pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07540 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Stochastic Optical Variability and an rms-flux Relation in the Intermediate Polar EP240309a

S.-Y. Wu , Y.-D. Hu , I. Perez-Garcia , A. J. Castro-Tirado , M. Gritsevich , E. J. Fernandez-Garcia , M. D. Caballero-Garcia , S. Guziy
show 13 more authors
G. Garcia-Segura R. Sanchez-Ramirez C. D. Kilpatrick C. R. Bom L. Santana A. Santos P. J. Meintjes H. J. van Heerden A. Martin-Carrillo L. Hanlon A. Maury D.-R. Xiong B.-B. Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords intermediate polarcataclysmic variableoptical variabilityrms-flux relationmagnetospheric radiuswhite dwarf accretionpower spectral density
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations of EP240309a give order-of-magnitude constraints on the magnetospheric radius of its white dwarf.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines the optical light curves and spectrum of the intermediate polar candidate EP240309a to study its accretion process. Power spectral densities from the data follow single power laws without significant breaks, which under standard assumptions sets an upper limit on the magnetospheric radius. High-cadence data reveal a linear rms-flux relation on hour timescales in some observing sectors but not others. Optical emission lines imply characteristic radii similar to those from the timing analysis. These findings support the idea of accretion onto a magnetic white dwarf while remaining agnostic about the precise geometry.

Core claim

Power spectral densities from the BOOTES data are consistent with single power laws with slopes alpha ~ 1.2-1.8, with no statistically significant evidence for a bend across the sampled frequency range. Using red-noise simulations and injection-recovery tests, one-sided constraints on any putative break frequency translate into an upper limit on the magnetospheric radius of Rm <= few x 10^10 cm for MWD = 0.8 Msun. In the TESS data, a linear rms-flux relation is detected on hour timescales in three high-cadence sectors. The SOAR spectrum shows Balmer and He II emission lines with FWHM about 1000-1600 km s^-1, implying characteristic radii of r about (0.9-3.4) x 10^10 cm under a Keplerian view

What carries the argument

Power spectral density analysis of red-noise light curves, combined with emission line widths, to set upper limits on the magnetospheric radius.

If this is right

  • The magnetospheric radius is limited to at most a few times 10^10 cm.
  • A linear rms-flux relation appears on hourly timescales in some but not all epochs.
  • Emission lines indicate characteristic accretion radii of (0.9-3.4) x 10^10 cm.
  • Stream-fed or mixed accretion modes cannot be excluded.
  • Variability remains consistent with a single power law across the observed frequencies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same variability methods could supply quick radius estimates for other X-ray-discovered cataclysmic variables.
  • Epoch-to-epoch changes in the rms-flux relation may trace shifts between different accretion channels.
  • Longer or higher-cadence light curves could reveal a break frequency and tighten the radius bound.
  • Direct comparison of these optical limits with simultaneous X-ray timing could distinguish disk versus stream accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The absence of a statistically significant PSD break can be translated into an upper limit on magnetospheric radius via standard dynamical identifications, and that line widths reflect Keplerian motion at characteristic radii comparable to the timing constraints.

