Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 88 references

The Unexplored Dusty Nova LMCN 2009-05a in the Large Magellanic Cloud

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 LMCN 2009-05a is a moderately fast, dust-forming D-class nova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, with dust appearing about 78 days after outburst and a 700 K shell on day 395.

desk verdict Solid single-object study of an LMC dusty nova; the D-class classification and light-curve parameters hold up, but the WISE-derived dust properties are mission-average rather than a day-395 snapshot, and a few supporting calculations need cleanup. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13851 v1 pith:OOO2WWLH submitted 2025-08-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Mohit Singh Bisht , A. Raj , F. M. Walter , Anatoly S. Miroshnichenko , D. Bisht , K. Belwal , Shraddha Biswas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords classicalnovaedustformationLargeMagellanicCloudD-classnovalightcurveanalysisphotoionizationmodelinginfraredexcesstcond-t2relation
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 establishes that the poorly studied nova LMCN 2009-05a in the Large Magellanic Cloud is a moderately fast, dust-forming (D-class) classical nova. Optical photometry shows a sharp dust dip beginning roughly 78 days after outburst, confirmed by a simultaneous rise in near-infrared brightness and by a discrete absorption feature in the Hα and [O I] line profiles that hides the receding ejecta. The authors derive a decline time t2 = 46 ± 3 days, a dust temperature near 700 K on day 395, carbonaceous grain sizes of a few tenths of a micron, and enhanced nitrogen and oxygen abundances from photoionization modeling. Placing this nova on the dust-condensation-time versus t2 diagram, they find that LMC novae follow the same correlation as Galactic novae, with a combined fit tcond = 5.34 $t2^{0}$.67. The result matters because it adds one of the few LMC novae with measured dust properties and suggests that the physics controlling when dust forms in nova ejecta is similar across galactic environments.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three coupled measurements. The optical dust dip—a sudden BVRI drop of roughly four magnitudes between days 67 and 89 with recovery by day 155—combined with a simultaneous JHK rise marks dust formation and dates it through the inferred condensation time tcond. Spectral energy distribution fitting to four WISE bands gives the dust temperature, mass, and grain size under an isothermal, optically thin carbon-grain assumption. The tcond–t2 correlation, a power-law relation between when dust appears and how fast the nova fades, is the interpretive device that links this single object to a population: with t2 = 46 days and tcond ≈ 78 days, LMCN 2009-05a lands on the same locus as Galactic dusty novae, supporting the combined fit tcond = 5.34 $t2^{0}$.67.

What would settle it

Nightly optical and near-infrared photometry of a future LMC nova from days 60 to 100 after outburst would locate the first night the optical flux drops while the infrared rises; if that true condensation time differs from the gap-midpoint estimate by more than the quoted ±10 days, the nova's position on the tcond–t2 diagram and the fitted power laws would shift accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LMCN 2009-05a was a D-class dusty nova: after a slow rise to V = 12.29 on day 15.5, its BVRI light curve fell into an optical minimum (deepest at B ≈ 19.0 on day 108) while the near-infrared brightened, the classic signature of dust condensing in the ejecta and obscuring the photosphere. The onset is placed at 78 ± 10 days because no photometry exists between days 67 and 89; the dip bottom and recovery place the optically thick phase between roughly days 78 and 155. From WISE photometry on day 395 the dust formed a ~700 K shell with mass ~$10^{-9}$ solar masses and grain radii 0.06–0.13 micron, depending on carbon grain type. Photoionization modeling of the day 79 and day 236 spectra yields a low-mass (0.77 solar mass) CO white dwarf, nitrogen and oxygen enhanced over solar, and a slow transition from a dense clumpy Fe II ejecta to a diffuse nebular phase. The paper's broader conclusion is that this nova's dust condensation time fits the same tcond–t2 correlation established for Galactic novae, so dust onset in the LMC follows the same clock.

