pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06917 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

X-ray spectroscopy mass constraints on V1674 Her: the fastest nova does not have a near-Chandrasekhar white dwarf

Tekeba Olbemo , Manel Errando , Andrea Gokus
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 00:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords V1674 Herwhite dwarf massclassical novaX-ray spectroscopyintermediate polaraccretion columnnova decline timemagnetic field
0
0 comments X

The pith

X-ray spectroscopy and timing analysis show the white dwarf in the fastest nova V1674 Her has a mass of about 1.1 solar masses.

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

The paper uses simultaneous XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations of V1674 Her in quiescence to model its hard X-ray emission with a post-shock accretion column that includes temperature gradients and surface reflection. This yields a white dwarf mass of 1.09 solar masses when the disk truncation is set at the co-rotation radius, with an independent timing analysis of the X-ray power spectrum giving a consistent 1.12 solar masses. Both results fall well below the near-Chandrasekhar masses inferred from the nova's record-short optical decline time. The work also derives a surface magnetic field of roughly 21 MG, placing the system among the stronger-field intermediate polars. The findings indicate that nova speed is not determined solely by white dwarf mass.

Core claim

Under the assumption that the accretion disk is truncated at the co-rotation radius, broadband X-ray spectral fitting gives a white dwarf mass of 1.09^{+0.07}_{-0.06} solar masses for V1674 Her; timing analysis of the X-ray power spectrum independently yields 1.12 ± 0.06 solar masses. These values are significantly lower than those predicted by empirical decline-time relations for its t2 of about one day, showing that the fastest novae need not host near-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs.

What carries the argument

Post-shock accretion column model that incorporates the temperature gradient along the flow and Compton reflection from the white dwarf surface, combined with the co-rotation radius assumption that links the observed spin period to the magnetospheric radius.

If this is right

  • Empirical relations between nova decline time and white dwarf mass can overestimate the mass in the fastest systems.
  • Nova eruption timescales must depend on additional parameters such as accretion rate or binary geometry.
  • V1674 Her lies at the upper end of the magnetic field distribution for intermediate polars.
  • Direct X-ray constraints are needed to calibrate mass estimates for other rapidly evolving novae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar X-ray studies of other fast novae could show that many decline-time masses are inflated.
  • The rapid optical decline of V1674 Her may be driven more by its accretion rate or magnetic geometry than by white dwarf mass alone.
  • Population models of nova progenitors may need to incorporate a wider range of white dwarf masses for the shortest-timescale events.

Load-bearing premise

The accretion disk is truncated precisely at the co-rotation radius, so the observed spin period directly sets the magnetospheric radius used to convert the fitted X-ray parameters into a white dwarf mass.

