^7 G)^-2.6 < 0.1 is quoted without units; specifying mdot in g cm^-2 s^-1 would make the inequality self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accretion rate is a model-derived quantity based on external radiative-transfer calculations, with an independent X-ray luminosity cross-check and no self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central accretion-rate estimate is not circular. The cyclotron SED fit determines the local accretion rate log mdot and the spot angular diameter theta_cyc from the observed infrared fluxes; the total rate is then obtained by the standard conversion Mdot = mdot * S_spot. This is a derived quantity, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The alternative estimate via L_acc = L_x + L_cyc uses an X-ray flux from Stelzer et al. (2017) together with the modeled cyclotron flux, providing a partial cross-check rather than a self-referential loop. The cyclotron emission model is based on externally published radiative-transfer treatments (Woelk & Beuermann 1993; Rousseau et al. 1996; Chanmugam & Dulk 1981) and not on prior work by the present authors. The reference list contains no self-citations by Suslikov, Kolbin, or Borisov. The paper also openly reports limitations, including the wavelength-dependent bright-phase duration, the possible secondary cyclotron-emitting region, and the factor-of-two difference between the two accretion-rate estimates; these are model-systematic concerns, not circular reasoning. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs, and no step reduces to its own conclusion by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central Mdot result rests on several fitted parameters and standard astrophysical models. The white dwarf and donor parameters come from model-atmosphere SED fits; the accretion rate comes from a cyclotron model with fitted local accretion rate, field, angle, and spot size. No new physical entities are required, except a possible secondary spot used to explain an infrared excess in excluded bands.

free parameters (9)
  • White dwarf effective temperature T_eff,1 = 10930 +/- 350 K
    Fitted by chi-square SED modeling to GALEX, Swift/UVOT, and SDSS fluxes; drives the UV/optical SED.
  • White dwarf surface gravity log g_1 = 7.8 +/- 0.4 from SED; 8.0 +/- 0.2 from mass-radius relation
    The SED value is fitted from continuum shape; the mass-radius value is derived after assuming a mass-radius relation.
  • White dwarf angular diameter theta_wd = (3.7 +/- 0.2) x 10^-7 arcsec
    Independent fitting parameter in the SED model; converts to radius via Gaia distance.
  • Donor effective temperature T_eff,2 = 1600 +/- 180 K
    Fitted from near-infrared photometry with donor surface gravity fixed at log g = 5.0.
  • Donor angular diameter theta_bd = (2.9 +/- 0.6) x 10^-6 arcsec
    Fitted from near-infrared fluxes; yields R2 = 0.095 +/- 0.018 R_sun.
  • Local accretion rate log mdot = -3.6 +/- 0.2 g cm^-2 s^-1
    Fitted from Spitzer IRAC bright-phase fluxes using cyclotron emission modeling; directly sets total Mdot when multiplied by spot area.
  • Magnetic field strength B = 6.0 MG
    Fitted; the paper notes B between 6 and 7 MG changes log mdot by less than 0.2, so it is not tightly constrained.
  • Viewing angle theta = 32 +/- 6 degrees
    Fitted from the cyclotron line widths and relative harmonics in the bright-phase SED.
  • Spot angular diameter theta_cyc = Not quoted; implied f = 0.017 +/- 0.008
    Fitted normalization of the cyclotron component; spot area is obtained from this angular diameter and the Gaia distance.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption White dwarf SED is represented by hydrogen, plane-parallel LTE model atmospheres (Koester 2010).
    Used in the Modeling section for the stellar fluxes; if the WD atmosphere is not hydrogen or LTE, Teff and log g shift.
  • domain assumption Brown dwarf SED is represented by BT-Settl synthetic spectra (Allard et al. 2012).
    Interpolated over Teff and log g for donor fluxes in the SED model.
  • domain assumption Cyclotron emission follows the bombardment regime temperature profile of Woelk and Beuermann (1993), with radiative transfer including Faraday rotation (Rousseau et al. 1996) and Chanmugam and Dulk (1981) absorption coefficients.
    Central to converting IRAC fluxes to local accretion rate mdot; the regime validity condition is stated in the Modeling section.
  • ad hoc to paper The donor surface gravity is fixed at log g = 5.0.
    The paper states 'Assuming a fixed surface gravity of logg=5.0'; no independent constraint is given, and it affects the donor SED and radius estimate.
  • domain assumption White dwarf mass-radius relation of Nauenberg (1972) applies.
    Used to convert R1 to M1 = 0.61 +/- 0.05 Msun.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax distance d = 154 +/- 3 pc is accurate.
    Turns angular diameters into physical radii; a 2% distance error propagates linearly into radii and into Mdot.
  • domain assumption Leike et al. (2020) 3D extinction map plus Fitzpatrick (1999) reddening law describe the line-of-sight extinction.
    Used to deredden fluxes before SED fitting; E(B-V) is nearly zero, so the impact is small.
invented entities (1)
  • Secondary cyclotron-emitting region
    purpose: Explains the Spitzer I2-I4 excess at brightness minimum and the lack of a clear plateau phase.
    Mentioned in the SED section as a possible explanation; no direct detection or independent confirmation is provided. It does not affect the main stellar parameter fit because those bands are excluded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On accretion in the polar V379 Vir." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNMHCENF

@misc{pith2026250617674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On accretion in the polar V379 Vir},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNMHCENF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17674}
}
abstract

Based on optical and infrared survey data spanning $\approx 20$ years of observations, the long-term variability of the polar V379 Vir with a brown dwarf secondary has been studied. By modeling the spectral energy distribution, we constrain the white dwarf's mass to $M_1 = 0.61 \pm 0.05~M_{\odot}$ and its effective temperature to $T_{eff} = 10930 \pm 350~K$. Near-infrared photometry yields a donor radius of $R_2 = 0.095 \pm 0.018 R_{\odot}$ and temperature $T_{eff} = 1600 \pm 180 K$. Modeling of the cyclotron emission from the accretion spot, detected with the Spitzer infrared telescope, gives an accretion rate of $\dot{M} \approx 3 \times 10^{-13} M_{\odot}/yr$. This rate is consistent with polars in a low accretion state, but significantly higher than expected from wind-driven mass transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Long-term optical (bottom panel) and infrared (top panel) light curves of V379 Vir. Photometric data from Pan￾STARRS (g, r, i), ZTF (g, r, i), PTF (R), CSS (V ) and WISE (W1, W2) are shown. dwarf, as previously suggested by Schmidt et al. (2005b). SPECTRAL ENERGY DISTRIBUTION The component parameters of V379 Vir were estimated through spectral energy distribution modeling. Ultraviolet fluxes were adopted from the GA… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Notably, the duration of the bright phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bottom panel: observed SED of V379 Vir (data points) compared to the best-fit model spectrum (solid line). The individual contributions from the white dwarf, the donor, and the cyclotron emission component are shown. Top panels: residuals (O − C)/σ between observed and model fluxes across the photometric bands. The lower subpanel displays residuals for the combined stellar spectrum (white dwarf + brown dwarf), while… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effective Roche lobe radius RL as a function of donor mass M2 (red line). The gray shaded area represents the range of donor radii R2 inferred in this study. The blue line corresponds to the semi-empirical R2−M2 relation from McAllister et al. (2019). wave radiatio…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. 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

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ahumada, C

    R. Ahumada, C. Allende Prieto, A. Almeida et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.249, 3 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Allard, D

    F. Allard, D. Homeier, B. Freytag, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370, 2765 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Belloni, M.R

    D. Belloni, M.R. Schreiber, M. Zorotovic et al., MNRAS.478, 5626 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Boselli, S

    А. Boselli, S. Boissier, S. Heinis et al., Astron. Astrophys.., 528, 107 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Burleigh, T.R

    M.R. Burleigh, T.R. Marsh, B.T. G¨ ansicke et al., MNRAS.373, 1416 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Campbell, Phase-resolved cyclotron spectroscopy of polars, Ph.D

    R. Campbell, Phase-resolved cyclotron spectroscopy of polars, Ph.D. dissertation (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Capitanio, R

    L. Capitanio, R. Lallement, J.L. Vergely et al., Astron. Astrophys.606, A65 (2017). ASTRONOMY LETTERS vol. 51 №2 2025 10 M.V. Suslikov et al

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    G.Chanmugam,G.A.Dulk,Astrophys.J.244,569 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Cropper, Space Science Reviews54, 195 (1990)

    M. Cropper, Space Science Reviews54, 195 (1990)

    1990

  2. [10]

    Debes, M

    J.H. Debes, M. Lopez-Morales, A.Z. Bonanos et al., Astrophys. J.647, 147 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Drake, S.G

    A.J. Drake, S.G. Djorgovski, A. Mahabal et al., Astrophys. J.696, 870 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    A. Edge, W. Sutherland, K. Kuijken et al, The Messenger154, 32 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Eggleton]Astrophys

    [, P..P. Eggleton]Astrophys. J.268, 368 (1983)

    1983

  6. [14]