Load-bearing premise

The dust onset time of 78 ± 10 days is assumed to be the midpoint of a photometric gap between days 67 and 89, because no observations catch the actual start of the dip.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LMCN 2009-05a becomes one of only about seven LMC novae known to form dust, raising the census of extra-galactic dusty novae with measured dust properties.
  • If the tcond–t2 relation holds in the LMC, the fitted power law can predict when dust should appear in a newly discovered LMC nova once its t2 is known, guiding when to point infrared telescopes.
  • The low white-dwarf mass (~0.77 solar mass) and low outburst luminosity place this nova in the faint group of classical novae, supporting a CO white dwarf progenitor in this system.
  • The enhanced nitrogen and oxygen abundances indicate that CNO-processed material was ejected and available for dust condensation, linking the measured dust to nucleosynthesis in the outburst.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tcond–t2 correlation is truly metallicity-independent, then dust onset in novae is set by the thermal and density evolution of the ejecta rather than by the availability of condensable elements—a testable claim for future LMC and SMC novae.
  • The dust-dip visibility may depend on viewing geometry, with dust concentrated near the equatorial plane, so the true fraction of dust-forming novae could be higher than the ~13% observed; inclination estimates for LMC novae would test this.
  • The single-epoch WISE spectral energy distribution assumes isothermal dust; multi-epoch infrared spectroscopy around days 100–400 would reveal grain growth or destruction and check whether the ~700 K temperature and ~10^-9 solar mass are stable or just a snapshot.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-epoch spectrophotometric study of the LMC nova LMCN 2009-05a using AAVSO and SMARTS BVRIJHK photometry, 34 SMARTS optical spectra spanning days 8-261, and WISE mid-infrared images. The authors report an optical dust dip beginning between days 67 and 89, classify the nova as D-class following Strope et al. (2010), and measure t2 = 46 ± 3 days, placing it in the moderately fast class; the t3 value of about 80 days is obtained from the Warner (1995) t2-t3 scaling relation rather than measured directly from the light curve. The spectra show Fe II P-Cygni profiles in the early decline that evolve into a nebular phase, with a discrete absorption feature near +300 km/s in H-alpha and [O I] during the optical minimum. CLOUDY photoionization models of the day-79 and day-236 spectra yield enhanced N and O abundances. Fitting a blackbody to four WISE bands attributed to day 395 gives T_dust ~ 700 ± 50 K, dust masses ~ 2-5 × 10^-9 M_sun, and grain radii of 0.06-0.13 micron. The object is added to the LMC tcond-t2 sample, and the power-law fits agree with the Galactic correlation.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the paper's significance is solid but incremental: it adds one well-characterized extragalactic dusty nova to a small LMC sample (now seven objects), strengthening the empirical case that the Galactic tcond-t2 correlation holds in the LMC, and it provides rare LMC-based estimates of nova dust temperature, mass, and grain size. The spectroscopic dataset is a genuine archival contribution, and the CLOUDY modeling is presented transparently, with tabulated line fluxes, parameter sets, and reduced chi-squared values for two epochs. The D-class classification itself is well supported by the optical dip, the NIR rise, and the asymmetric/discrete absorption features in the line profiles, and the t2 = 46-day measurement is directly grounded in the photometry. The main caveats concern the epoch attribution of the WISE SED and the interpolated dust-condensation time, both of which enter the paper's headline quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.7, Fig. 12, Eqs. 8-10] The four-band WISE SED described as taken "around day 395" is not a single-epoch measurement. The Figure 12 caption states that the WISE images are coadded data from observations taken between January 2010 and January 2011, i.e., spanning roughly days 240-620 after outburst, with W1 and W2 including later post-cryogenic data while W3 and W4 stop in the cryogenic era around August 2010; the four bands therefore average different epochs. Day 395 corresponds to 2010 June 3, inside this window, so the resulting blackbody fit (T = 700 ± 50 K) and everything derived from it - dust masses via Eqs. (8)-(9), grain radii via Eq. (10), and the "day 395" statements in the abstract and Conclusions item 5 - are not measurements at the stated epoch. For a cooling, fading dust shell, the coadd biases the temperature and all downstream quantities. The authors should extract time-resolved WISE/NEOWISE photometry near day 395, or explicitly present the SED as a mission-average measurement with the per-band epoch coverage stated and the corresponding systematic uncertainty propagated into the quoted dust properties.