What would settle it

An independent mass determination for the white dwarf in V1674 Her that returns a value above 1.25 solar masses would falsify the X-ray-derived mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06917 by Andrea Gokus, Manel Errando, Tekeba Olbemo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Optical (top), Fermi-LAT ((middle)) and Swift-XRT ((bottom)) light curves of V1674 Her. Inset in the top panel show estimates for the optical decline times, t2 and t3 from polynomial fits to the optical light curve during the nova outburst. Inset in the middle panel shows 6 h binned Fermi-LAT light curve around the time of the optical peak. observation data files and produce a calibrated event list as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Swift-XRT light curve evolution of V1674 Her in outburst (left) and quiescence (right). Optical light curves are included for comparison. Pink shaded region indicate the super-soft phase. ray and optical observations of the nova (Drake et al. 2021; Patterson et al. 2021; Orio et al. 2022; Bhargava et al. 2024). We also extracted 10 s binned light curves from the XMM-Newton and NuSTAR data obtained on V1674… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: White dwarf spin modulated X-ray emission in the outburst (white background) and quiescence (gray background). Panels 1 and 3 show the light curve (left), LS periodogram (center) and epoch folding period search results (right). Panels 2 and 4 show phase folded light curves and a simple sinusoidal fit to the data. Different colors in phase folded light curve plots indicate different white dwarf spin phases.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XMM-Newton/PN (top left) and NuSTAR (bottom left) light curve of V1674 Her. Corresponding Lomb-Scargle periodograms for XMM-Newton/PN (top right) and NuSTAR (bottom right) light curves. Horizontal dotted lines indicate FAP=0.1%. 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 Energy (keV) 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 c o u nts s 1 k e V 1 Day 1 Day 7 Day 11 Day 27 Day 35 Day 40 Day 80 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 Energy (keV) 10 3 10 2 10 1 Day 124 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Swift-XRT spectra of V1674 Her in outburst (left) and quiescence (right). The black body model component fits to the spectra of V1674 Her in quiescent state show temperatures around 100 eV ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The early shock (left), the super-soft source (middle) and the quiescent (right) phase X-ray spectra of V1674 Her. 0 50 R ate (cts s 1 ) Swift-XRT (0.3 - 1.0 keV) 25 35 45 60 75 110 375 Time since T0 (days) 0 100 TB B (e V) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the X-ray flux (Top panel) and black body temperature (Bottom panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase resolved spectra in the outburst (left) and quiescence (right): Top: Spectra Middle: Residuals and Bottom: Blackbody temperature and Absorption column density. Horizontal dashed green lines indicate the galactic line-of-sight hydrogen column density of NHI = 2.94 × 1021 cm−2 (HI4PI Collaboration et al. 2016) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: XMM-Newton/PN and NuSTAR spectra of V1674 Her obtained on 2023 October 14 (top panel). Middle panels show residuals of the bremsstrahlung model fit without and including the O VII and O VIII absorption edges. Bottom panel shows residual plot for ipolar30kK model including the aforementioned absorption edges. marized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Power spectra of XMM-Newton/PN (left) and NuSTAR (right) light curves of V1674 fitted with Gaussian + Constant + Single power-law (blue) and Gaussian + Constant + Broken power-law (black). Vertical magenta arrow (WD spin frequency), vertical magenta line (Gaussian component at WD spin frequency) and horizontal magenta line (white noise level). 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 M/M 10 15 20 R m/R 20-78 keV 0.2-78 keV [… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Contour plots of the 1σ confidence regions from joint fits of the power spectra and 20-78 keV (red) and 0.2-78 keV (black) energy spectrum. The blue star symbol and error bars indicate the white dwarf mass and 1σ confidence interval obtained under the assumption of co-rotation radius for magnetosphere. ONe white dwarfs are expected to originate from more massive progenitors, they are typically associated … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: White dwarf magnetic field B as a function of ejecta mass and v/∆t, adapted from Drake et al. (2021). Horizontal green band indicates our estimate for V1674 Her’s magnetic field strength. 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The extremely rapid optical decline, ultra-fast expan￾sion velocities, and classification of V1674 Her as an oxygen-neon nova all point to the presence of a high￾mass white dwarf. In particular… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

V1674 Her (Nova Her 2021) is the fastest classical nova ever recorded, with an optical decline time of $t_2 \sim 1$ day, typically interpreted as evidence for a white dwarf mass close to the Chandrasekhar limit. We present a broadband X-ray study of V1674 Her combining contemporaneous XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations in quiescence to directly constrain the white dwarf mass and magnetic field strength. The hard X-ray emission is modeled using a physically motivated post-shock accretion column model that accounts for the temperature gradient in the flow and reflection from the white dwarf surface. Under the assumption that the accretion disk is truncated at the co-rotation radius, we obtain a white dwarf mass of $M = 1.09^{+0.07}_{-0.06}\,M_\odot$. An independent constraint derived from timing analysis of the X-ray power spectrum yields a consistent value of $M = 1.12 \pm 0.06\,M_\odot$. These values are significantly lower than those inferred from empirical decline-time relations, suggesting that such relations may overestimate white dwarf masses in extreme fast novae. From the inferred accretion rate and magnetospheric radius, we estimate a surface magnetic field strength of $B = 21.3^{+6.6}_{-5.7}\,(\mathrm{stat})^{+12.9}_{-8.1}\,(\mathrm{sys})\,\mathrm{MG}$, placing V1674 Her at the high end of the magnetic field distribution for intermediate polars. Our results demonstrate that even the fastest novae do not necessarily host near-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs, highlighting the importance of direct X-ray constraints and suggesting that additional parameters beyond white dwarf mass play a key role in setting nova timescales.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports broadband X-ray observations of V1674 Her (Nova Her 2021), the fastest classical nova, using contemporaneous XMM-Newton and NuSTAR data in quiescence. The hard X-ray emission is modeled with a physically motivated post-shock accretion column that incorporates the temperature gradient and reflection from the white dwarf surface. Under the assumption that the accretion disk truncates at the co-rotation radius, spectral fitting yields M_WD = 1.09^{+0.07}_{-0.06} M_⊙; an independent timing analysis of the X-ray power spectrum gives a consistent M_WD = 1.12 ± 0.06 M_⊙. These values are lower than those inferred from empirical decline-time relations, and the authors estimate a surface magnetic field B ≈ 21 MG, placing the system at the high end of the intermediate-polar distribution.

