Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

A tale of three cataclysmic variables with distinct superhumps

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports new positive and negative superhump periods in three poorly studied cataclysmic variables, including a possible tilted-disc system and a likely high mass-transfer CV below the period gap.

desk verdict Solid TESS period analysis of three CVs with one over-interpreted precession period; the J0935 and J1100 results are the real meat. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20438 v1 pith:LG4IZZ7K submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.SR

Arti Joshi , Claus Tappert , Márcio Catelan , Linda Schmidtobreick , Mridweeka Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords cataclysmicvariablessuperhumpsaccretiondiscsdwarfnovaeintermediatepolarsdiscprecessiontiltedTESSphotometry
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 uses long, uninterrupted TESS photometry to characterize three little-studied cataclysmic variables, close binary stars in which a white dwarf accretes from a companion. For CRTS J110014.7+131552 it catches a full superoutburst with a precursor and an evolving positive-superhump period of 0.06786 days, supporting the thermal-tidal instability model for superoutbursts. For SDSS J093537.46+161950.8 it reports a positive superhump at 0.06584 days and a disc-precession period of 2.36 days in a system with no detected outbursts, arguing that the object is likely a rare high mass-transfer CV below the period gap rather than an SU UMa dwarf nova. For [PK2008] HalphaJ130559 it revises the orbital period to 0.15092 days and reports candidate negative-superhump and retrograde-precession periods, indicating a possible tilted accretion disc. If correct, these results expand the small number of CVs showing persistent or negative superhumps and test the usual assumption that superhumps imply dwarf-nova outbursts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the superhump beat arithmetic. In a cataclysmic variable, the positive superhump period is the beat between the orbital period and the prograde precession of an eccentric disc, P_SH+^{-1} = P_orb^{-1} - P_prec^{-1}, while the negative superhump period is the beat between the orbital period and the retrograde precession of the nodal line of a tilted disc, P_SH-^{-1} = P_orb^{-1} + P_prec^{-1}. The paper combines continuous 2-minute-cadence TESS photometry, detrending, Lomb-Scargle and Period04 periodograms, a CLEAN power spectrum to guard against window-function aliases, and O-C timing of superhump maxima. These tools let a detected superhump period and a low-fre

What would settle it

A decisive check is to observe J130559 with phase-resolved spectroscopy over a full hypothesized precession cycle and map the motion of the disc's emission regions: if the 0.14517-day modulation does not stay coherent in an uninterrupted run, or the emission regions show no retrograde drift on the ~3.83-day timescale, the negative-superhump and tilted-disc interpretation is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that each of the three CVs displays a distinct type of superhump signal in its TESS light curve, two of them for the first time. J1100 undergoes a superoutburst lasting about 14.5 days; its mean superhump period is 0.06786 days, the period shortens during decline, and the hump profile changes from a single sharp pulse to a double-peaked structure, which the authors interpret as a shrinking disc radius plus periodically variable dissipation at the accretion stream bright spot. J0935, at an orbital period of 0.06406 days, shows a persistent 0.06584-day modulation about 3% longer than the orbit and a 2.36-day low-frequency modulation matching the expected prograde apsid