  2. [Section 3.1; Table 6; Figs. 14-15; Eqs. 11-12] The dust condensation time tcond = 78 ± 10 days is an interpolation, not a measured value: Section 3.1 states that no observations exist between days 67 and 89 and that the onset "is taken to be" the midpoint of this photometric gap. This inferred value is a load-bearing input to the paper's comparative conclusion, since it enters Table 6, Figure 14, and the power-law fits of Eqs. (11)-(12). The authors should bracket tcond explicitly within the observed window [67, 89] days, test the sensitivity of the fitted relations to tcond = 67 and tcond = 89 days, and temper the statements in Section 4 and the abstract so that the correlation claim reflects the uncertainty in this one point.
  3. [Section 3.8, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) for the grain radius, a ≃ L0/(16π R^2 A σ T^(β+4)), cannot be evaluated from the information given: the absorption parameters A and β are never defined, and no numerical values are stated, even though the derived sizes a = 0.06 ± 0.01 µm (amorphous carbon) and a = 0.13 ± 0.04 µm (graphite) are quoted as results in the abstract and in Conclusions item 5. The calculation also assumes a constant bolometric luminosity from outburst through day 395 and uses R = V0 × t with V0 = 690 km/s taken from the HWHM of emission lines; the sensitivity of a to these choices should be discussed, and the adopted values of A and β (with references) must be supplied to make the result reproducible.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.1] The abstract states that "Light curve analysis yields t2 and t3 decline times of approximately 46 and 80 days," but t3 is not measured from the light curve: it is derived from the Warner (1995) scaling relation t3 = 2.75 t2^0.88, as stated in Section 3.1. Please reword the abstract, and propagate the intrinsic scatter of that relation into the white dwarf mass estimate M_WD = 0.77 ± 0.10 M⊙ derived from t3 via the Livio (1992) relations.
  2. [Section 3.1] The bolometric correction formula is printed as Mbol = 4.8 + 2.5 log(L/L⊙); the sign is wrong and should be Mbol = 4.8 - 2.5 log(L/L⊙). The quoted luminosity (4.64 ± 0.65) × 10^4 L⊙ is consistent with the corrected sign, so this appears to be a typographical error.
  3. [Section 3.8] The dust-shell radius R = 2.59 × 10^15 cm for day 395 does not follow from the stated inputs: V0 = 690 km/s for 395 days gives R ≈ 2.36 × 10^15 cm, and the quoted value corresponds to about 434 days (or V0 ≈ 760 km/s). Please correct the arithmetic and adjust the grain radii accordingly.
  4. [Table 7] The reference entry "(12) This paper" is listed as a source of tcond/t2 for V1655 Sco and V6594 Sgr, but these objects are not analyzed in this manuscript; this self-citation appears to be an error and should be replaced with the correct literature sources (e.g., Kawash et al. 2021 for V1655 Sco).
  5. [Section 4; Table 6] The text refers to "LMC 1998#1" while Table 6 lists "LMC 1988#1"; please make the object naming consistent.
  6. [Section 3.7; Figure 13] The WISE magnitudes or fluxes used in the Figure 13 SED fit are not tabulated anywhere; providing them, with the epoch coverage of each band, is necessary for the fit to be reproduced, especially given the coadd-epoch issue raised above.
  7. [Section 4] The statement that the LMC-only fit has "slopes and coefficients very similar" to the combined fit should be supported by quoting the fitted parameters with their uncertainties; with seven LMC points (one of which is new), the LMC-only power-law index is not tightly constrained and the comparison with the combined fit is otherwise difficult to evaluate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: central claims rest on external photometry/spectroscopy and standard model inversion; the tcond value is an acknowledged interpolation, and self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main results (D-class dust dip, t2, dust temperature, CLOUDY abundances, and the tcond-t2 correlation) are derived from external AAVSO/SMARTS/WISE data and standard published formulas (Williams 1994; Osterbrock & Ferland 2006; Evans et al. 2017; Gehrz et al. 2018), not from assumptions that already contain those results. The dust onset tcond = 78 ± 10 days is explicitly stated as the midpoint of a photometric gap: 'There were no observations