Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Challenging Classical Paradigms: Recurrent Nova M31N 2017-01e, a BeWD system in M31?

T0 review · 4 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 paper proposes that M31N 2017-01e is a Be-white-dwarf system, with a white dwarf of at least ~1.3 solar masses accreting from its Be companion's decretion disc.

desk verdict Solid photometric portrait of a fast, faint recurrent nova in M31, but the BeWD classification is a hypothesis that needs a quantitative mass-transfer check before it can carry the weight the paper puts on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02227 v1 pith:3OORMPCQ submitted 2025-08-04 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Shatakshi Chamoli , Judhajeet Basu , Sudhanshu Barway , G.C. Anupama , Vishwajeet Swain , Varun Bhalero This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords CataclysmicvariablestarsRecurrentnovaeBeWhitedwarfAndromedaGalaxydecretiondiscthermonuclearrunawayM31N2017-01e
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 argues that M31N 2017-01e, the second-fastest recurrent nova known in Andromeda (erupting every ~2.5 years), belongs to a rare class of binaries in which a white dwarf accretes from the decretion disc of a Be star. The quiescent counterpart S0 is bright, blue, and periodically variable at 14.3 days, with colors, a spectral energy distribution, and H-$\alpha$ emission matching an early-type B star rather than the cool companion expected around a nova. The authors claim that only a massive white dwarf ($M_{\mathrm{WD}}\gtrsim1.3\,M_\odot$) can power such frequent outbursts, and that the small ~3-magnitude outburst amplitude and fast $t_2\sim5$ day decline follow naturally if the Be star's disc feeds the white dwarf. If correct, this would establish a new accretion mode for recurrent novae and broaden the types of binaries that can produce them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Be star's decretion disc as the mass-transfer channel. Be stars are rapidly rotating early-type stars that build a dense equatorial disc, and for this system the white dwarf is argued to orbit inside that disc (separation 37-68 $R_\odot$ versus a disc extent of roughly 10-100 stellar radii), so the disc behaves as a pseudo-Roche-lobe overflow that feeds the white dwarf. The companion's large mass and luminosity then mask the accretion emission, explaining the small ~3-magnitude outburst amplitude, while the massive white dwarf ignites quickly at low accreted mass, explaining the $t_2\sim5$ day evolution and the ~2.5-year recurrence.

What would settle it

A radial-velocity campaign on S0 across the 14.3-day cycle would decide the orbital interpretation: a Keplerian orbit consistent with a $\sim1.3\,M_\odot$ white dwarf and a 2-20 $M_\odot$ Be star at 37-68 $R_\odot$ would support the model, while a flat velocity curve or an incompatible mass function would break it. Likewise, deep infrared photometry that shows no excess above the B-star SED would rule out the decretion disc the model requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that M31N 2017-01e hosts a white dwarf with mass at least $\sim1.3\,M_\odot$ together with a Be star, and that the white dwarf accretes from the Be star's circumstellar decretion disc rather than through Roche-lobe overflow or wind capture. The paper's evidence chain: deep high-resolution images resolve three sources within $5''$ of the nova position, and the central source S0 coincides with the eruption site to $0.16''$, shows the 14.3-day photometric modulation, and has a reddening-free $Q=-0.94$ with $B-V\approx0.12$, pointing to an early-type star; SED fits give $T_{\rm eff}\approx26000$-$31000$ K and $R\approx12$-$14\,R_\odot$ with a power-law index $\alpha\approx3$, close to a B star and not the $\alpha\approx2.33$ of an accretion disc; and archival spectra show H$\alpha$ in emission. Assuming the 14.3-day period is the orbital period, $M_{\mathrm{WD}}=1.3\,M_\odot$ and $M_{\mathrm{Be}}=2$-$20\,M_\odot$ put the binary separation at about 37-68 $R_\odot$, inside the expected decretion-disc radius, so disc material can overflow to the white dwarf and trigger recurrent thermonuclear runaways.