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise for the J130559 result is that the 0.14517-day signal is a true negative superhump and that the two low-frequency peaks, 3.93 and 3.73 days in the two observing sectors, are the same precession period; their average is close to the beat relation, but the two measured values differ by about twenty times their quoted errors, so the match could be coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • J1100's superhump period shortening during decline, together with changing hump shape and amplitude, directly supports the prediction of the thermal-tidal instability model that the accretion disc shrinks as a superoutburst fades.
  • J0935's persistent positive superhump in a system with no observed outbursts implies that superhump presence alone does not identify an SU UMa dwarf nova; the authors instead place it among high mass-transfer CVs below the period gap.
  • If the J130559 identifications hold, the system joins a small list of CVs with simultaneous negative-superhump and disc-precession periods, supporting retrograde precession of a tilted disc over an eccentric-disc explanation.
  • The paper's alias explanation of J130559's old 3.928-hour spectroscopic period implies that some published CV orbital periods from short spectroscopic runs may need revision when longer photometric baselines are used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If J0935 is an intermediate polar, an X-ray light curve should reveal a spin period and sidebands; the absence of such modulations would weaken the magnetic interpretation but not the superhump detection.
  • A population-level consequence is that long TESS sectors may reveal persistent superhump signals in many short-period CVs previously considered quiet, making J0935's behavior less rare and shifting classification away from outburst-based labels.
  • For J130559, eclipse timings could be re-examined for shifts on the ~3.83-day timescale; if eclipse depth or timing varies with that period, it would provide an independent geometric check of the tilted-disc interpretation.
  • The alias correction to J130559's orbital period suggests that systematically rechecking old spectroscopic CV periods against continuous photometry is a cheap way to improve CV period catalogues before future all-sky surveys.
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 TESS photometry of three cataclysmic variables. For CRTS J110014.7+131552, a superoutburst is observed with positive superhumps at a mean period of 0.06786(1) d, and the O-C analysis reveals period and profile evolution during the outburst. For SDSS J093537.46+161950.8, previously undetected signals at 0.06584(2) d and 2.36(2) d are reported and interpreted as a positive superhump and a prograde disc-precession period, respectively; the absence of outbursts and the absolute brightness lead the authors to suggest a high mass-transfer CV below the period gap, possibly a nova-like variable or high-luminosity intermediate polar. For [PK2008] HalphaJ130559, a revised orbital period of 0.15092(1) d is derived, together with candidate negative superhump and retrograde precession periods of 0.14517(3) d and 3.83(1) d, although the latter identifications are explicitly marked as provisional. The overall conclusions are that J1100 is an SU UMa star during superoutburst, J0935 is a newly characterized permanent-superhump system with an unusual classification, and J130559 may host a tilted precessing disc.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper adds three newly characterized CVs to the known sample, with J0935 being particularly interesting as a rare high mass-transfer CV below the period gap showing persistent positive superhumps, and J130559 as a candidate member of the small group of tilted-disc systems. The analysis is strengthened by the use of multiple period-finding methods (LS, Period04, CLEAN), MCMC-based uncertainties, and explicit attention to aliasing in the J130559 orbital-period revision. The J1100 superoutburst data provide a useful, well-sampled example of superhump stage evolution. However, the J130559 precession-period claim rests on a questionable averaging of two inconsistent low-frequency peaks, and the paper's own caveats confirm this weakness. The other two objects are convincingly analyzed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Table 2, Fig. 6] The claimed 3.83 d disc-precession period for J130559 is not actually detected in either TESS sector: sector 64 gives 3.93(1) d and sector 65 gives 3.73(1) d. These differ by 0.20 d, about 20 times the quoted errors, so they cannot both represent a single stable precession period. The authors average them to 3.83 d and then note that this matches the beat-relation expectation (3.82/3.80 d). This is circular: the beat relation is used to justify averaging two mutually inconsistent measurements, and the averaged value is then presented as a detection. The central claim that J130559 shows simultaneous negative superhumps and a retrograde precession period is therefore not established. The authors should either detect the precession frequency in a joint analysis of both sectors with proper window-function handling, or explicitly downgrade the precession period to a tentative, unresolved sign
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 6] The low-frequency peaks at ~3.9 d and ~3.7 d lie near one-seventh of the ~27 d sector length, a region where red noise and window-function sidelobes are typically strong. The 95% significance level shown is based on a white-noise false-alarm calculation; no test against red noise is presented. The claim that these peaks are 'significant' above the 95% confidence level is not well supported. The authors should assess the significance of these low-frequency peaks using a red-noise model or an empirical significance test based on the data's noise properties, especially because the two sector values are mutually inconsistent.
  3. [§4.3] In the discussion of J130559, the beat relation is used twice: first to compute the expected precession periods (3.82 d and 3.80 d) from the orbital and negative-superhump periods, and then to argue that the average of the observed low-frequency peaks (3.83 d) 'closely matches' these expected values. This is a self-consistency check, not a detection test, and it gives the appearance of tuning the observed values to the prediction. The authors should rephrase this section to state clearly that the low-frequency peaks are only tentatively associated with precession, and that the principal evidence for a tilted disc is the 4% period deficit of the 0.14517 d signal. The current wording overstates the support provided by the low-frequency peaks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] Typo: 'detrened' should be 'detrended' in the sentence 'from the combined detrened light curve of the TESS data'.
  2. [§4.3] Double 'the': 'it is expected that the the light distribution in the accretion disc' should read 'the light distribution.'
  3. [§3.3] The peak near 0.07398 d deviates from the expected second harmonic of the negative superhump (0.07259 d). This deviation is noted but not discussed. A brief comment on whether this could be an alias or a frequency drift would improve the analysis.
  4. [§4.2] The mass-ratio estimate q~0.128 relies on the Patterson et al. (2005) relation despite the caution about Kato (2022). Since q is later used to argue against SU UMa classification via the 3:1 resonance threshold, the authors should provide a range of q from alternative relations (or a sensitivity test) to show the classification argument is robust.
  5. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The double-peaked superhump profile is interesting, but the text does not quantify the peak separation or compare it to known similar objects beyond citing Bruch (2023a,b, 2024). A brief quantitative description (phases of maxima and minimum) would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all claimed periods are independently observed and beat relations are used as consistency checks, not as construction of the results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on direct power-spectrum detections (LS, Period04, CLEAN) of TESS light curves: J1100's 0.06786 d superhump, J0935's 0.06584 d superhump plus a 2.36 d low-frequency peak, and J130559's 0.15092 d orbital period, 0.14517 d candidate negative superhump, and low-frequency peaks at 3.93 and 3.73 d. The beat relations (e.g., P_SH+^-1 = P_Omega^-1 - P_prec^-1 for positive superhumps) are standard definitions applied after the observed periods are already measured; the predicted precession periods are then compared with independently observed low-frequency peaks, so the agreement is a consistency check rather than an identity. For J130559, the reported 3.83 d value is explicitly the arithmetic average of the two sector peaks, not a quantity obtained by solving the beat relation, and the paper transparently lists the individual values in Table 2 and calls the negative-superhump/precession identification 'provisional and subject to further confirmation' (Sect. 3.3) and 'based on purely photometric evidence' (Sect. 4.3). The inconsistency between the 3.93 and 3.73 d sector peaks is a legitimate statistical/correctness concern, but it is not circular because the average is not forced by the beat relation. Mass ratios are derived from external literature calibrations (Patterson et al. 2005; Wood et al. 2009; Knigge et al. 2011), not from fitted parameters of this paper. Self-citations (Rawat et al. 2022; Schmidtobreick et al. 2008, 2015) are contextual examples or supporting precedents and are not load-bearing for any derivation. No equation in the paper defines a claimed result in terms of itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper detects periods directly from TESS photometry and does not fit a physical model. It introduces no free parameters beyond standard analysis choices (LOESS span, CLEAN parameters) and no invented entities. Its interpretive claims rest on the standard beat-frequency relations for superhumps, the TTI model, and external empirical calibrations for mass ratios and secondary masses.

