Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

X-ray observations of Nova Sco 2023: Spectroscopic evidence of charge exchange

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the X-ray emission lines of Nova Sco 2023 arise from charge exchange between shock-heated ions at roughly 100 eV and cold gas, not from ordinary thermal plasma alone.

desk verdict Credible second nova CX detection, but the decisive thermal-plasma exclusion is parked in a companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02465 v1 pith:D2XUYSED submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.HE

Sharon Mitrani , Ehud Behar , Marina Orio , Jack Worley This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords chargeexchangenovasuper-softsourceX-rayspectroscopyradiativerecombinationcontinuumwhitedwarfshock-heatedplasmaSco2023
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 discrete X-ray emission lines seen in Nova Sco 2023, observed 128 and 183 days after optical peak, are produced by charge exchange (CX): hot, shock-heated ions capturing electrons from cold neutral gas. The evidence is threefold: the H-like and He-like series of C, N, and O show enhanced high-n transitions, especially n=4-to-1 gamma lines; narrow radiative recombination continua (RRCs) indicate cold electron temperatures of about 1 eV on day 128 and 26 eV on day 183; and two CX components with opposite velocities near 3000 km/s suggest a bipolar outflow. The underlying white-dwarf atmosphere is fit at about 750,000 K, outflowing at 3500 km/s early and slowing to 1500 km/s later. If correct, this makes Nova Sco 2023 the second nova, after YZ Ret 2020, with clear spectroscopic evidence of charge exchange in astrophysical plasma.

What carries the argument

The signature that carries the argument is the enhanced intensity of high principal-quantum-number transitions, particularly n=4-to-1 gamma lines, in the H-like and He-like series of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Charge exchange preferentially populates a capture level set by the relation n = $\sqrt$(13.6 eV / E_d) * q * (1 + (q-1)/$\sqrt$(2q))^(-1/2), where q is the ionic charge and E_d the donor ionization potential; for these ions the favored level is n=4, which predicts strong gamma lines. The paper models the line series with a charge-exchange spectral model, the narrow RRCs with a recombining non-equilibrium ionization plasma component, and the continuum with a stellar-atmosphere model, with all emission components Doppler-broadened and velocity-shifted. The two CX components with opposite velocities are the kinematic evidence for a bipolar shocked outflow.