between days 67 and 89, so the onset of dust formation is taken to be around 78 ± 10 days since outburst.' That is an acknowledged interpolation, not a value obtained from the correlation it is later compared with. The tcond-t2 power laws in Eqs. 11-12 are sample fits that include LMCN 2009-05a as one of seven LMC points; the new object does not define the relation by construction. CLOUDY line fitting is standard model inversion with stated parameters, and no fitted output is fed back as an input to derive itself. The D-class classification is a standard morphological label applied to an observed optical dust dip, not a derivation of the dip from the label. Two caveats are non-circular concerns: (1) Section 3.7 and Figure 13 attach the WISE SED to 'day 395,' while the Figure 12 caption states the WISE images are 'coadded data from observations taken between January 2010 and January 2011,' so the 700 K temperature, dust mass, and grain size may not be single-epoch measurements; (2) Table 7 lists 'This paper' as a source for tcond of V1655 Sco and V6594 Sgr, but the manuscript contains no derivation of those values, creating a provenance gap for two Galactic comparison points. Neither issue makes a derived quantity reduce to its input by construction, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main results depend on adopted values for LMC distance and reddening, the use of Warner's empirical t3-t2 scaling, the CLOUDY model assumptions (blackbody source, two-component density), and on the assumption that the dust is spherical carbonaceous grains. The Warner scaling and the carbonaceous composition are the least independently verified premises. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • CLOUDY central source TBB (day 79) = 1.61e4 K
    Fitted to reproduce 27 optical line fluxes on day 79; a higher TBB changes the ionization balance and all abundance outputs.
  • CLOUDY central source TBB (day 236) = 1.99e5 K
    Fitted to reproduce 22 nebular-phase line fluxes; this is an order of magnitude hotter than the day 79 value, reflecting the later He/N and nebular phases.
  • CLOUDY luminosity = 6.83e36 erg/s (day 79), 7.94e36 erg/s (day 236)
    Model luminosity of the ionizing source; about 24 times lower than the photometric outburst luminosity, a discrepancy the paper does not discuss.
  • CLOUDY N abundance (day 79) = 75 +/- 15 times solar
    Derived from a single N II 5755 line; highly model-dependent and a fragile basis for the CNO-enrichment claim.
  • CLOUDY O abundance (day 79) = 10 +/- 2 times solar
    Derived from five oxygen lines; better constrained than N but still coupled to density and filling factor assumptions.
  • Dust temperature (SED) = 700 +/- 50 K
    Best-fit blackbody to four WISE band fluxes on day 395; the paper acknowledges the isothermal assumption and the limited wavelength coverage.
  • tcond-t2 power-law coefficients (combined sample) = 5.34, 0.67
    Least-squares fit to 7 LMC and about 50 Galactic novae; no parameter uncertainties are quoted.
  • tcond-t2 power-law coefficients (LMC only) = 5.49, 0.65
    Fit to 7 LMC points only; the sample is small and includes the new measurement from this paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Distance to the LMC is 50 +/- 2 kpc (Pietrzynski et al. 2013)
    Used to convert fluxes to absolute magnitudes, luminosities, and masses; adopted in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Reddening E(B-V) = 0.13 +/- 0.02 toward LMCN 2009-05a
    Averaged from literature values in Section 3.3; all dereddened line fluxes and the absolute magnitude depend on it.
  • domain assumption Warner (1995) relation t3 = 2.75 t2^0.88
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive t3 because the dust dip prevents a direct t3 measurement; the resulting t3 feeds the WD mass estimate.
  • domain assumption CLOUDY central source is a blackbody and the ejecta has a two-component (clumpy plus diffuse) density structure
    Adopted in Section 3.6 following prior nova modeling; the derived abundances and temperatures are conditional on this geometry.
  • domain assumption Dust grains are spherical and carbonaceous, with density 2.25 g/cm^3
    Assumed in Sections 3.7 and 3.8 for dust mass and grain size; the values scale with the adopted composition and grain shape.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity stayed constant from maximum to day 395
    Explicitly assumed in Section 3.8 for the grain-radius estimate; in reality the nova faded substantially during that period.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Unexplored Dusty Nova LMCN 2009-05a in the Large Magellanic Cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOO2WWLH