free parameters (3)
  • LOESS smoothing span = 0.01
    Chosen by hand to detrend long-term outburst variation while preserving superhump signals; affects residual amplitudes but not the robustness of the period detections.
  • CLEAN loop gain and iterations = 0.1, 1000
    Chosen for the CLEAN deconvolution used to confirm periodogram peaks; standard choices, not physically fitted.
  • Inclination correction for J0935 absolute magnitude = 3-4 mag
    Applied to the absolute magnitude of J0935 to account for high inclination; this is an approximate correction from Warner (1987) and Selvelli & Gilmozzi (2019), used in the classification argument.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Superhump periods are the beat between the orbital period and the disc precession period: P_SH+^-1 = P_Omega^-1 - P_prec+^-1 and P_SH-^-1 = P_Omega^-1 + P_prec-^-1.
    Invoked in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 to interpret the observed P_SH+ and P_SH- and to derive the expected precession periods.
  • domain assumption The thermal-tidal instability (TTI) model explains superoutbursts and superhump period evolution via expansion and shrinking of the accretion disk.
    Used in Section 4.1 to interpret the J1100 superhump period shortening as disk radius variation; standard CV theory from Osaki (1989, 1996).
  • domain assumption The empirical epsilon-q relations of Patterson et al. (2005) for positive superhumps and Wood et al. (2009) for negative superhumps are valid for estimating mass ratios.
    Used in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 to convert measured period excesses into q and WD masses; the authors note the relations may be affected by pressure effects (Kato 2022).
  • domain assumption Secondary star masses and evolutionary tracks from Knigge et al. (2011) apply to these systems.
    Used in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 to estimate WD masses and to place J0935 on the CV evolutionary track.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 distance and photometry provide reliable absolute magnitudes for J0935.
    Used in Section 4.2 to compute M_G and place the object in the CV color-magnitude diagram; based on Bailer-Jones et al. (2021).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A tale of three cataclysmic variables with distinct superhumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LG4IZZ7K

