Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 24 references

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

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 The earliest optical detection of the very fast nova V1674 Her was light from its X-ray flash phase, seen via an irradiated accretion disk.

desk verdict A plausible and genuinely new composite model for the earliest optical rise of V1674 Her, but the headline 'first optical X-ray flash detection' rests on a same-group calibration and an untested 10^4 discrepancy in mass accretion rate. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06493 v1 pith:S2LX3Y5I submitted 2025-07-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Izumi Hachisu , Mariko Kato This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords novaecataclysmicvariablesV1674HerX-rayflashphaseirradiatedaccretiondisknovalightcurvesfree-freeemissionwhitedwarfmass
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

V1674 Her rose more than 10 magnitudes in a quarter of a day, and this paper identifies what powered the very start of that rise. The earliest measured point, g=17.0 at 0.014 days after the assumed onset of thermonuclear runaway, was not yet the nova wind or ejecta: it is explained as light from the accretion disk and companion star irradiated by the hot white dwarf during the X-ray flash phase. If correct, this is the first time a nova's X-ray flash has been seen in optical light. The same model then hands over to free-free emission from the wind and reproduces the dense g-band rise from 14.8 to 7.1 mag, including a slope break at day 0.1, with no shock heating required. The consequence is that optical monitoring of very fast novae can reveal the very beginning of the outburst.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a composite light-curve model of the binary: a hot white dwarf photosphere, an accretion disk, and a Roche-lobe-filling companion, each partitioned into surface patches that absorb the white dwarf's irradiating flux and re-emit as blackbodies, summed through the V filter. Once optically thick winds start, the optical flux is set by free-free emission from the optically thin ejecta, $L_{V,\rm ff}=A_{\rm ff}\dot{M}_{\rm wind}^2/(v_{\rm ph}^2 R_{\rm ph})$, using the wind mass-loss rate, photospheric velocity, and radius from the adopted 1.35 $M_\odot$ model. The phase identification relies on the model's X-ray flash interval, which ends when winds emerge at t=0.04 d; the sudden increase in wind mass-loss at log T_ph ~ 5.2, driven by the Fe peak in OPAL opacities, produces the observed break in the rising light curve.

What would settle it

If an independent determination of the onset time, for example from fitting the full optical rise without fixing the model, placed the onset later than about HJD 2459377.70, the first detection would occur after wind emergence at 0.04 days and the identification would fail; conversely, an X-ray observation showing the flash still active at t=0.014 days would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the first measured point of the V1674 Her outburst, g=17.0 at 0.014 days after the assumed onset of thermonuclear runaway, falls in the X-ray flash phase of a 1.35 solar-mass white dwarf, and that its brightness comes from irradiation of the accretion disk and companion star by the hot white dwarf photosphere. The pre-outburst disk at g=19.2 jumps to g=17.0, a ~2.2 mag brightening caused by irradiation, making this the first optical detection of a nova X-ray flash. After optically thick winds emerge at t=0.04 d, the optical luminosity is dominated by free-free emission from optically thin ejecta, and the composite model reproduces the observed rise including a sudden slope change at g=14.3 on day 0.1, attributed to the Fe opacity peak entering the envelope. The paper concludes that no strong shock power is required in the rising phase from g=14.8 to 7.1.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the assumed eruption start time, which puts the first detection 0.014 days after onset, and the modeled wind-emergence time at 0.04 days are both accurate enough that the first point truly falls inside the X-ray flash phase; a slightly later true onset would move it into the wind phase and the identification would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, very fast novae with massive white dwarfs can be detected optically in their X-ray flash phase, meaning the flash is observable without X-ray telescopes.
  • The 10-magnitude, quarter-day optical rise of V1674 Her is fully accounted for by irradiated disk light followed by free-free wind emission, so no shock-powered component is needed in this phase.
  • A hydrogen-burning white dwarf produces a ~2.2 mag jump in disk optical brightness, providing an optical on/off test for hydrogen burning that also applies to millinovae.
  • The sudden break in the rising light curve at g=14.3 is a direct signature of the Fe opacity peak, giving a way to probe envelope structure in nova light curves.
  • The success of the 1.35 $M_\odot$, low-accretion model constrains the white dwarf mass and accretion rate of V1674 Her; the higher-accretion model is excluded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If optical X-ray-flash detections become routine, survey archives may already contain unrecognized X-ray flashes of other fast novae in their earliest points; re-examining pre-maximum detections with this binary-irradiation template could find more.
  • The same irradiated-disk calculation could be turned around to measure binary parameters: early light-curve shape depends on inclination and disk size, so dense early photometry could constrain these better than later phases.
  • The 'no shocking power' conclusion concerns only the g=14.8-7.1 rise; if contemporaneous gamma-ray or radio observations imply shocks at other phases, a combined model would need to locate where shocks switch on.
  • A testable extension: search for the predicted ~2.2 mag jump in other very fast novae with pre-outburst quiescent photometry; absence of the jump would indicate the disk was disrupted or the white dwarf less massive.
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. The paper presents a composite light-curve model for the first roughly 0.3 days of the 2021 outburst of V1674 Her, combining the 1.35 solar mass white dwarf (WD) evolution sequence of Kato et al. (2025) with an irradiated accretion disk and companion star, plus free-free emission from an optically thin wind. The authors claim that the earliest ASAS-SN detection (g=17.0 at t=0.014 d) falls in the X-ray flash phase and is the first optical detection of such a phase, and that their free-free model reproduces the dense Evryscope light curve from g=14.8 to g=7.1, including the slope break at g=14.3, without any contribution from shocking. They further attribute the slope break to the Fe opacity peak in the nova envelope.