What would settle it

A statistically significant PSD break detected at a frequency implying a magnetospheric radius below a few times 10^10 cm, or radial-velocity data showing line-forming gas at radii outside the (0.9-3.4) x 10^10 cm range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07540 by A. J. Castro-Tirado, A. Martin-Carrillo, A. Maury, A. Santos, B.-B. Zhang, C. D. Kilpatrick, C. R. Bom, D.-R. Xiong, E. J. Fernandez-Garcia, G. Garcia-Segura, H. J. van Heerden, I. Perez-Garcia, L. Hanlon, L. Santana, M. D. Caballero-Garcia, M. Gritsevich, P. J. Meintjes, R. Sanchez-Ramirez, S. Guziy, S.-Y. Wu, Y.-D. Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: BOOTES-6 and BOOTES-7 optical light curves of EP240309a from 2024 March 21 to 25. Each panel shows one night of differential photometry, with time measured from the start of that night’s observations on the horizontal axis and magnitude on the vertical axis. The corresponding reference time t0 (i.e., t = 0) is indicated in each panel in UTC. Blue points indicate individual measurements and red bars show th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the PSD of the longest BOOTES sequence and the best-fitting continuum models. The SPL continuum is mildly preferred over the BPL (∆AIC = −2.57, ∆BIC = −4.93), and TK red-noise simulations matched to the best-fitting SPL do not reject the SPL null (pTK ≃ 0.57). We therefore do not claim evidence for a bend in the sampled frequency range. We convert this non-detection into one-sided lower limits on the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SOAR/Goodman optical spectrum of EP240309a at native sampling/resolution. Major emission features (Hα, Hβ, He II 4686) are marked. Broad low-contrast structures near ∼ 4160, ∼ 4400, and ∼ 4940 A are indicated and discussed in the text. ˚ The wavelength solution and arc-line widths imply a characteristic instrumental FWHM of ∆λ ≃ 6.2 A (median arc FWHM ˚ ≃ 3.11 pix and dispersion ≃ 2.0 A pix ˚ −1 ), corresp… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example Gaussian+linear-baseline fits to six prominent emission lines used to estimate centroids and deconvolved widths. We annotate the fitted centroid λc and the corresponding apparent velocity offset vγ = c(λc/λ0 − 1) in each panel; the annotated vFWHM values are derived from deconvolved widths (see Section 3.5). 5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Rms–flux Behavior and Stochastic Variability Our TESS analysis shows tha… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Magnetic cataclysmic variables provide a natural laboratory for studying how accretion interacts with compact-object magnetospheres and generates stochastic variability. We present an optical variability study of the intermediate-polar candidate EP240309a, an Einstein Probe X-ray transient, using BOOTES photometry, high-cadence TESS light curves, and a SOAR/Goodman optical spectrum. Previous studies found a white-dwarf spin period of 3.97 min (Pspin ~ 238 s) and an orbital period of Porb = 3.7614(4) h. Power spectral densities from the BOOTES data are consistent with single power laws with slopes alpha ~ 1.2-1.8, with no statistically significant evidence for a bend across the sampled frequency range. Using red-noise simulations and injection-recovery tests, we place one-sided constraints on any putative break frequency, which translate, under standard dynamical identifications, into an upper limit on the magnetospheric radius of Rm <= few x 10^10 cm for MWD = 0.8 Msun. In the TESS data, we detect a linear rms-flux relation on hour timescales in three high-cadence sectors, while two other sectors do not show a robust detection, indicating epoch-dependent rms-flux behavior. The SOAR spectrum shows Balmer and He II emission lines with FWHM about 1000-1600 km s^-1; under a Keplerian interpretation, these imply characteristic radii of r about (0.9-3.4) x 10^10 cm, broadly comparable to the timing-based constraints. Overall, the data provide conservative, order-of-magnitude radius constraints consistent with accretion onto a magnetic white dwarf, but they do not establish the detailed accretion geometry or exclude stream-fed or mixed accretion scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents multi-instrument optical observations of the intermediate-polar candidate EP240309a, including BOOTES photometry, TESS light curves, and a SOAR/Goodman spectrum. Power spectral densities from BOOTES data are fit as single power laws (slopes 1.2-1.8) with no significant break; red-noise simulations and injection-recovery tests yield one-sided upper limits on any undetected break frequency, which are converted under standard dynamical identifications to an upper limit Rm ≲ few × 10^10 cm (for M_WD = 0.8 M_⊙). TESS data show a linear rms-flux relation on hour timescales in three sectors but not in two others. The spectrum exhibits Balmer and He II lines with FWHM 1000-1600 km s^{-1}, interpreted under Keplerian motion as characteristic radii (0.9-3.4) × 10^10 cm. The central claim is that these provide conservative, order-of-magnitude constraints consistent with magnetic white-dwarf accretion while not establishing detailed geometry or excluding stream-fed scenarios.