@misc{pith2026250820438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A tale of three cataclysmic variables with distinct superhumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LG4IZZ7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20438}
}
read the original abstract

We present the TESS observations of CRTS J110014.7+131552, SDSS J093537.46+161950.8, and [PK2008] HalphaJ130559. Among them, a superoutburst is observed in CRTS J110014.7+131552 which is associated with the precursor outburst, where prominent superhumps are observed during maximum of the outburst with a mean period of 0.06786(1) d. We have observed variations in the superhump period, along with changes in the shape of the light curve profile and the amplitude of the superhumps during different phases of the outburst, indicating disc-radius variation as well as periodically variable dissipation at the accretion stream's bright spot. The data on SDSS J093537.46+161950.8 reveal previously unknown variations modulated with periods 0.06584(2) d and 2.36(2) d, related to the positive superhump and the disc-precession periods, respectively, which can reasonably be interpreted as a result of the prograde rotation of an eccentric accretion disc. Despite its short orbital period, the lack of outburst activity, along with its stable long-term brightness, discovery spectrum, and absolute magnitude suggests that the object might not be an SU UMa type dwarf nova. Instead, it may belong to the group of high mass-transfer CVs below the period gap, either to a rare class of nova-like variables or to the class of high-luminosity IPs, a subclass of magnetic CVs. For [PK2008] HalphaJ130559, a new average orbital period of 0.15092(1) d has been identified. Additionally, this system displays previously undetected average periods of 0.14517(3) d and 3.83(1) d, which can be provisionally identified as negative superhump and disc-precession periods, respectively. If the identified simultaneous signals do indeed reflect negative superhump and disc-precession period variations then their origin may be associated with the retrograde precession of a tilted disc and its interaction with the secondary stream.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) TESS light curve of J1100, displaying a superoutburst. A ver￾tical blue dashed line at BJD 2460270.5020 represents a conservative estimate of the start time of the outburst. The solid yellow line repre￾sents the smoothed light curve obtained using the LOESS fit. Middle: the detrended light curves after subtracting the smoothed light curve. Bottom: O-C curves of superhumps. The light green vertical dashed lines r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LS and Period04 power spectra obtained from the combined de￾trended TESS light curve of J1100. The significant signals correspond￾ing to the superhump frequency (SH) and its harmonics are distinctly marked. The significant frequencies observed in the power spectrum lie above the 95% confidence level, which is represented by the dashed horizontal green line. 8 d. This was followed by a prolonged outburst lasting abou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Top panel: the full TESS light curve of J0935. Bottom panel: zoomed-in segment of the TESS light curve over ∼ 0.25 d, correspond￾ing to the shaded region highlighted in the top panel, shown for clar￾ity. (b) LS, CLEAN, and Period04 power spectra obtained from the combined TESS data. The significant signals are distinctly marked. A zoomed-in plot corresponding to the orbital (Ω), positive superhump (SH+), and pro… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Superhump-and-orbital phased light curves of J0935. To delve into periodic phenomena, the light curve was folded using the zero-epoch provided by Southworth et al. (2015) and our derived orbital and superhump periods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The full TESS light curves of J130559 for sectors 64 and 65. (b) Zoomed-in segment of the TESS light curve over ∼ 1 d, correspond￾ing to the shaded regions highlighted in Figure 5a, shown for clarity. 3.3. [PK2008] HalphaJ130559 Figures 5a and 5b display the comple…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LS, CLEAN, and Period04 power spectra of J130559 obtained from the TESS data for (a) sector 64 and (b) sector 65. The significant signals are distinctly marked. A zoomed-in plot corresponding to the orbital (Ω), negative superhump (SH−), and retrograde disc-precession …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Superhump-and-orbital phase folded light curves of J130559 for (a) sector 64 and (b) sector 65. two separate peaks at phases 0.45 and 0.65, with a shallow dip appearing near phase 0.56. Finally, we note that a broad min￾imum is observed around phase 0.0 in the superhum…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of mass ratio versus orbital period for known short-period CVs. The dashed blue line shows the standard CV evolu￾tionary track from Knigge et al. (2011), while the solid red line rep￾resents their optimal binary track. The green points represent the ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, MN- RAS, 492, L40