@misc{pith2026250813851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Unexplored Dusty Nova LMCN 2009-05a in the Large Magellanic Cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOO2WWLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13851}
}
read the original abstract

We present a detailed spectrophotometric study of nova LMCN 2009-05a, located in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). Photometric observations reveal a dust dip in the optical light curve, classifying it as a D-class nova. Light curve analysis yields t2 and t3 decline times of approximately 46 and 80 days, respectively, placing the nova in the category of moderately fast novae. Spectroscopic observations cover multiple phases, including pre-maximum, early decline, and nebular. The spectra are initially dominated by hydrogen Balmer and Fe II lines with P-Cygni profiles, which later transition into pure emission. During the optical minimum, a discrete absorption feature was observed in the H{\alpha} and [O I] line profiles. The physical and chemical properties during the early decline and nebular phases were analyzed using the photoionization code CLOUDY. Dust temperature, mass, and grain size were estimated through spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting to the WISE data. On day 395 post-outburst, we estimate the dust temperature to be approximately 700 K. Additionally, we examined the correlation between dust condensation time (tcond ) and t2 for LMC novae, finding a trend consistent with previous studies of Galactic novae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13851 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical light curves of LMCN 2009-05a from day 3.5 to 3591 generated using optical data from AAVSO and SMARTS. An inset highlights the first 200 days, showing the light curve behavior during the optical minimum, indicating obscuration of optical flux by dust (see Section 3.1 for more details). 2017; Raj et al. 2017), and 6.7 for V5579 Sgr (Raj et al. 2024). In the final NIR light curve observation (day 3591), the no… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical color of LMCN 2009-05a from day 11 to 650 generated using SMARTS. The large error bars near day 126 correspond to data obtained under non-photometric conditions. present 34 low-dispersion spectra spanning from 2009 May 12 to 2010 January 21 (day 8 to 261). The pre￾maximum spectra taken on day 8 and 10 showed emis￾sion from Balmer lines (Hα, Hβ, Hγ, Hδ), lines of Fe II multiplets (4924, 5018, 5169 ˚A) along w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NIR light curves of LMCN 2009-05a from day 11 to 3591 generated using SMARTS. spectrum taken on day 185 showed that the line fluxes of the nebular lines ([O III] 4363, 4959, 5007 ˚A) had increased. In December 2009, the full spectrum taken on day 236 showed the strongest lines: Hα, followed by [O III] 5007, 4363, Hβ, [O III] 4959, and [N II] 5755 ˚A. In the final spectra taken at 260 and 261 days, nebular lines domi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NIR color of LMCN 2009-05a from day 11 to 650 generated using SMARTS. The oxygen mass can be estimated using the relation of Williams (1994), m(O) M⊙ = 152d 2 kpcexp[ 22850 Te ]×101.05E(B−V ) τ 1 − e−τ Fλ6300 (4) The measured line flux ratios, optical depth, and the de…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Early spectroscopic evolution of Nova LMCN 2009-05a, obtained from day 8 (2009 May 12) to day 79 (2009 July 23). The spectra prominently feature Fe II multiplets and hydrogen Balmer lines. Identified lines are marked, and the time since discovery (in days) is labeled b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectroscopic evolution of Nova LMCN 2009-05a during the dust formation phase, from day 82 (2009 July 26) to day 171 (2009 October 23). Identified lines are marked, and the time since discovery (in days) is labeled beside each spectrum. total of 27 emission lines from …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the Hα line profiles in the nova spectrum from 68 to 93 days after outburst. All profiles are plotted in velocity space, corrected for the LMC velocity (278 km s−1 Richter et al. (1987)). The vertical dashed black line marks the zero velocity. A discrete a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: H α and [O I] 6300 ˚A line profiles with radial velocities corrected for the LMC velocity (278 km s−1 Richter et al. (1987)). The shaded regions mark the location of the reversal feature observed during the nebular phase (more details in section 3.4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Observed optical spectrum (black) of Nova LMCN 2009-05a on 23 July 2009 (day 79), plotted over with the best-fitting CLOUDY model (red). 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Wavelength (Å) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Relative Intensity H I H H N III+[Fe III] He II H [O III] …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Observed optical spectrum (black) of Nova LMCN 2009-05a on 2009 December 27 (day 236), plotted over with the best-fitting CLOUDY model (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A mosaic of a 3x3 arc minute square field around LMCN 2009-05a. The source is detected in all 4 WISE bands: W1 (3.4 µm), W2 (4.6 µm), W3 (12 µm) and W4 (22 µm); the emission at W2 and W3 bands is pronounced. The WISE images were obtained from the WISE portal and repre…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The SED shows a best fit blackbody to the WISE data taken on day 395, with a temperature of about 700 K. The asymmetric line profiles in the Hα and [O I] lines during the dust dip, which occurs near 82 day, indi￾cate selective obscuration of the receding ejecta by dus…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Correlation between the dust tcond and t2 for novae in the LMC. The observed trend is consistent with previous studies of Galactic (Shafter et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2013). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 t c o n d ( d a y s ) Galactic Novae Fit: tcond = 5.34 t2 0.67 …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Power-law fit to the correlation between tcond and t2 for both LMC and Galactic novae. The black solid line represents the best-fit relation, tcond = 5.34×t 0.67 2 , while the shaded region indicates the 1σ confidence interval. The lower panel displays the residuals o…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    xƑ+wa ER ` 2Z :J ʰ:r= ` ,