What would settle it

Fit the day-128 and day-183 spectra with a velocity-dependent charge-exchange model that also allows thermal plasma components; if a thermal or photoionized plasma model with plausible abundances and velocities can match the enhanced gamma and delta line ratios and the RRC widths, the uniqueness of the CX identification would collapse. Alternatively, an observation of the C+5 Lyman delta line at 26.35 Angstroms whose intensity no CX model can reproduce would point to an additional emission mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the emission features in the Chandra LETG spectra of Nova Sco 2023 are due to charge exchange between hot ions and cold gas, not to thermal plasma emission. The observed line series of C+5, N+5, N+6, and O+6 show enhanced intensities of high principal-quantum-number transitions, consistent with a CX model of hot ions at kT around 100 eV. Narrow RRCs give cold electron temperatures of kTe about 1.3 eV on day 128 and 26 eV on day 183, indicating that hot ions recombine with very cold electrons. Two CX components with opposite velocity shifts of about plus and minus 3000 km/s are interpreted as a bipolar outflow, while the white-dwarf atmosphere continuum is described by a non-local thermodynamic equilibrium model at kT about 65 eV, whose outflow slows from about 3500 km/s to 1500 km/s between the two epochs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a thermal collisional-ionization-equilibrium plasma cannot reproduce the observed high-n line ratios; the paper leaves that exclusion to the companion paper, and even its own CX model fails to reproduce the bright C+5 Lyman delta line, which is attributed to unmodeled velocity effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the CX interpretation is right, nova super-soft phases are laboratories where shock-heated ejecta collide with cold gas, imprinting recognizable high-n line series on the X-ray spectrum.
  • The two CX components at opposite velocities imply a bipolar outflow that persists for at least two months, even as the white-dwarf atmosphere decelerates from roughly 3500 to 1500 km/s.
  • The RRC measurements track the cold gas temperature rising from about 1 eV to 26 eV between day 128 and day 183, indicating ongoing mixing and heating between hot and cold plasma.
  • Because the CX lines appear at similar velocities in both epochs, the shocked gas is spatially separated from the atmosphere and remains active on month timescales.
  • Archival grating spectra of other novae should be re-examined for the same enhanced high-n lines and narrow RRCs, since two independent novae now show the signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these signatures are as common as the two detections suggest, a systematic archival search of grating spectra could find CX in many super-soft phase novae, using the line-ratio method presented here as a template.
  • The unmodeled bright C+5 Lyman delta line suggests the low-velocity-limit CX model is incomplete; a velocity-dependent collision model might both fit the delta line and turn its intensity into a shock-velocity diagnostic.
  • The rise in RRC electron temperature from about 1 eV to 26 eV could be read as progressive heating of the cold gas by the shocks, which would predict even broader RRCs in later epochs if the interaction continues.
  • The contrasting abundances, with nitrogen overabundant and oxygen underabundant in the emission components, may reflect layered ejecta composition rather than fitting artifacts; if so, CX line ratios could map chemical stratification in nova ejecta.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes two epochs of Chandra/LETG grating spectra of Nova Sco 2023 (days 128 and 183 after optical peak). The authors model the absorbed continuum with an NLTE white-dwarf atmosphere and attribute the discrete emission features to a recombining plasma and to two charge-exchange components with opposite velocity shifts. They report narrow radiative recombination continua of C+5, N+5, and N+6, enhanced high-n line series (especially Lyman/He γ lines) for C+5, N+5, N+6, and O+6, and derive a cold electron temperature of about 1 eV on day 128 and about 26 eV on day 183, with CX plasma temperatures kT ~ 83-172 eV. They conclude that Nova Sco 2023 shows spectroscopic evidence for charge exchange, following YZ Ret, and attribute the two kinematic components to a bipolar outflow.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant result: it would provide the second nova with high-resolution spectroscopic evidence of charge exchange in an astrophysical plasma, and a useful testbed for CX spectral models. The manuscript's strengths are the multiple independent observational handles (narrow RRCs, enhanced high-n lines in several ions, two kinematic components), the use of independently developed CX models (acx, Janev-Winter) and comparison with laboratory measurements, and a clear XSPEC model prescription that aids reproducibility. The main caveat is that the uniqueness of the CX interpretation relies on an exclusion of thermal CIE models that is not demonstrated in this paper but delegated to a companion paper; the adopted acx model also leaves the bright C+5 Lyman δ line unexplained. These issues are addressable but currently load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 4] The central premise that thermal collisional-ionization-equilibrium plasma cannot explain the observed line ratios is stated in Sec. 3 ('The accompanying paper (Worley et al.) shows that thermal plasma components ... can not explain the observed emission lines') and used in Sec. 4 to justify focusing on CX, but the comparison is not shown here and the companion paper is listed as 'submitted.' This exclusion is load-bearing: if a multi-temperature bvapec model with fitted abundances and velocity broadening can reproduce the enhanced high-n ratios with comparable Cstat/d.o.f., the uniqueness of the CX identification would be lost. Please include a quantitative summary of that comparison, for example the best bvapec Cstat/d.o.f. and residuals at the C+5 Lyman γ/δ and N+5 Heγ lines, or provide the companion paper's relevant results in an appendix.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] The paper states that the bright C+5 Lyman δ line at 26.35 Å is 'prominent in the data but not in the model' and that a velocity-dependent CX model 'might be able to better match the data.' This is an admitted failure of the adopted CX model to reproduce a principal line that is attributed to CX. As written, the claim that the lines are 'consistent with a CX model' is therefore overstated. Please quantify the residual (e.g., significance in counts and contribution to Cstat), attempt a quantitative test with a velocity-dependent population model or an additional component, or explicitly discuss what alternative identification (e.g., a thermal plasma component or a different ion) would be required. The plausible velocity-dependent explanation should not remain purely qualitative.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Sec. 4.2, Table 2] The reported fit quality is Cstat/d.o.f. = 4902/2716 = 1.80 for d128 and 7351/4795 = 1.53 for d183, and the model includes a large number of free parameters: atmosphere temperature and velocity, RNEI hot and cold temperatures and recombination timescale, two CX temperatures and velocities, line broadening, and several abundance ratios. The paper does not report a statistical test of whether the CX components are actually required, for example ΔCstat when removing each acx component. Without such a test, it is unclear whether the CX components are statistically significant or one of many possible decompositions of a complex spectrum. Please add this test or otherwise quantify the necessity of the CX components.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs Sec. 4.2] The abstract states kTe = 20 eV on day 183, while Sec. 4.2 and Table 2 report 26 ± 1 eV; the abstract and conclusions (which say 26 eV) should be made consistent.
  2. [Figs. 1-2 and Sec. 4] The captions of Figs. 1 and 2 and the text in Sec. 4 refer to 'Table ??'; this placeholder should be replaced with the actual best-fit table reference.
  3. [Table 2] The table notes use codes (b1)-(b6), (c1)-(c4) without a full legend; please define each tied or fixed parameter explicitly so the reader can reproduce the fit.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The 'puzzling line at 21.7 Å' is left unexplained; a sentence stating whether this feature is included in the fit or excluded, and its possible origin, would improve the presentation.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The 'hotabs' argon component is described as not representing an additional hot absorber, but it is still used to add absorption lines. Please clarify the physical interpretation, or describe it explicitly as a phenomenological correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CX identification is tested against external models; the bvapec exclusion is a load-bearing but non-circular reliance on the companion paper.