Load-bearing premise

The whole Be-white-dwarf picture rests on S0 being the donor star and on the 14.3-day photometric period being the true orbital period; if either is wrong, the derived separation, the disc-embedding argument, and the BeWD classification lose their basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the BeWD identification is right, the quiescent light of M31N 2017-01e is dominated by the Be star, which directly explains why the outburst amplitude is only ~3 magnitudes instead of the typical $\geq6$ magnitudes for recurrent novae.
  • A white dwarf with $M_{\mathrm{WD}}\gtrsim1.3\,M_\odot$ accreting from a decretion disc can reproduce the observed $t_2\sim5$ day evolution and ~2.5-year recurrence, placing the system in the rapid recurrent nova class.
  • The model predicts that the white dwarf is embedded in the Be disc, so the absence of a detected super-soft X-ray phase in past outbursts may be caused by circumstellar absorption or by observing gaps rather than by a different mechanism.
  • M31N 2017-01e would sit between known BeWD X-ray transients and the rapid recurrent novae, suggesting a continuum of accreting white-dwarf binaries rather than two separate populations.
  • Deep infrared observations are the direct test that would reveal the Be disc's excess emission and confirm the companion's nature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, the BeWD channel implies that low-amplitude, fast recurrent transients in M31 and other galaxies may be hiding in current surveys; a systematic search for small-amplitude optical variations could reveal more such systems, a population-level consequence the paper only touches on.
  • The 14.3-day period might be a super-orbital or disc-related timescale rather than the orbital period; if so the true separation would be larger and the disc-embedding argument would need revision, a possibility the authors acknowledge.
  • An alternative triple configuration in which S0 is a line-of-sight companion rather than the donor would mimic the same photometric features; high-spatial-resolution spectroscopy of S0's radial velocity and of the nearby sources can distinguish these geometries.
  • A testable prediction beyond the paper: if the Be disc is present and the WD is embedded, the next outburst should show a delayed or suppressed super-soft phase and a near-infrared excess that strengthens as the disc grows.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength photometric and SED analysis of the recurrent nova M31N 2017-01e in M31, which has a recurrence period of about 2.5 years, a low outburst amplitude of about 3 magnitudes, and a fast decline (t2 about 5 days). The authors resolve the quiescent counterpart into three sources, identify the central source S0 as the likely progenitor, and measure a 14.3-day photometric modulation. Using optical and UV photometry, colors, Kurucz SED fits, and archival spectroscopy, they argue that S0 is an early-type (B-type) star with H-alpha in emission, possibly a Be star. They propose that M31N 2017-01e is a Be-WD binary in which the WD accretes from the Be star's decretion disc, which would explain the rapid recurrence and low amplitude. The paper explicitly acknowledges that this scenario rests on assumptions that S0 is the donor and that the 14.3-day periodicity is orbital.