    Farihi, M.R

    J. Farihi, M.R. Burleigh, D.W. Hoard, Astrophys. J.674, 421 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Fitzpatrick, PASP111, 63 (1999)

    E.L. Fitzpatrick, PASP111, 63 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Flewelling, E.A

    H.A. Flewelling, E.A. Magnier, K.C. Chambers et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.251, 7 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Vallenari et al., Astron

    Gaia Collaboration, A. Vallenari et al., Astron. Astrophys.674, A1 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    G¨ ansicke, G.D

    B.T. G¨ ansicke, G.D. Schmidt, S. Jordan et al., Astrophys. J.555, 380 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    F. Gao, L. Han, Computational Optimization and Applications51, 1 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Harrison, R.K

    T.E. Harrison, R.K. Campbell, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.219, 32 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Hellier, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (New York, NY: Springer Praxis Books) (2001)

    С. Hellier, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (New York, NY: Springer Praxis Books) (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Inight, B.T

    K. Inight, B.T. G¨ ansicke, A. Schwope et al., MNRAS.525, 3597 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    King, J.K

    А.R. King, J.K. Cannizzo, Astrophys. J.499, 348 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Knigge, I

    C. Knigge, I. Baraffe, J. Patterson, MNRAS.194, 28 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Koester, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana81, 921 (2010)

    D. Koester, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana81, 921 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Kuijpers, J.E

    J. Kuijpers, J.E. Pringle, Astron. Astrophys.114, L4 (1982)

    1982

  19. [27]

    Law, S.R

    N.M. Law, S.R. Kulkarni, R.G. Dekany et al., PASP121, 1395 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Leike, M

    R.H. Leike, M. Glatzle, T.A. Enßlin, Astron. Astrophys.639, A138 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Linnell, P

    A.P. Linnell, P. Szkody, R.M. Plotkin et al., Astrophys. J.713, 2 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Livio, J.E

    M. Livio, J.E. Pringle, Astrophys. J.427, 956 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    J.792, 14 (2014)

    A.Mainzer,J.Bauer,R.M.Cutrietal.,Astrophys. J.792, 14 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Masci, R

    F. Masci, R. Laher, B. Rusholme et al., PASP131, 995 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    McAllister, S.P

    M. McAllister, S.P. Littlefair, S.G. Parsons et al., MNRAS.486, 5535 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Mu˜ noz-Giraldo, B

    D. Mu˜ noz-Giraldo, B. Stelzer, D. de Martino et al., Astron. Astrophys.676, A7 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Nauenberg, Astrophys

    M. Nauenberg, Astrophys. J.175, 417 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    Pala, B.T

    A.F. Pala, B.T. G¨ ansicke, E. Breedt et al., MNRAS.494, 3799 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ramsay, M

    G. Ramsay, M. Cropper, K. Wu et al., MNRAS. 350, 1373 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Rousseau, A

    Th. Rousseau, A. Fischer, K. Beuermann et al., Astron. Astrophys.310, 526 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    Schmidt, P

    G.D. Schmidt, P. Szkody, N.M. Silvestri et al., Astrophys. J.630, L173 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Schmidt, P

    G.D. Schmidt, P. Szkody, K.M. Vanlandingham et al., Astrophys. J.630, 1037 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Schreiber, D

    M.R. Schreiber, D. Belloni, J. van Roestel, Astron. Astrophys.679, L8 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Schwope, A

    A.D. Schwope, A. Staude, D. Koester et al., Astron. Astrophys.469, 1027 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Schwope, L

    A.D. Schwope, L. Christensen, Astron. Astrophys. 514, A89 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Sirotkin, W.-T

    F.V. Sirotkin, W.-T. Kim, Astrophys. J.721, 1356 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Stelzer, D

    B. Stelzer, D. de Martino, S.L. Casewell et al., Astron. Astrophys.598, 6 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    VanderPlas, Astrophys

    J.T. VanderPlas, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.236, 16 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    van Roestel, A.C

    J. van Roestel, A.C. Rodriguez, P. Szkody et al., arXiv:2412.15153 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Walters, J

    N. Walters, J. Farihi, P. Dufour et al., MNRAS. 524, 5096 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Warner, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge Univ

    B. Warner, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge) (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    Webbink, D.T

    R.F. Webbink, D.T. Wickramasinghe, ASPC330, 137 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    Woelk, K

    U. Woelk, K. Beuermann, Astron. Astrophys.256, 498 (1992)

    1992

  44. [52]

    Woelk, K

    U. Woelk, K. Beuermann, Astron. Astrophys.280, 169 (1993). ASTRONOMY LETTERS vol. 51 №2 2025

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.