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.09232, 10.48550/arXiv.1903.09232

    Aydi , E., Chomiuk , L., Strader , J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.09232, 10.48550/arXiv.1903.09232

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.09232 2019

  5. [5]

    2024, , 527, 9303, 10.1093/mnras/stad3342

    ---. 2024, , 527, 9303, 10.1093/mnras/stad3342

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3342 2024

  6. [6]

    L., Chomiuk , L., et al

    Babul , A.-N., Sokoloski , J. L., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2022, , 515, 3028, 10.1093/mnras/stac1366

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1366 2022

  7. [7]

    Babul , A. N. V. 2021, PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York

    2021

  8. [8]

    Banerjee , D. P. K., Anupama , G. C., Munari , U., et al. 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14272, 1

    2020

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Banerjee , D. P. K., Srivastava , M. K., Ashok , N. M., et al. 2018, , 473, 1895, 10.1093/mnras/stx2459

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Banerjee , D. P. K., Joshi , V., Anupama , G. C., et al. 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14338, 1

    2021

  3. [11]

    Banerjee , D. P. K., Woodward , C. E., Joshi , V., et al. 2023, , 954, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf0c4

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Raj , A., Walter , F

    Bisht , M. S., Raj , A., Walter , F. M., et al. 2025, , 536, 2661, 10.1093/mnras/stae2742

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    F., & Evans , A

    Bode , M. F., & Evans , A. 2008, Classical Novae , 2nd edn., Cambridge Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), 10.1017/CBO9780511536168

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, Revista mexicana de astronom \' a y astrof \' sica, 59, 327

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Revista mexicana de astronom \' a y astrof \' sica, 59, 327

    2023

  7. [15]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 391

    2021

  8. [16]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, staf1001, 10.1093/mnras/staf1001

    Chong, A., Aydi, E., Craig, P., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, staf1001, 10.1093/mnras/staf1001

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Banerjee , D

    Das , R. K., Banerjee , D. P. K., & Ashok , N. M. 2009, , 398, 375, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15141.x

    2009

  10. [18]

    K., Banerjee , D

    Das , R. K., Banerjee , D. P. K., Ashok , N. M., & Chesneau , O. 2008, , 391, 1874, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13998.x

    2008

  11. [19]

    2020, , 28, 3, 10.1007/s00159-020-0124-6

    Della Valle , M., & Izzo , L. 2020, , 28, 3, 10.1007/s00159-020-0124-6

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2008, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, 43, 308

    Evans, A., & Rawlings, J. 2008, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, 43, 308

    2008

  13. [21]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 4221

    Evans, A., Banerjee, D., Gehrz, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 4221

    2017

  14. [22]