Significance. If the BeWD interpretation is correct, the paper would identify a novel accretion mechanism for recurrent novae, extending the BeWD class into the regime of ultra-short recurrence and low-amplitude eruptions. The photometric characterization is careful: the authors perform grouped PSF photometry to deblend S0 from two nearby sources, quantify the chance-coincidence probability, and establish the t2 and outburst amplitude with small uncertainties. They also clearly state their assumptions and consider alternative configurations such as triple systems. The paper makes falsifiable predictions (infrared excess from the decretion disc, radial-velocity variability) and is therefore a valuable contribution even if the proposed BeWD identification is not yet secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 (mass-transfer feasibility)] The central physical mechanism for the proposed BeWD scenario is asserted but not demonstrated. The paper claims that the decretion disc would act as a 'pseudo Roche-lobe overflowing into the accretion disc of the WD' and cites Wolf et al. (2013), Kato et al. (2014), and Zhu et al. (2023), but it does not compute an accretion rate, disc surface density, viscosity, or mass budget for this binary. Recurrences every 2.5 years on a massive WD require an accretion rate of roughly 1e-8 to 1e-7 solar masses per year if the WD accumulates the ignition mass between eruptions. No quantitative argument is given that a Be decretion disc at an orbital separation of 37-68 solar radii can supply this rate; the cited works address other systems or general models. This is load-bearing because the pseudo-RLOF mechanism distinguishes the BeWD scenario from ordinary wind-fed or Roche-lobe-fed novae. The authors should provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the disc accretion rate at the WD location, or explicitly state that the mechanism is speculative pending future modeling.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Section 4 (period robustness)] The 14.3-day periodicity is the foundation for the derived binary separation of 37-68 solar radii and, hence, for the disk-embedding argument. However, the Lomb-Scargle period uncertainties are large (14.30 +/- 3.25 days and 14.29 +/- 6.6 days), and the CFHT period peak is below the 1% false alarm probability. The paper itself notes that Shafter et al. (2022) suggested the modulation might not be orbital. In the absence of a radial-velocity curve or a phase-connected ephemeris over many cycles, the orbital interpretation is not secure. If the 14.3-day modulation is spurious or arises from a different timescale (e.g., stellar pulsation or accretion-disc resonance), then the separation calculation and the entire geometric picture of the WD embedded in the decretion disc collapse. The authors should either provide additional evidence for the orbital nature of the period (for example, a coherent ephemeris across multiple seasons) or present the separation as conditional on an assumption that is not yet verified.
  3. [Section 3.4 and Section 4 (SED versus disc size)] There is a tension between the SED evidence and the proposed disk-embedding geometry. The Kurucz fits give an emitting-region radius of about 12-14 solar radii, and the only Pan-STARRS y-band point shows only a marginal rise over the model, so there is no significant infrared excess. If the decretion disc were as large as the claimed 37-68 solar radii and dense enough to embed the WD, one would expect substantial excess emission at red and infrared wavelengths and a larger inferred emitting region. The paper acknowledges the absence of a significant IR excess but does not reconcile this with the claim that the WD lies deep inside the disc. The authors should discuss possible explanations (e.g., inclination, a clumpy or dissipated disc, or a disc smaller than the orbital separation) and, absent such an explanation, soften the claim that the WD is embedded in the disc.
  4. [Section 3.4 (extinction choice)] The adopted foreground extinction of A_V = 0.82 is justified by stating that 'the fluxes obtained using A_V = 0.82 are consistent with the spectrum of the source reported by Shafter et al. (2024),' but that same spectrum is later used as supporting evidence for the B-type/Be classification. This introduces a circular element into the SED analysis: the extinction is adjusted to match the data that are then used to infer the spectral type. The authors should adopt A_V from an independent measurement or map (the Montalto et al. 2009 and Draine et al. 2014 values differ by about a factor of two) and then check consistency with the spectrum, and they should report how the inferred temperature and radius change if A_V = 1.69 is used instead. This matters because the 12-14 solar radii emitting region is a key input to the Be-disc interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] There is a typo: 'The sources S0, S1 and S1' should read 'S0, S1 and S2'.
  2. [Author list] The author name 'V arun Bhalero' appears to be a typo and should be 'Varun Bhalerao'.
  3. [Section 3.4] When reporting the best-fit Kurucz temperatures (31000-26000 K) and radii (12-14 solar radii), the paper should provide the uncertainties or confidence intervals from the bootstrap analysis, rather than only the spread of best-fit values across phases.
  4. [Figure 4 and Section 3.2] The caption of Figure 4 states that a period of 14.27 days is derived from the CFHT-r data, but Section 3.2 reports that this CFHT peak is below the 1% false alarm probability; the caption should explicitly note this caveat when presenting the phase-folded light curve.
  5. [Introduction] The citation 'Basu et. al under prep' is not a complete reference; it should either be removed, updated to a published work, or formatted as a personal communication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BeWD classification is built from external spectra, colors, and SED fitting, with no fitted parameter or self-citation forced to produce the conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. S0 is associated with the nova by a 0.16 arcsec coincidence and sub-0.65% chance-alignment probabilities; the B-type classification is supported independently by the reddening-free Q = -0.94 and by Kurucz SED fits (T ~ 26000-31000 K, R ~ 12-14 Rsun), with the archival Shafter et al. (2024) spectrum (H-alpha in emission, He I absorption) providing the Be indicator. The binary separation (37-68 Rsun) is obtained by Kepler's third law from assumed period and masses, not from any fitted quantity. The A_V = 0.82 choice is calibrated for consistency with the same archival spectrum later quoted for the Be classification; this is a consistency choice rather than an equation that forces the target conclusion, and the B-type identification does not depend solely on that spectrum. Self-citations (Basu et al. 2024a,b,c) are used for data provenance, photometric zero-points, and comparison with M31N 2008-12a; none is load-bearing as a uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter. The paper also explicitly flags its weakest assumptions: the CFHT 14.27-day peak lies below the 1% false-alarm probability, the y-band 'marginal rise' is not significant, and Section 4 concedes that S0 might not be the donor and that the periodicity might not be orbital. These stated caveats, together with the absence of any equation reducing a prediction to an input by construction, mean the central BeWD proposal is a conditional interpretation rather than a circular derivation. The skeptic's concern about unquantified disc accretion is a correctness/support gap, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity. Its central claim rests on several unverified domain assumptions: the orbital interpretation of the 14.3-day period, the identity of S0 as the donor, the adopted extinction, the association of the archival spectrum with S0, and the applicability of Be-disc accretion theory to this system. The SED fit parameters and extinction choice are fitted or hand-selected values that directly influence the inferred stellar temperature, radius, and hence the BeWD classification.