Significance. If the dynamical identifications hold, the work supplies useful order-of-magnitude radius constraints for a newly identified IP candidate using careful statistical tests (injection-recovery) and multi-epoch data. Strengths include the explicit conservatism of the limits, the acknowledgment that detailed accretion geometry remains unconstrained, and the epoch-dependent rms-flux findings. This adds modestly to studies of stochastic variability in magnetic cataclysmic variables, though the overall significance is limited by the reliance on untested mappings from optical PSD features to magnetospheric radius.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (PSD analysis and radius constraint): The upper limit Rm ≲ few × 10^10 cm is obtained by placing a one-sided bound on any undetected break frequency and converting via 'standard dynamical identifications.' No quantitative justification is given for why an optical PSD break in this IP would trace the Keplerian frequency at Rm rather than the beat frequency, viscous timescale, or reprocessing scale; the manuscript notes alternative scenarios but does not test their effect on the reported limit.
  2. [Spectroscopic results section] Spectroscopic results section: The line-width radii r ≈ (0.9-3.4) × 10^10 cm are derived under a Keplerian interpretation and stated to be 'broadly comparable' to the timing constraint, but no error propagation or discussion of non-Keplerian broadening mechanisms is provided, weakening the claimed consistency between independent radius estimates.
  3. [TESS rms-flux analysis] TESS rms-flux analysis: The detection is reported as epoch-dependent (present in three sectors, absent in two), yet the manuscript does not quantify how sector selection or frequency range choices affect the overall conclusion that the rms-flux relation does not itself constrain geometry.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The abstract and text use 'few × 10^10 cm' without specifying the exact numerical factor or the precise frequency-to-radius conversion formula employed.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the PSD and rms-flux plots should explicitly state the frequency ranges used in the fits and any post-hoc sector exclusions.
  3. [Introduction or Discussion] A reference to prior IP studies that successfully or unsuccessfully detected optical PSD breaks at magnetospheric radii would help contextualize the non-detection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and have made revisions to the manuscript to incorporate the suggestions where they strengthen the presentation without altering the core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (PSD analysis and radius constraint): The upper limit Rm ≲ few × 10^10 cm is obtained by placing a one-sided bound on any undetected break frequency and converting via 'standard dynamical identifications.' No quantitative justification is given for why an optical PSD break in this IP would trace the Keplerian frequency at Rm rather than the beat frequency, viscous timescale, or reprocessing scale; the manuscript notes alternative scenarios but does not test their effect on the reported limit.

    Authors: We recognize that the interpretation of the PSD break relies on standard dynamical identifications commonly used in the literature for intermediate polars. The manuscript does note alternative scenarios, but we agree that a more quantitative discussion of their potential impact would improve the robustness of the upper limit. In the revised version, we will expand §4 to include estimates showing that alternative identifications (such as the beat frequency) would typically yield comparable or larger radius limits, preserving the conservative nature of our reported bound. This addition addresses the concern while maintaining the order-of-magnitude constraint. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Spectroscopic results section] Spectroscopic results section: The line-width radii r ≈ (0.9-3.4) × 10^10 cm are derived under a Keplerian interpretation and stated to be 'broadly comparable' to the timing constraint, but no error propagation or discussion of non-Keplerian broadening mechanisms is provided, weakening the claimed consistency between independent radius estimates.

    Authors: We agree that the spectroscopic analysis would benefit from explicit error propagation and consideration of non-Keplerian effects. In the revised manuscript, we will add propagated uncertainties to the characteristic radii and include a discussion of potential non-Keplerian broadening mechanisms, such as velocity fields from accretion streams or disk turbulence. This will provide a more balanced view of the consistency between the spectroscopic and timing-based estimates. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [TESS rms-flux analysis] TESS rms-flux analysis: The detection is reported as epoch-dependent (present in three sectors, absent in two), yet the manuscript does not quantify how sector selection or frequency range choices affect the overall conclusion that the rms-flux relation does not itself constrain geometry.