Significance. If correct, the result would open a new observational window: the X-ray flash phase of a classical nova would be detectable in optical light through irradiation of the inner binary, and the dense photometric coverage would allow the earliest stages of thermonuclear runaway to be probed. The paper's strengths are the unusually dense pre-maximum dataset, the physical simplicity of the free-free emission model, and the fact that the same model tracks a seven-magnitude rise including a slope change. However, the central phase identification relies on the absolute clock and phase boundaries of a specific 1.35 solar mass model, and the quantitative match involves post-hoc choices of inclination and accretion rate; no error bars are attached to the theoretical light curves. The result would be strengthened substantially by an explicit test of how the phase boundaries respond to the much higher mass-accretion rate that the paper itself adopts for the disk.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 4.1 and 5.3] The central phase identification depends on a mass-accretion-rate inconsistency that is not tested. The X-ray flash phase boundary and the origin t_OB are taken from Kato et al. (2025) model A, which assumes Mdot = 1e-11 solar masses per year, while Section 3.3 adopts Mdot = 2e-7 solar masses per year to reproduce the pre-outburst disk brightness, and Section 4.1 states that Mdot ~ 3e-7 solar masses per year is needed to explain the SSS duration. The paper never tests how the time from thermonuclear runaway to wind emergence changes at the high accretion rate; Section 5.3 only compares model A with 5e-10 solar masses per year, and Section 5.4 shifts t_OB by only +0.01 day. Because the claim that the first ASAS-SN point lies in the X-ray flash phase depends on this interval, the authors should either compute or cite a high-accretion-rate sequence for the phase boundaries or demonstrate explicitly that the boundaries are insensitive to Mdot over the relevant range.
  2. [Section 5.2] The preferred inclination angle is selected by setting aside the very data point that the headline claim advertises. The paper initially adopts i = 67 degrees, which matches the first ASAS-SN point g = 17.0, but then, because this point has sigma_g = 0.3 and the second and third points are regarded as more secure, it prefers i = 45 degrees, which is about 0.5 mag brighter than the i = 67 case and is said to be broadly consistent with the later points. The central claim that the earliest point is reproduced by the model is therefore supported by a configuration that the authors themselves do not finally adopt, and no uncertainty is propagated through the model light curves. The authors should either include the first point in a consistent fit with a stated treatment of its error, or soften the claim that the g = 17.0 point is reproduced by the preferred model.
  3. [Sections 5.3 and 5.4] The robustness tests are too narrow to support the strong conclusion in Section 6.2 that the first ASAS-SN data 'clearly' show the X-ray flash phase. Section 5.3 rejects alternatives only by comparing a 1.5-times slower rise and Section 5.4 by a +0.01 day shift of t_OB; these do not cover a later t_OB that could place all three ASAS-SN points in the wind phase while still matching the Evryscope data, nor do they cover the high-accretion-rate model discussed above. The conclusion should be rephrased as a model-dependent inference with stated caveats, unless such tests are added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The heading 'Two-step rise in the free-fee emission light curve' contains a typo and should read 'free-free emission light curve'.
  2. [Section 5.4] The phrase '0.9 times compressed compraed with' contains a typo; 'compraed' should be 'compared'.
  3. [References] The DOI for Orio et al. (2022) appears malformed as 'https://doi.org/10.103847/1538-4357/ac63be'; please verify the correct DOI.
  4. [Figure 5(a)] It would improve transparency to plot the sigma_g = 0.3 error bar on the first ASAS-SN point explicitly, since this uncertainty plays a central role in the inclination discussion of Section 5.2.
  5. [Equation (1)] Please state explicitly that the coefficient A_ff is calibrated to V1674 Her through Kato et al. (2025), so that readers understand that the free-free curve is not fully parameter-free and carries that calibration uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the early-phase classification is model-based, but the ASAS-SN point is not used to set the model clock, and the key model inputs are anchored to later data.