free parameters (4)
  • Adopted foreground extinction A_V = 0.82 mag
    Chosen between Montalto et al. (2009) A_V = 0.82 and Draine et al. (2014) A_V = 1.69 because it makes dereddened fluxes consistent with the Shafter et al. (2024) spectrum. This choice affects the SED temperatures and radii.
  • Kurucz SED fit parameters = T_eff 26000-31000 K; R 12-14 Rsun
    Least-squares fits with bootstrap uncertainties. The fitted radius is larger than normal B-star radii and is later interpreted as an extended emitting region or Be disc, so the fit is load-bearing for the BeWD claim.
  • Assumed WD mass = 1.3 Msun
    Adopted from Shara et al. (2018) to calculate the binary separation; not measured for this system.
  • Assumed Be star mass range = 2-20 Msun
    Literature range from Rivinius et al. (2013), used to derive the 37-68 Rsun separation bracket.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 14.3-day photometric periodicity equals the orbital period of the binary.
    Stated as an assumption in Section 4; if false, the Kepler separation and disk-embedding argument fail.
  • domain assumption S0 is the donor star in the binary producing the recurrent outbursts.
    Stated in Section 4; S0 is spatially coincident, but the authors note a triple-system alternative in which S0 need not be the donor.
  • domain assumption The Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with A_V = 0.82 applies along the line of sight.
    Adopted in Section 3.4 after comparing two extinction maps; a wrong extinction would shift the SED-derived temperature and radius.
  • domain assumption The archival spectrum from Shafter et al. (2024) is associated with S0 and not contaminated by S1 or S2.
    The spectrum is used as evidence for a B-type star with H-alpha emission; if contamination is significant, the Be identification weakens.
  • domain assumption Be decretion discs can extend to 10-100 stellar radii and can feed a white dwarf companion.
    Accepted from Rivinius et al. (2013) and Zhu et al. (2023); used to argue that the WD is embedded in the disc and accretes enough mass.
  • standard math Kepler's third law relates separation to period and total mass for the derived 37-68 Rsun range.
    Applied in Section 4 to convert the assumed P = 14.3 days and assumed masses into a binary separation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenging Classical Paradigms: Recurrent Nova M31N 2017-01e, a BeWD system in M31?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3OORMPCQ

@misc{pith2026250802227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenging Classical Paradigms: Recurrent Nova M31N 2017-01e, a BeWD system in M31?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3OORMPCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02227}
}
abstract

M31N 2017-01e is the second-fastest recurrent nova known, with a recurrence period of 2.5 years in the Andromeda Galaxy (M31). This system exhibits a unique combination of properties: a low outburst amplitude ($\sim3$ magnitude), starkly contrasting with known recurrent novae (typically $\geq 6$ magnitudes), and a very fast evolution ($t_{2}\sim 5 $ days). Its position coincides with a bright variable source ($\mathrm{{M_V \sim -4.2,\, B-V= 0.042}}$) displaying a 14.3 day photometric modulation, which has been suggested as the likely progenitor. We present a multi-wavelength analysis of optical and UV data spanning quiescence and the 2019 and 2024 outbursts. Archival high-resolution imaging reveals two nearby faint sources within $5^{\prime\prime}$ of the proposed nova system, which we identified as unrelated field stars. Color analysis and spectral energy distribution fitting suggest the progenitor is likely an early-type star. Combined with archival spectra consistent with a B-type star with H$\alpha$ in emission, this points to the quiescent counterpart being a Be star with a circumstellar disc. We propose that M31N 2017-01e arises from a rare Be-WD binary, where the WD accretes from the decretion disk of its companion, explaining its rapid recurrence, low-amplitude outbursts, and unusual quiescent luminosity and color. This analysis highlights M31N 2017-01e as a compelling outlier among recurrent novae, suggesting a distinct accretion mechanism and evolutionary path that challenges the prevailing paradigm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.02227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top): 2024 outburst light curve, (Bottom): 2019 outburst light curve; t2 is marked in vertical dashed line. The 2024 data is given in Table-A2. All ZTF data used is available on SNAD and ALeRCE. The Swift/UVOT data is tabulated in Table-A4. bands in both CFHT and ZTF data which is analyzed in the next section. 3.2. The Quiescent Counterpart We analyzed archival ZTF data to verify the periodic￾ity reported for this … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the ZTF data, showing the highest power at a period of 14.29 days. The dotted line marks the 1% FAP (False alarm probability) level, indicating the statistical significance of the periodogram peak, Right: Phase-folded Light curve. The ZTF-phase has been shifted by a constant value to match the phase of INT data. F147W filter. The full photometry for S0 is presented in Table A1. S0 c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top-left): UVIT F148W image taken on 11th November 2022. (Top-right): Median combined CFHT u-band image. The yellow circle denotes a 5′′ radius centered on the reported nova position. Three sources within this region are labeled S1, S0, and S2 from left to right. (Bottom): Color–magnitude diagram of the three sources. Archival photometry from Vilardell et al. (2006), Massey et al. (2006), and ZTF corresponds to the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase-folded light curve. (Left): A period of 14.27 days is derived from the CFHT-r data and the remaining data set is phase-folded to this period. Details of the CFHT, UVOT and UVIT data is available in Tables A3,A4,A1 respectively. The two phase intervals highlighted…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed SEDs (black marker) over-plotted with the best fit Kurucz model spectra (solid plot) and a power law fit (grey dash) with index alpha at different phases (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