    D., et al

    Finzell , T., Chomiuk , L., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2018, , 852, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa12a

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    C., & Buson , S

    Franckowiak , A., Jean , P., Wood , M., Cheung , C. C., & Buson , S. 2018, , 609, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731516

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

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

    1957

  17. [25]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 78

    Gehrz, R., Evans, A., Woodward, C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 78

    2018

  18. [26]

    Gehrz, R. D. 1988, IN: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Volume 26 (A89-14601 03-90). Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews, Inc., 1988, p. 377-412. Research supported by the University of Minnesota, USAF and NSF., 26, 377

    1988

  19. [27]

    2008, CAMBRIDGE ASTROPHYSICS SERIES, 43, 167

    ---. 2008, CAMBRIDGE ASTROPHYSICS SERIES, 43, 167

    2008

  20. [28]

    J., & Scott , P

    Grevesse , N., Asplund , M., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2010, , 328, 179, 10.1007/s10509-010-0288-z

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    2007, , 662, 552, 10.1086/517600

    Hachisu , I., & Kato , M. 2007, , 662, 552, 10.1086/517600

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Woodward, C

    Helton, L. A., Woodward, C. E., Walter, F. M., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1347

    2010

  23. [31]

    A., Gehrz , R

    Helton , L. A., Gehrz , R. D., Woodward , C. E., et al. 2012, , 755, 37, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/37

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    1972, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 158, 177

    Hutchings, J. 1972, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 158, 177

    1972

  25. [33]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 969

    Imara, N., & Blitz, L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 969

    2007

  26. [34]

    Joshi , V., Banerjee , D. P. K., & Srivastava , M. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10492, 1

    2017

  27. [35]

    C., & Panchal , A

    Joshi , Y. C., & Panchal , A. 2019, , 628, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834574

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    , & Casanova, Jordi

    José, Jordi , Shore, Steven N. , & Casanova, Jordi . 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 634, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936893

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 74

    Kawakita, H., Ootsubo, T., Arai, A., Shinnaka, Y., & Nagashima, M. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 74

    2017

  30. [38]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 120

    Kawash, A., Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 120

    2021

  31. [39]

    K., Banerjee , D

    Kumar , V., Srivastava , M. K., Banerjee , D. P. K., et al. 2022, , 510, 4265, 10.1093/mnras/stab3772

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Liller , W., & Monard , L. A. G. 2009, , 9042, 1

    2009

  33. [41]

    1992, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Livio, M. 1992, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 393, no. 2, July 10, 1992, p. 516-522. Research supported by Space Telescope Science Institute., 393, 516

    1992

  34. [42]

    Mason , E., Della Valle , M., Gilmozzi , R., Lo Curto , G., & Williams , R. E. 2005, , 435, 1031, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041351

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al

    Mason , E., Shore , S. N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al. 2018, , 853, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa247

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 9

    Mr \'o z, P., Udalski, A., Poleski, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 9

    2016

  37. [45]

    2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14637, 1

    Munari , U., Dallaporta , S., & Vagnozzi , A. 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14637, 1

    2021

  38. [46]

    2014, , 440, 3402, 10.1093/mnras/stu547

    Munari , U., Ochner , P., Dallaporta , S., et al. 2014, , 440, 3402, 10.1093/mnras/stu547

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 505

    Ness, J.-U., Schwarz, G., Retter, A., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 505

    2007

  40. [48]

    E., & Ferland , G

    Osterbrock , D. E., & Ferland , G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)

    2006

  41. [49]

    1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Paresce, F., Livio, M., Hack, W., & Korista, K. 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 299, p. 823, 299, 823

    1995

  42. [50]

    2020, , 495, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/staa1219

    Pavana , M., Raj , A., Bohlsen , T., et al. 2020, , 495, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/staa1219

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    2013, Nature, 495, 76

    Pietrzy \'n ski, G., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 76

    2013

  44. [52]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 187, 10.1002/asna.200911324

    Pietsch , W. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 187, 10.1002/asna.200911324

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2576

    Raj, A., Ashok, N., Banerjee, D., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2576

    2012

  46. [54]