    Abril, J., Schmidtobreick, L., Ederoclite, A., & López-Sanjuan, C. 2020, MN- RAS, 492, L40

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 707

    Armstrong, E., Patterson, J., Michelsen, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 707

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  4. [4]

    2019, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Bellm, E., Kulkarni, S., & Graham, M. 2019, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 233, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #233, 363.08

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    M., Motch, C., & Mouchet, M

    Bonnet-Bidaud, J. M., Motch, C., & Mouchet, M. 1985, A&A, 143, 313

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    2023b, MNRAS, 525, 1953

    Bruch, A. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 1953

    work page 1953

  7. [7]

    Cleveland, W. S. 1979, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829

    work page 1979

  8. [8]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001

    2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2009

  2. [10]

    1999, ApJ, 527, L55

    Gao, W., Li, Z., Wu, X., Zhang, Z., & Li, Y . 1999, ApJ, 527, L55

    1999

  3. [11]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  4. [12]

    K., McAllister, M

    Hardy, L. K., McAllister, M. J., Dhillon, V . S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4968

    2017

  5. [13]

    R., Patterson, J., & Ringwald, F

    Harvey, D., Skillman, D. R., Patterson, J., & Ringwald, F. A. 1995, PASP, 107, 551

    1995

  6. [14]

    2001, Cataclysmic Variable Stars - How and Why They Vary (New York: Springer)

    Hellier, C. 2001, Cataclysmic Variable Stars - How and Why They Vary (New York: Springer)

    2001

  7. [15]

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

    Hillman, Y ., Shara, M. M., Prialnik, D., & Kovetz, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 886

    2020

  8. [16]

    Horne, J. H. & Baliunas, S. L. 1986, ApJ, 302, 757

    1986

  9. [17]

    2021, Observations from the AA VSO International Database, https://www.aavso.org

    Kafka, S. 2021, Observations from the AA VSO International Database, https://www.aavso.org

    2021

  10. [18]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.02945

    Kato, T. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.02945

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2009, PASJ, 61, S395

    Kato, T., Imada, A., Uemura, M., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, S395

    2009

  12. [20]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28

    Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J. 2011, ApJS, 194, 28

    2011

  13. [21]

    & Breger, M

    Lenz, P. & Breger, M. 2004, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 224, The A-Star Puzzle, ed. J. Zverko, J. Ziznovsky, S. J. Adelman, & W. W. Weiss, 786–790

    2004

  14. [22]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  15. [23]

    Montgomery, M. M. 2009, ApJ, 705, 603

    2009

  16. [24]

    & Pretorius, M

    Mukai, K. & Pretorius, M. L. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3192 Article number, page 9 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53810-25

    2023

  17. [25]

    1974, PASJ, 26, 429

    Osaki, Y . 1974, PASJ, 26, 429

    1974

  18. [26]

    1989, PASJ, 41, 1005

    Osaki, Y . 1989, PASJ, 41, 1005

    1989

  19. [27]

    1996, PASP, 108, 39

    Osaki, Y . 1996, PASP, 108, 39

    1996

  20. [28]