    Authors: The epoch-dependent detection is key to our interpretation that the rms-flux relation does not provide a strong constraint on the accretion geometry. To address the referee's point, we will revise the TESS analysis section to include a brief quantification of the sensitivity to sector selection and frequency range. Specifically, we will note that reanalyzing with different frequency cuts or subsets of sectors consistently shows the relation's presence or absence is epoch-specific rather than a systematic effect, reinforcing that it does not constrain geometry in a robust way. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; radius limits derived from data-driven PSD analysis and external scalings

full rationale

The paper's central constraints arise from direct PSD fitting to BOOTES and TESS photometry, red-noise simulations for break-frequency upper limits, and line-width measurements from the SOAR spectrum. These are converted to radii via standard Keplerian dynamical relations cited as external (no self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result). No equation reduces the reported Rm upper limit or characteristic radii to a fitted parameter by construction, nor is any prediction statistically forced from the same data subset. The rms-flux detections are presented as epoch-dependent observations without being used to derive geometry. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central radius limits rest on the assumption that variability timescales map directly to dynamical radii via standard white-dwarf accretion theory and that line widths trace Keplerian orbits; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • white-dwarf mass
    Fixed at 0.8 solar masses to convert frequency limits into physical radius; value taken from prior literature rather than fitted here.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Power spectral density is a single unbroken power law; absence of detected break implies break frequency lies above the sampled range.
    Invoked to place one-sided upper limit on magnetospheric radius from timing data.
  • domain assumption Emission-line widths reflect Keplerian velocities at characteristic disk radii.
    Used to translate FWHM values into radial distances comparable to timing constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5758 in / 1443 out tokens · 47725 ms · 2026-05-10T17:09:49.121519+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  2. [2]

    White, R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1905.007

    2019

  3. [3]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab516

    Bruch, A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab516

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab516 2021

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2675

    Bruch, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2675 2022

  5. [5]

    X-ray catalogue

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141266 2022

  6. [6]

    2009, A&A, 496, 121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811285

    Brunschweiger, J., Greiner, J., Ajello, M., & Osborne, J. 2009, A&A, 496, 121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811285

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811285 2009

  7. [7]

    Castro-Tirado, A. J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1136, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02075-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02075-w 2023

  8. [8]

    J., Sold´an, J., Bernas, M., et al

    Castro-Tirado, A. J., Sold´an, J., Bernas, M., et al. 1999, A&AS, 138, 583, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999362

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1999362 1999

  9. [9]

    C., Crain, J

    Clemens, J. C., Crain, J. A., & Anderson, R. 2004, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, 331–340, doi: 10.1117/12.550069 D’Angelo, C. R., & Spruit, H. C. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1208, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16749.x

    work page doi:10.1117/12.550069 2004

  10. [10]

    2024, A&A, 683, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348510 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., et al

    Dubus, G., & Babusiaux, C. 2024, A&A, 683, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348510 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348510 2024

  11. [11]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  12. [12]

    1997, MNRAS, 288, 817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.4.817

    Hellier, C. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.4.817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/288.4.817 1997

  13. [13]

    J., Fern´andez-Garc´ıa, E., et al

    Hu, Y .-D., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Fern´andez-Garc´ıa, E., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 952887, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.952887

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.952887 2023

  14. [14]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Lasota, J.-P. 2001, New Astronomy Reviews, 45, 449, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00112-9 12 WU ET AL. Lightkurve Collaboration. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1812.013 http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page doi:10.1016/s1387-6473(01)00112-9 2001

  16. [16]

    X., Liu, M

    Ling, Z. X., Liu, M. J., Liu, Y ., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16546

    2024

  17. [17]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  18. [18]

    Lyubarskii, Y . E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 1997

  19. [19]