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.

  1. A Century of Novae in the Large Magellanic Cloud

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LMC novae have higher average white-dwarf masses and expansion velocities than M31 novae, yielding a ~21% recurrent-nova eruption fraction versus ~6% in M31.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  2. [2]

    Apparao, K. M. V. 1991, A&A, 248, 139 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 1991

  3. [3]

    T., et al

    Banerjee, G., Mathew, B., Paul, K. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3469

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3469 2021

  4. [4]

    Anupama, G. C. 2024a, ApJ, 971, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad596b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad596b

  5. [5]

    C., et al

    Basu, J., Pavana, M., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2024c, ApJ, 966, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c8e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c8e

  6. [6]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  7. [7]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 11

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 11

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Boulade, O., Charlot, X., Abbon, P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 72–81, doi: 10.1117/12.459890

    doi:10.1117/12.459890 2003

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 391, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., Evans, P. A., & Udalski, A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa112

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    J., & Kirk, J

    Coe, M. J., & Kirk, J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 969, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1283

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    J., & Henze, M

    Darnley, M. J., & Henze, M. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1147, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.09.044

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Williams, R

    Hounsell, R. A., & Williams, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/61

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Henze, M., Bode, M

    Darnley, M. J., Henze, M., Bode, M. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/149

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/172

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Evans, A., Banerjee, D. P. K., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2711

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d F¨ orster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  14. [22]

    Gaposchkin, C. H. P. 1957, The Galactic Novae

    1957

  15. [23]

    M., Coe, M

    Gaudin, T. M., Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2176

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Williams, S

    Henze, M., Darnley, M. J., Williams, S. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6a6

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Hovhannessian, R. K. 2004, Astrophysics, 47, 499, doi: 10.1023/B:ASYS.0000049788.48071.55

    2004

  20. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Richards, G

    Jester, S., Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 873, doi: 10.1086/432466

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    L., & Filipovi´ c, M

    Kahabka, P., Haberl, F., Payne, J. L., & Filipovi´ c, M. D. 2006, A&A, 458, 285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065490

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/136

    Kato, M., Saio, H., Hachisu, I., & Nomoto, K. 2014, ApJ, 793, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/136

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Coe, M

    Kennea, J. A., Coe, M. J., Evans, P. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2632 K.Itagaki. 2017, TCP J00441072+4154221, http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/unconf/followups/ J00441072+4154221.html

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Rivinius, T., et al

    Klement, R., Carciofi, A. C., Rivinius, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629932 Krtiˇ cka, J. 2014, A&A, 564, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321980

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Kuin, N. P. M., Page, K. L., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2960

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Hutchings, J., et al

    Kumar, A., Ghosh, S. K., Hutchings, J., et al. 2012, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder (SPIE), doi: 10.1117/12.924507

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    C., et al

    Kumar, H., Bhalerao, V., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1, doi: 10.1086/190589

    1979 doi

  30. [38]

    G., McLean, B

    Lasker, B., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The Guide Star Catalog, Version 2.4.2 (GSC2.4.2) (STScI, 2020), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/353. Originally published in: 2008AJ....136..735L

    2021

  31. [39]

    M., Lattanzi, M

    Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Postma, J., Chen, Y., & Buick, M