Significance. If the co-rotation truncation assumption holds, the result demonstrates that even the fastest novae need not host near-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs, implying that decline-time relations can overestimate masses when additional parameters (such as magnetic field strength) are important. The convergence of two methods that both rely on the same accretion geometry framework provides internal consistency, and the use of a detailed physical model rather than purely empirical relations is a clear strength. The work has direct implications for nova population synthesis and the role of magnetism in outburst timescales.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3 (spectral modeling), §4 (timing analysis)] The central mass values in both the spectral and timing analyses depend on setting the disk truncation radius equal to the co-rotation radius r_co = (G M P_spin² / 4π²)^{1/3}. This fixes the magnetospheric radius used to normalize the specific accretion rate and reflection component in the post-shock column model (§3) and interprets the power-spectrum break frequency as the Keplerian frequency at r_co (§4). If truncation occurs at r_m ≠ r_co (plausible for a post-nova system not yet in spin equilibrium), both reported masses shift by amounts comparable to the quoted uncertainties, as the skeptic note correctly identifies. The manuscript should add a quantitative sensitivity test or independent check (e.g., spin-period derivative or multi-wavelength r_in constraint) to assess robustness.
  2. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and modeling sections provide insufficient detail on validation of the post-shock accretion column model, the full error budget (including systematic contributions from the co-rotation assumption), and explicit tests of the co-rotation truncation. Without these, it is difficult to judge whether the quoted statistical uncertainties fully capture the dominant systematic risks.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the key model assumptions and the range of systematic uncertainties to improve readability for a broad audience.
  2. [Results section / tables] Notation for the magnetic field uncertainties (statistical vs. systematic) is clear in the abstract but should be repeated explicitly in the relevant results table or figure caption for consistency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments correctly identify the central role of the co-rotation truncation assumption and the need for greater transparency on model validation and systematics. We address each point below and will incorporate the requested material in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central mass values in both the spectral and timing analyses depend on setting the disk truncation radius equal to the co-rotation radius r_co = (G M P_spin² / 4π²)^{1/3}. This fixes the magnetospheric radius used to normalize the specific accretion rate and reflection component in the post-shock column model (§3) and interprets the power-spectrum break frequency as the Keplerian frequency at r_co (§4). If truncation occurs at r_m ≠ r_co (plausible for a post-nova system not yet in spin equilibrium), both reported masses shift by amounts comparable to the quoted uncertainties. The manuscript should add a quantitative sensitivity test or independent check (e.g., spin-period derivative or multi-wavelength r_in constraint) to assess robustness.

    Authors: We agree that the co-rotation assumption is central and that deviations at the factor-of-two level could shift the masses by amounts comparable to the reported uncertainties. In the revised manuscript we will add a quantitative sensitivity analysis in both §3 and §4, showing the range of M_WD obtained when the truncation radius is varied from 0.5 r_co to 2 r_co while keeping all other model parameters fixed. This will make the dependence explicit and allow readers to assess robustness directly. A spin-period derivative or independent multi-wavelength r_in measurement would require new long-baseline or multi-epoch data not present in the current XMM-Newton/NuSTAR observations; we will state this limitation clearly and justify why the co-rotation assumption remains the most physically motivated choice given the observed spin period and accretion rate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The abstract and modeling sections provide insufficient detail on validation of the post-shock accretion column model, the full error budget (including systematic contributions from the co-rotation assumption), and explicit tests of the co-rotation truncation. Without these, it is difficult to judge whether the quoted statistical uncertainties fully capture the dominant systematic risks.

    Authors: We will expand the abstract and §3 to include additional validation details for the post-shock column model, citing its prior successful use on other intermediate polars and reporting our own checks (fit statistics, parameter degeneracies, and reflection-component consistency). The error budget will be updated to quote both statistical and systematic uncertainties, with the latter now incorporating the range obtained from the truncation-radius sensitivity test. Explicit discussion of the co-rotation assumption and the results of the sensitivity test will be added to the text so that the dominant systematic contribution is transparent. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct independent verification of the inner-disk radius via multi-wavelength observations or a measurement of the white-dwarf spin-period derivative, both of which would require new observational data beyond the scope of the present study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: masses obtained via explicit model fits under stated assumption