    2017, PASP, 129, 062001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736

    Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736 2017

  20. [20]

    1972, ApJ, 175, 417, doi: 10.1086/151568

    Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417, doi: 10.1086/151568

    work page doi:10.1086/151568 1972

  21. [21]

    F., Gänsicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G¨ansicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3449

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3449 2022

  22. [22]

    1984, ApJS, 54, 443, doi: 10.1086/190940

    Patterson, J. 1984, ApJS, 54, 443, doi: 10.1086/190940

    work page doi:10.1086/190940 1984

  23. [23]

    1994, PASP, 106, 209, doi: 10.1086/133375

    Patterson, J. 1994, PASP, 106, 209, doi: 10.1086/133375

    work page doi:10.1086/133375 1994

  24. [24]

    B., et al

    Potter, S. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, L21, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae038

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae038 2024

  25. [25]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02308 2020

  26. [26]

    2020c , month = apr, eid =

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3743493 2020

  27. [27]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1211, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912317

    Revnivtsev, M., Churazov, E., Postnov, K., & Tsygankov, S. 2009, A&A, 507, 1211, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912317

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912317 2009

  28. [28]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  29. [29]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Scaringi, S., K¨ording, E., Uttley, P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2854, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20512.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20512.x 2012

  30. [30]

    J., D’Angelo, C

    Scaringi, S., Maccarone, T. J., D’Angelo, C. R., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 210, doi: 10.1038/nature24653

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24653 2017

  31. [31]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953, doi: 10.1086/156444 STScI. 2024a, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 10,

    work page doi:10.1086/156444 1978

  32. [32]

    2024b, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 37,

    MAST, Space Telescope Science Institute, doi: 10.17909/q85z-mr41 STScI. 2024b, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 37,

    work page doi:10.17909/q85z-mr41

  33. [33]

    2024c, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 64,

    MAST, Space Telescope Science Institute, doi: 10.17909/rkws-x495 STScI. 2024c, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 64,

    work page doi:10.17909/rkws-x495

  34. [34]

    2025, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 90,

    MAST, Space Telescope Science Institute, doi: 10.17909/z948-de80 STScI. 2025, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 90,

    work page doi:10.17909/z948-de80 2025

  35. [35]

    2026a, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 99,

    MAST, Space Telescope Science Institute, doi: 10.17909/08h4-2p63 STScI. 2026a, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 99,

    work page doi:10.17909/08h4-2p63

  36. [36]

    2026b, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 100,

    MAST, Space Telescope Science Institute, doi: 10.17909/znc5-7j85 STScI. 2026b, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: Sector 100,

    work page doi:10.17909/znc5-7j85

  37. [37]

    MAST, Space Telescope Science Institute, doi: 10.17909/gskj-zq47

    work page doi:10.17909/gskj-zq47

  38. [38]

    1995, A&A, 300, 707

    Timmer, J., & Koenig, M. 1995, A&A, 300, 707

    1995

  39. [39]

    Uttley, P., & McHardy, I. M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, L26, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x 2001

  40. [40]

    Theevolutionofbinaryfractionsinglobularclusters,

    Uttley, P., McHardy, I. M., & Vaughan, S. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 345, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08886.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08886.x 2005

  41. [41]

    E., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  42. [42]

    1995, Cambridge Astrophysics, V ol

    Warner, B. 1995, Cambridge Astrophysics, V ol. 28, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586491

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511586491 1995

  43. [43]

    Welch, P. D. 1967, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 15, 70, doi: 10.1109/TAU.1967.1161901

    work page doi:10.1109/tau.1967.1161901 1967

  44. [44]

    J., et al

    Wu, S., P´erez-Garc´ıa, I., Castro-Tirado, A. J., et al. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 62, doi: 10.3390/galaxies13030062

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies13030062 2025

  45. [45]

    2025, A&A, 701, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554876

    Xiao, Y ., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554876

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554876 2025