full rationale

The phase identification rests on the authors' own Kato et al. (2025) model for tOB and the wind-emergence epoch, which is a load-bearing self-citation. However, this does not amount to circularity: the Kato et al. model was fitted to V1674 Her's later rise (e.g., the break at HJD 2,459,377.78), not to the ASAS-SN g=17.0 point; the first point is then placed at t=0.0144 d as an out-of-sample test. Section 5.4 explicitly tests shifting tOB by +0.01 d and rejects it using the later dense photometry, and Section 5.3 tests a higher-Mdot model (model B) that would move the first point into the wind phase and rejects it on the observed rise timescale. The inclination i=67 used for the headline fit comes from Habtie et al. (2024), not from the target data; the i=45 preference is a fit to the second/third ASAS-SN points, but it is not the basis of the first-point phase claim. The Mdot=1e-11 vs 2e-7 inconsistency is a correctness/robustness concern, not a by-construction equivalence: the paper never claims to derive the accretion rate from the early light curve, and the high rate is independently motivated by the pre-outburst ZTF brightness and SSS duration. No equation in the paper defines the X-ray-flash classification in terms of the observed g magnitudes, nor vice versa. Thus the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Kato et al. (2025) nova model (same group) for the WD evolution, phase timing, and free-free emission; on geometric disk parameters (alpha, beta) and the inclination; and on observed binary parameters from other groups. Several numbers are fitted to the very data the model explains.

free parameters (8)
  • White dwarf mass M_WD = 1.35 solar masses
    Chosen from Kato et al. (2025) model that reproduces the overall V1674 Her light curve; not independently constrained in this paper.
  • Mass accretion rate for WD evolution model = 1e-11 solar masses per year
    Model A from Kato et al. (2025); used for the nova outburst evolution and wind phase.
  • Mass accretion rate for disk brightness = 2e-7 solar masses per year
    Adopted to reproduce the pre-outburst g=19.17-19.2 brightness via viscous heating (Sec 4.1).
  • Inclination angle i = 67 deg preferred, 45 deg and 75 deg examined
    Not well constrained; i=67 initially, but i=45 is preferred to match the second and third ASAS-SN data points (Sec 5.2).
  • Distance modulus mu_V = 16.3 (d=8.9 kpc, E(B-V)=0.5)
    Taken from Kato et al. (2025); affects the absolute brightness of all model components.
  • Disk geometry parameters alpha and beta = alpha=0.85, beta=0.05 before wind; alpha=1.3, beta=0.05 after wind
    Disk outer radius and height parameters; alpha=1.3 from Muraoka et al. (2024).
  • Outburst day t_OB = HJD 2459377.68
    From Kato et al. (2025); zero point of the model. Slight shifts are tested and excluded in Sec 5.4.
  • Companion mass and orbital period = 0.26 solar masses, 0.152921 days
    From Quimby et al. (2024) and Patterson et al. (2022); define the binary separation and Roche radii.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The OPAL opacity tables (Iglesias and Rogers 1996) accurately represent the envelope opacity driving the wind and the Fe peak break.
    Invoked in Sec 5.1 to explain the slope break at log Tph ~ 5.2; if opacities differ, the break timing changes.
  • domain assumption The accretion disk remains undisrupted during the X-ray flash phase and is still present to be irradiated.
    Sec 3.2; the early g=17 brightness requires a large irradiated surface. If the envelope engulfed or destroyed the disk, the model fails.
  • domain assumption Irradiated disk and companion photospheres emit locally as blackbodies, and absorption by optically thin gas between surfaces is negligible.
    Sec 3.3, based on Hachisu and Kato 2001; standard reprocessing assumption but unverified for this extreme irradiation.
  • domain assumption The nova envelope is nearly hydrostatic during the X-ray flash phase, with no external shock or dense matter near the WD photosphere.
    Sec 1 and 2.1, supported by YZ Ret X-ray spectrum and the authors' models; needed for the X-ray flash to be visible to the disk.
  • domain assumption The free-free emission formula (Eq 1) with coefficient A_ff from Kato et al. (2025) applies to the wind ejecta.
    Sec 2.2; the wind-phase light curve fit depends on this scaling.
invented entities (1)
  • Disk surface flow
    purpose: Explains the optically thick disk photosphere extending beyond the tidal radius (alpha=1.3) during the nova wind phase, keeping the disk bright in the composite model.
    Introduced in Hachisu et al. (2025) and used here; no direct observational detection, it is a model construct to match U Sco and V1674 Her light curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical detection of the X-ray flash in the very fast nova V1674 Her: Optical contribution of the irradiated accretion disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2LX3Y5I