    M., Banerjee , D

    Raj , A., Ashok , N. M., Banerjee , D. P. K., et al. 2012, , 425, 2576, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21739.x

    2012

  47. [55]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 274

    Raj, A., Das, R., & Walter, F. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 274

    2017

  48. [56]

    2018, Acta Astronomica, 68, 79–88, 10.32023/0001-5237/68.1.4

    Raj, A., Pavana, M., Kamath, U., Anupama, G., & Walter, F. 2018, Acta Astronomica, 68, 79–88, 10.32023/0001-5237/68.1.4

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Walter, F., et al

    Raj, A., Bisht, M. S., Walter, F., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 41, e051, 10.1017/pasa.2024.65

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 49

    Ribeiro, V., Munari, U., & Valisa, P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 49

    2013

  51. [59]

    G., Tammann , G

    Richter , O. G., Tammann , G. A., & Huchtmeier , W. K. 1987, , 171, 33

    1987

  52. [60]

    J., Russell , R

    Rudy , R. J., Russell , R. W., Lynch , D. K., & Puetter , R. C. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 317, 10.3847/2515-5172/ada122

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 14, 10.3847/2515-5172/adab7b

    ---. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 14, 10.3847/2515-5172/adab7b

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Russell , R

    Rudy , R. J., Russell , R. W., & Sitko , M. L. 2021 a , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 120, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac0258

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    2021 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 273, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac3d2a

    ---. 2021 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 273, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac3d2a

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 6150

    2022

  57. [65]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103

    2011

  58. [66]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525

    1998

  59. [67]

    J., Hauschildt, P

    Schwarz, G. J., Hauschildt, P. H., Starrfield, S., et al. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 300, 931, 10.1111/j.1365-8711.1998.t01-1-01964.x

    1998

  60. [68]

    J., Ness, J.-U., Osborne, J., et al

    Schwarz, G. J., Ness, J.-U., Osborne, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 31

    2011

  61. [69]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 50

    Shafter, A., Bode, M., Darnley, M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 50

    2011

  62. [70]

    Shafter , A. W. 2013, , 145, 117, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/5/117

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Doyle, T., Lauer, T

    Shara, M. M., Doyle, T., Lauer, T. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 839, 109

    2017

  64. [72]

    Shore , S. N. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 185, 10.48550/arXiv.1211.3176

    2012 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    N., Kuin, N

    Shore, S. N., Kuin, N. P., Mason, E., & Aquino, I. D. G. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 619, A104

    2018

  66. [74]

    N., Schwarz, G., Bond, H

    Shore, S. N., Schwarz, G., Bond, H. E., et al. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 125, 1507

    2003

  67. [75]

    V., Aydi , E., Malanchev , K., et al

    Sokolovsky , K. V., Aydi , E., Malanchev , K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.04903, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.04903

    2023 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d23

    Starrfield, S., Bose, M., Iliadis, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d23

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    J., & Hummer , D

    Storey , P. J., & Hummer , D. G. 1995, , 272, 41, 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41

    1995 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Schaefer, B

    Strope, R. J., Schaefer, B. E., & Henden, A. A. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 34

    2010

  71. [79]

    D., et al

    Takeda , L., Diaz , M., Campbell , R. D., et al. 2022, , 511, 1591, 10.1093/mnras/stac097

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    Vasiliev , E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Battisti , A., Towers , S

    Walter , F. M., Battisti , A., Towers , S. E., Bond , H. E., & Stringfellow , G. S. 2012, , 124, 1057, 10.1086/668404

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, , 946, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb647

    Wang , S., & Chen , X. 2023, , 946, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb647

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars , Vol

    Warner , B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars , Vol. 28

    1995

  76. [84]

    2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 98

    Williams, R. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 98

    2012

  77. [85]

    2013, , 146, 55, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/3/55

    Williams , R. 2013, , 146, 55, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/3/55

    2013 doi

  78. [86]

    Williams , R. E. 1994, , 426, 279, 10.1086/174062

    1994 doi

  79. [87]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 777, L32

    Williams, S., Bode, M., Darnley, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 777, L32

    2013

  80. [88]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868

    2010

Pith tools

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