full rationale

The derivation that Nova Sco 2023 shows charge exchange is not circular. The enhanced high-n C+5, N+5, N+6, and O+6 series are fitted with the independently developed acx model (Smith et al. 2012) and are compared with the Janev & Winter n-level prediction and with laboratory CX measurements (Cao et al. 2023; Zhu et al. 2025); the model parameters are free parameters fitted to the spectra rather than values derived from the CX conclusion. The narrow RRC electron temperatures and the two opposite-velocity Doppler components are independent spectral measurements that do not presuppose the acx model. The one load-bearing caveat is the assertion in Section 3 (after Fig. 2) that a bvapec thermal CIE plasma cannot explain the lines, with the result delegated to the accompanying Worley et al. paper instead of being demonstrated here; if that exclusion were wrong, the uniqueness of the CX interpretation would weaken. This is an unverified exclusion, however, not a circular reduction, because the present fits do not use the bvapec failure as an input and the CX identification is cross-checked against external models and measurements. The admitted failure of the acx model to reproduce the bright C+5 Lyman delta line (Sec. 4.3) is a limitation and a possible need for velocity-dependent CX, not a circular step. Accordingly, the central claim retains independent content, and the paper is assigned a low score of 2 for the minor self-referential reliance on the companion paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard atomic physics (Janev-Winter level selection, acx atomic data), on the adequacy of a static NLTE atmosphere model for an outflowing WD, on the exclusion of CIE plasma models by an external companion paper, and on the assumption that unmodeled delta lines arise from velocity-dependent CX. The fit introduces many free parameters (temperatures, velocities, abundances, broadening), so the model-data agreement is not a parameter-free prediction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • WD atmosphere temperature = kT = 64 ± 2 eV (d128), 66 ± 2 eV (d183)
    Fitted to the absorbed continuum with a Rauch NLTE atmosphere grid; temperature uncertainty taken as half the model grid step.
  • Atmosphere outflow velocity = v = -3500 ± 150 km/s (d128), -1530 ± 30 km/s (d183)
    Fitted blueshift of the Rauch model absorption lines.
  • RNEI hot and cold temperatures and recombination timescale = kT_h = 86 ± 7 eV -> 1.3 ± 0.3 eV, tau = 1.2e11 s cm^-3 (d128); 112 ± 2 -> 26 ± 1 eV (d183)
    Fitted 'vrnei' component producing narrow RRCs; cold temperature derived from RRC widths.
  • CX plasma temperature = 83 ± 3 eV and 172 ± 6 eV (d128); 128 ± 4 and 128 ± 7 eV (d183)
    Fitted 'acx' component temperatures for blue/red shifted CX lines.
  • CX velocity shifts = ±3500 ± 150 km/s (d128); ±3000 ± 100 km/s (d183)
    Fitted opposite Doppler shifts of the two acx components; used to infer a bipolar outflow.
  • Emission line broadening = sigma_v = 900 ± 100 km/s
    Doppler broadening applied via gsmooth; tied between components within an epoch.
  • Elemental abundances of absorber and emission = N/C = 3.5 ± 0.5, O/C = 2.5 ± 0.1 (absorber); emission N/C, O/C values in Table 2
    Fitted with tbvarabs and in the emission components.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Janev-Winter formula (Eq. 1) determines the most populated CX level n ~ 4 for the ions considered.
    Standard atomic physics result used to interpret enhanced gamma lines as CX; not derived in this paper but independently established.
  • domain assumption The static NLTE Rauch atmosphere model adequately represents the outflowing WD atmosphere continuum and absorption.
    Authors state in Sec. 4 that the static model is an approximation for the outflowing atmosphere; systematic limitations (missing Ar, abundance assumptions) are acknowledged.
  • domain assumption Thermal collisional ionization equilibrium plasma (bvapec) cannot reproduce the emission lines.
    Stated in Sec. 3 on the authority of the accompanying Worley et al. submitted paper; the demonstration is not included in this preprint.
  • domain assumption The acx model's low-velocity limit is applicable, with the unmodeled Lyman delta lines attributed to collision-velocity-dependent population distributions.
    Sec. 4.3: the model fails to reproduce the bright C+5 Lyman delta line; the authors invoke higher collision velocity effects from external lab work to explain the discrepancy.
  • domain assumption Neutral absorption is modeled with tbabs/tbvarabs using a fixed ISM column from HI4PI and fitted circumstellar abundances.
    Standard X-ray absorption models; the paper notes the N K-edge wavelength is slightly wrong in the model but judged not to affect results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray observations of Nova Sco 2023: Spectroscopic evidence of charge exchange." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2XUYSED