    & Kato, T

    Osaki, Y . & Kato, T. 2013, PASJ, 65, 95

    2013

  21. [29]

    & Kato, T

    Osaki, Y . & Kato, T. 2014, PASJ, 66, 15

    2014

  22. [30]

    Patterson, J., Jablonski, F., Koen, C., O’Donoghue, D., & Skillman, D. R. 1995, PASP, 107, 1183

    1995

  23. [31]

    A., et al

    Patterson, J., Kemp, J., Harvey, D. A., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1204

    2005

  24. [32]

    1997, PASP, 109, 468

    Patterson, J., Kemp, J., Saad, J., et al. 1997, PASP, 109, 468

    1997

  25. [33]

    R., et al

    Patterson, J., Kemp, J., Skillman, D. R., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 1290

    1998

  26. [34]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1902

    Patterson, J., Uthas, H., Kemp, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1902

    2013

  27. [35]

    & Warner, B

    Patterson, J. & Warner, B. 1998, PASP, 110, 1026

    1998

  28. [36]

    Pearson, K. J. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 235

    2006

  29. [37]

    Pretorius, M. L. & Knigge, C. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1471

    2008

  30. [38]

    C., Joshi, A., & Yadava, U

    Rawat, N., Pandey, J. C., Joshi, A., & Yadava, U. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6054

    2022

  31. [39]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  32. [40]

    H., Lehar, J., & Dreher, J

    Roberts, D. H., Lehar, J., & Dreher, J. W. 1987, AJ, 93, 968

    1987

  33. [41]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  34. [42]

    2015, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Re- lated Objects - III (Golden2015), 34

    Schmidtobreick, L. 2015, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Re- lated Objects - III (Golden2015), 34

    2015

  35. [43]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 1345

    Schmidtobreick, L., Papadaki, C., Tappert, C., & Ederoclite, A. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1345

    2008

  36. [44]

    & Gilmozzi, R

    Selvelli, P. & Gilmozzi, R. 2019, A&A, 622, A186

    2019

  37. [45]

    2020, Acta Astron., 70, 313

    Smak, J. 2020, Acta Astron., 70, 313

    2020

  38. [46]

    T., & Copperwheat, C

    Southworth, J., Tappert, C., Gänsicke, B. T., & Copperwheat, C. M. 2015, A&A, 573, A61

    2015

  39. [47]

    Stefanov, S. Y . & Stefanov, A. K. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3355

    2023

  40. [48]

    B., Wood, M

    Still, M., Howell, S. B., Wood, M. A., Cannizzo, J. K., & Smale, A. P. 2010, ApJ, 717, L113

    2010

  41. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3730

    Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3730

    2023

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 123

    Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 123

    2024

  43. [51]

    F., Hayden, M., et al

    Szkody, P., Anderson, S. F., Hayden, M., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4011

    2009

  44. [52]

    2006, AJ, 131, 973

    Szkody, P., Henden, A., Agüeros, M., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 973

    2006

  45. [53]

    Thomas, D. M. & Wood, M. A. 2015, ApJ, 803, 55 V ogt, N. 1974, A&A, 36, 369

    2015

  46. [54]

    1987, MNRAS, 227, 23

    Warner, B. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 23

    1987

  47. [55]

    1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, 28

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, 28

    1995

  48. [56]

    1988, MNRAS, 232, 35

    Whitehurst, R. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 35

    1988

  49. [57]

    & King, A

    Whitehurst, R. & King, A. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 25

    1991

  50. [58]

    A., Still, M

    Wood, M. A., Still, M. D., Howell, S. B., Cannizzo, J. K., & Smale, A. P. 2011, ApJ, 741, 105

    2011

  51. [59]

    A., Thomas, D

    Wood, M. A., Thomas, D. M., & Simpson, J. C. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2110 Article number, page 10 of 12 Joshi et al.: CRTS J110014.7+131552, SDSS J093537.46+161950.8, and [PK2008] HalphaJ130559 Appendix A: Additional Table Table A.1. Observed times of maximum (BJD) and O-C values. B...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.