    Leahy, D. A., Postma, J., Chen, Y., & Buick, M. 2020, apjs, 247, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab77a9

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Kong, A

    Li, K. L., Kong, A. K. H., Charles, P. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/99

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    V., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Malanchev, K., Kornilov, M. V., Pruzhinskaya, M. V., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 024503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb292

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21371, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21371

    Marino, A., Yang, H., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21371, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21371

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., Hodge, P. W., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2478, doi: 10.1086/503256

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  38. [46]

    2009, A&A, 507, 283, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912179

    Montalto, M., Seitz, S., Riffeser, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 283, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912179

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/118 12

    Morii, M., Tomida, H., Kimura, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/118 12

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 55, 47, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.47 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)

    Munari, U. 2025, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 55, 47, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.47 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, Astrophysics Source Code Librar...

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, A&A, 677, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    Neumann, M., Avakyan, A., Doroshenko, V., & Santangelo, A. 2023, A&A, 677, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    T., & Negueruela, I

    Okazaki, A. T., & Negueruela, I. 2001, A&A, 377, 161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011083

    2001 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Steiner, J

    Oliveira, A. S., Steiner, J. E., Ricci, T. V., Menezes, R. B., & Borges, B. W. 2010, A&A, 517, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014773

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 739, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/739 Paczy´ nski, B

    Harbeck, D. 2010, ApJ, 717, 739, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/739 Paczy´ nski, B. 1967, AcA, 17, 355

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Brindle, C., Talavera, A., et al

    Page, M. J., Brindle, C., Talavera, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21706.x

    2012

  46. [54]

    Pagnotta, A., & Schaefer, B. E. 2014, ApJ, 788, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/164

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Clem, J

    Pagnotta, A., Schaefer, B. E., Clem, J. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/32

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    E., & Leahy, D

    Postma, J. E., & Leahy, D. 2017, pasp, 129, 115002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa8800

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Raguzova, N. V. 2001, A&A, 367, 848, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000348

    2001 doi

  51. [59]

    2011, Ap&SS, 332, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    Reig, P. 2011, Ap&SS, 332, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 69, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2511

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2013, A&A, 560, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220627

    Selvelli, P., & Gilmozzi, R. 2013, A&A, 560, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220627

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    W., Taguchi, K., Zhao, J., & Hornoch, K

    Shafter, A. W., Taguchi, K., Zhao, J., & Hornoch, K. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 241, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aca2a6

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    W., Zhao, J., Hornoch, K., et al

    Shafter, A. W., Zhao, J., Hornoch, K., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 256, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad84d5

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Prialnik, D., Hillman, Y., & Kovetz, A

    Shara, M. M., Prialnik, D., Hillman, Y., & Kovetz, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbd

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    N., Sonneborn, G., Starrfield, S

    Shore, S. N., Sonneborn, G., Starrfield, S. G., et al. 1991, ApJ, 370, 193, doi: 10.1086/169804

    1991 doi

  60. [68]

    2012, A&A, 537, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117789

    Sturm, R., Haberl, F., Pietsch, W., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117789

    2012 doi

  61. [69]

    N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8451

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  64. [72]

    2019, PNV J00441073+4154220, http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/ unconf/followups/J00441073+4154220.html van den Heuvel, E

    Tu, T., Xu, J., Zhang, M., & Gao, X. 2019, PNV J00441073+4154220, http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/ unconf/followups/J00441073+4154220.html van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & de

    2019

  65. [73]

    Mink, S. E. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1430

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2006, A&A, 459, 321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065667

    Vilardell, F., Ribas, I., & Jordi, C. 2006, A&A, 459, 321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065667

    2006 doi

  67. [75]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    C., & Darnley, M

    Williams, S. C., & Darnley, M. J. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10042, 1

    2017

  69. [77]

    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

  70. [78]

    2022, PNV J00441072+4154224, http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/ unconf/followups/J00441072+4154224.html

    Zhao, J., Zhang, M., Ruan, J., et al. 2022, PNV J00441072+4154224, http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/ unconf/followups/J00441072+4154224.html

    2022

  71. [79]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 025021, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acafc7 13 APPENDIX A

    Zhu, C.-H., L¨ u, G.-L., Lu, X.-Z., & He, J. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 025021, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acafc7 13 APPENDIX A. TABLES T able A1.AstroSat/UltraViolet Imaging Telescope archival and 2024 outburst data log and magnitudes Observation ID Observa...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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