@misc{pith2026250706493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical detection of the X-ray flash in the very fast nova V1674 Her: Optical contribution of the irradiated accretion disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2LX3Y5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06493}
}
abstract

V1674 Her is one of the fastest and brightest novae, characterized by dense optical photometry in the pre-maximum phase, a rise from $g=17$ to 7 mag, in one-fourth of a day. We present a composite theoretical $V$ light curve model of its early rising phase starting from a quiescent brightness of $g=19.2$ mag. Our light curve model consists of a hot and bright white dwarf (WD) and irradiated accretion disk and companion star. We found that the earliest optical detection of ASAS-SN $g$ band brightness of $g=17.0$ at $t=0.014$ day from the onset of thermonuclear runaway can be explained with the irradiated accretion disk and companion star in the X-ray flash phase of a $1.35 ~M_\odot$ WD. This is the first detection in optical of an X-ray flash phase of a nova. Optically thick winds emerge from the WD photosphere at $t=0.04$ day, and optical flux is dominated by free-free emission from optically-thin ejecta just outside the WD photosphere. Our free-free emission model $V$ light curve reasonably reproduces the dense $g$ light curve of Evryscope that spans from $g=14.8$ (at 0.078 day) to $g=7.1$ (at 0.279 day), including a sudden change of slope in the $g$ light curve from slow to rapid rise at $g=14.3$ on day $0.1$. There is no indication of shocking power during the rising phase from $g=14.8$ to 7.1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The optical V /g and X-ray (0.3–10.0 keV) light curves of V1674 Her. The V data are taken from the archive of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO). The All-Sky Automated Survey for Supernovae (ASAS￾SN) g, Evryscope g, and Itagaki’s unfiltered CCD data are from R. M. Quimby et al. (2024). The X-ray count rates are from the Swift website (P. A. Evans et al. 2009). The Mount Laguna Observatory Al… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The H-R diagram of one cycle of hydrogen shell flashes for our nova outburst model of a 1.35 M⊙ WD with the mass accretion rate of M˙ acc = 1 × 10−11 M⊙ yr−1 , taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic configurations of a WD envelope and accretion disk during a nova outburst. (a) In the X-ray flash phase: when the expanding envelope reaches the inner edge of the accretion disk. (b) At epoch E: The optically thick winds emerge from the photosphere. The accretion disk is not disrupted and the winds blows avoiding the region of the disk. (c) Early wind phase after stage E: The disk has not been totally engu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometric configuration models of our disk and companion star in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Comparison of our theoretical V light curve with observational data in the first 0.12 days of the V1674 Her 2021 outburst. We assumed the origin of time (t = 0) to be JD 2,459,377.68. The three orange lines (thick solid, dashed, and dotted) correspond to the photos…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Run of the radiative opacity against the temperature from inside to outside in our 1.35 M⊙ WD for three stages. The open circles on each line correspond to the critical points of Parker type steady-state wind solutions (M. Kato & I. Hachisu 1994). Matter is sharply…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The g band light curves (blue symbols) and our free-free emission model V light curve (black line) in the very early phase of the V1674 Her outburst. The observa￾tional data and free-free emission model V light curve (black line) are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IM…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac34fd 2021

  3. [3]

    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

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/132.2.317 1966

  5. [5]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3295 2024

  6. [6]

    2001, ApJ, 558, 323, https://doi.org/10.1086/321601

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2001, ApJ, 558, 323, https://doi.org/10.1086/321601

    doi:10.1086/321601 2001

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/508063 2006

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9475 2022

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 145, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adc107

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2025, ApJ, 983, 145, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adc107

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

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

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

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

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Rogers, F

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

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

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

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, ApJ, in press (arXiv:2506.04615) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.04615

    Kato, M., Hachisu, I., & Saio, H. 2025, ApJ, in press (arXiv:2506.04615) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.04615

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    2022c, Research notes of the AAS, 6, 258, https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aca8af K¨ onig, O., Wilms, J., Arcodia, R., et al

    Kato, M., Saio, H, & Hachisu, I. 2022c, Research notes of the AAS, 6, 258, https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aca8af K¨ onig, O., Wilms, J., Arcodia, R., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 248, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04635-y

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, L97, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slac117 Mr´ oz, P., Kr´ ol, K., Szegedi, K., et al

    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 Mr´ oz, P., Kr´ ol, K., Szegedi, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L37, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad969b

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 293, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psae010

    Muraoka, K., Kojiguchi, N., Ito, J., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 293, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psae010

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    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

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    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

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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