@misc{pith2026250702465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray observations of Nova Sco 2023: Spectroscopic evidence of charge exchange},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2XUYSED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02465}
}
abstract

The super-soft source (SSS) phase of a nova eruption, observed a few days after the outburst, usually displays an absorbed X-ray thermal continuum with absorption features, emitted by the white dwarf (WD) atmosphere. However, the X-ray spectra of many novae in this phase display additional emission lines which likely originate from shocks in the novae ejecta. When the shocked plasma interacts with cold gas, narrow radiative recombination continua (RRCs) and charge exchange (CX) emission are observed. We present the analysis of high-resolution ChandraLETG X-ray grating spectra of Nova Sco 2023, observed 128 and 183 days after the optical peak, on 2023 August and October. At both epochs, the absorbed X-ray thermal continuum is well described by a Non-Local Thermal Equilibrium atmosphere model with a temperature T=750,000 K (kT = 65 eV). On day 128, the atmosphere is found to be outflowing at v=-3500 km s^-1. On day 183, the atmosphere brightened by a factor of ~2 and slowed down to v=-1500$ km s^-1. The discrete emission features of the spectrum consist of the C^+5, N^+5, and N^+6 RRCs, indicating a cold electron temperature of kT_e=1 eV on day 128, and kT_e=20 eV on day 183. The observed line series of H-like and He-like C^+5, N^+5, N^+6, and O^+6 show enhanced intensities of high-n (principal quantum number) transitions, consistent with a CX model of hot ions at kT~100 eV. The velocity shift of the CX lines remained at v=+-3000 km s^-1, which can be explained by a bipolar outflow. After Nova Ret 2020 (YZ Ret), Nova Sco 2023 is yet another nova in which we have found exquisite evidence of CX in astrophysical ionized plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02465 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Averaged spectrum (two observations) of Nova Sco 2023 with the Chandra/LETG 128 days after the optical peak (Obs. ID 28048,28496). The spectrum features an SSS continuum (Sec. 4), with blueshifted absorption lines of N+5, N+6, O+6 , marked by blue dashed lines, and neutral absorption edges of N and O, marked by gray dashed lines. A bright narrow RRC of C +5 is observed at 25.35˚A, and the much fainter N+5 RRC is at … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Averaged spectrum (three observations) of Nova Sco 2023 with the Chandra/LETG 183 days after the optical peak (Obs. ID 228049,28987,28988). The spectrum features an SSS continuum (Sec. 4), with blueshifted absorption lines of highly ionized C,N,O, marked by blue dashed lines, and neutral absorption edges of N and O, marked by gray dashed lines. The RRCs of C+5, N+5 and N+6 are observed at 25.35˚A, 22.46˚A, and 18.58… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Each panel shows an additional component in the d128 fit, the goodness of fit (Cstat/d.o.f), and the residuals (lower part of each panel). Panel (a) is the Rauch atmosphere model, with cold absorbers and the approximate Ar lines added with ’hotabs’. Panel (b) shows the prominent C+5 RRC at 25.35˚A, and N+5 RRC at 22.46˚A, produced by ’rnei’ plasma model. Panel (c) shows the blueshifted CX emission, mainly indicated … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Each panel shows an additional component in the d183 fit, the goodness of fit (Cstat/d.o.f), and the residuals (lower part of each panel). Panel (a) is the Rauch atmosphere model, with cold absorbers. Panel (b) shows the C+5, N+5, and N +6 produced by RNEI plasma model…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  2. [2]

    A., & Kallman, T

    Bautista, M. A., & Kallman, T. R. 2001, ApJS, 134, 139, doi: 10.1086/320363

    doi:10.1086/320363 2001

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJS, 266, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/accba2

    Cao, T., Meng, T., Gao, Y., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/accba2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/accba2 2023

  4. [4]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  5. [5]

    Cheung, C. C. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16002, 1

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    D., Aydi, E., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Linford, J. D., Aydi, E., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac24ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac24ab 2021

  7. [7]

    Cravens, T. E. 1997, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 105, doi: 10.1029/96GL03780

    doi:10.1029/96gl03780 1997

  8. [8]

    M., Bhardwaj, A., et al

    Dennerl, K., Lisse, C. M., Bhardwaj, A., et al. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 324, doi: 10.1002/asna.201211663 10

    doi:10.1002/asna.201211663 2012

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    J., Delgado, L., Laming, J

    Drake, J. J., Delgado, L., Laming, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 95, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/95

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Carter-Cortez, V., et al

    Dunn, W. R., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Carter-Cortez, V., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27219, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027219

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    F., Duerbeck, H

    Evans, A., Bode, M. F., Duerbeck, H. W., & Seitter, W. C. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 7P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/258.1.7P

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    Gu, L., Kaastra, J., & Raassen, A. J. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527615

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03223 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al

    Gu, L., Yamaguchi, H., Foster, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03223 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    E., et al

    Izzo, L., Della Valle, M., Woodward, C. E., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16007, 1

    2023

  8. [16]

    1985, Physics Reports, 117, 265, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(85)90118-8

    Janev, R., & Winter, H. 1985, Physics Reports, 117, 265, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(85)90118-8

    1985 doi

  9. [17]

    J., et al

    Mitrani, S., Behar, E., Drake, J. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a64

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    P., et al

    Nelson, T., Orio, M., Cassinelli, J. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 1067, doi: 10.1086/524054

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    U., Osborne, J

    Ness, J. U., Osborne, J. P., Henze, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322415

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    U., Beardmore, A

    Ness, J. U., Beardmore, A. P., Bode, M. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245269

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1210.4331

    Orio, M. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1210.4331

    2012 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Ness, J

    Orio, M., Drake, J. J., Ness, J. U., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c4d

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63be

    Orio, M., Gendreau, K., Giese, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63be

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 2, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/2

    Peretz, U., Orio, M., Behar, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 2, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/2

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 363, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/363

    Rauch, T., Orio, M., Gonzales-Riestra, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 363, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/363

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    2003, A&A, 403, 709, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030412

    Rauch, T. 2003, A&A, 403, 709, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030412

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91, doi: 10.1086/322992

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Foster, A

    Smith, R. K., Foster, A. R., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 301, doi: 10.1002/asna.201211673

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16018, 1

    Sokolovsky, K., Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16018, 1

    2023

  22. [30]

    X., et al

    Starrfield, S., Iliadis, C., Timmes, F. X., et al. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1210.6086

    2012 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    H., Yan, H

    Wang, H. H., Yan, H. D., Takata, J., & Lin, L. C. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.19233, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.19233

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    E., & Gallagher, J

    Williams, R. E., & Gallagher, J. S. 1979, ApJ, 228, 482, doi: 10.1086/156869

    1979 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., & Paxton, B

    Wolf, W. M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., & Paxton, B. 2013, ApJ, 777, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/136

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 1293, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1293

    Dennerl, K. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1293, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1293

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    Page, K. L. 2024, ApJ, 968, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4097

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    B., Zhang, R

    Zhu, X. B., Zhang, R. T., Zhang, C. J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb72a

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.