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by fitting a post-shock accretion column model to broadband X-ray data and by analyzing the X-ray power spectrum, both under the explicitly stated assumption that the disk truncates at the co-rotation radius. This assumption supplies an external relation between the independently measured spin period and the inner radius; it does not define the output mass in terms of itself. The spectral fit constrains M through the shock temperature gradient, reflection component, and normalization, while the timing result supplies a separate numerical value from the break frequency. No self-citations appear in the load-bearing steps, no parameters are fitted to a subset and then relabeled as predictions, and no uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported from prior author work. The derivation remains self-contained against the observed spectra and timing data once the geometric assumption is granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central mass claim rests on a standard post-shock accretion column model plus the domain assumption of disk truncation at co-rotation radius; mass and magnetic field are derived quantities rather than free parameters introduced ad hoc.

free parameters (2)
  • white dwarf mass
    Primary fitted parameter in the X-ray spectral model under the co-rotation truncation assumption.
  • surface magnetic field strength
    Derived from the fitted accretion rate and magnetospheric radius.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Accretion disk is truncated at the co-rotation radius
    Invoked to relate the white dwarf spin period to the magnetospheric radius and thereby convert the X-ray spectral fit into a mass constraint.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5645 in / 1512 out tokens · 68265 ms · 2026-05-11T00:48:27.256939+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    G., Gil-Pons, P., C´ orsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., Gil-Pons, P., C´ orsico, A. H., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038930

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038930 2021

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Anzolin, G., de Martino, D., Bonnet-Bidaud, J. M., et al. 2008, A&A, 489, 1243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810402

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810402 2008

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    V., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Aydi, E., Sokolovsky, K. V., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4

    2020

  5. [5]

    Bagnulo, S., & Landstreet, J. D. 2022, ApJL, 935, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 2022

  6. [6]

    C., Anupama, G

    Bhargava, Y., Dewangan, G. C., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 28, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3870 2024

  7. [7]

    R., & Wynn, G

    Cropper, M., Wu, K., Ramsay, G., & Kocabiyik, A. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 684, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02570.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02570.x 1999

  8. [8]

    Lau, H. H. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2180

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2180 2015

  9. [9]

    J., Ness, J.-U., Page, K

    Drake, J. J., Ness, J.-U., Page, K. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac34fd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac34fd 2021

  10. [10]

    A., & Hellier, C

    Evans, P. A., & Hellier, C. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1277, doi: 10.1086/518552

    work page doi:10.1086/518552 2007

  11. [11]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14895.x

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x 2009

  12. [12]

    Ferrario, L., Bailey, J., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.2.285

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/262.2.285 1993

  13. [13]

    Ferrario, L., de Martino, D., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2015, SSRv, 191, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015

  14. [14]

    W., Mori, K., Bridges, G., et al

    Filor, L. W., Mori, K., Bridges, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add403

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add403 2025

  15. [15]

    2001, PASP, 113, 409, doi: 10.1086/319535

    Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Bergeron, P. 2001, PASP, 113, 409, doi: 10.1086/319535

    work page doi:10.1086/319535 2001

  16. [16]

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

    2002

  17. [17]

    Fujimoto, M. Y. 1982, ApJ, 257, 752, doi: 10.1086/160029

    work page doi:10.1086/160029 1982

  18. [18]

    1995, A&A, 297, L37

    Haberl, F., & Motch, C. 1995, A&A, 297, L37

    1995

  19. [19]

    Dubovsky, P. A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3295

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3295 2024

  20. [20]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03791, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.03791 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03791 2023

  21. [21]

    Hillman, Y., Prialnik, D., Kovetz, A., & Shara, M. M. 2016, ApJ, 819, 168, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/168

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/168 2016

  22. [22]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 Jos´ e, J., & Hernanz, M

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 Jos´ e, J., & Hernanz, M. 2025, A&A, 698, A251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553762

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 2001

  23. [23]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 82, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa071

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2020, PASJ, 72, 82, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa071

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaa071 2020

  24. [24]

    Katz, J. I. 1977, ApJ, 215, 265, doi: 10.1086/155355

    work page doi:10.1086/155355 1977

  25. [25]

    C., Bergeron, P., Genest-Beaulieu, C., & Rowell, N

    Kilic, M., Hambly, N. C., Bergeron, P., Genest-Beaulieu, C., & Rowell, N. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L113, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly110 2018

  26. [26]

    R., & Shaviv, G

    King, A. R., & Shaviv, G. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/211.4.883

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/211.4.883 1984

  27. [27]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kavanaugh, D. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 91450Z, doi: 10.1117/12.2057031

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2057031 2014

  28. [28]

    A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R

    Leahy, D. A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R. F., et al. 1983, ApJ, 266, 160, doi: 10.1086/160766

    work page doi:10.1086/160766 1983

  29. [29]

    C.-C., Fan, J.-L., Hu, C.-P., Takata, J., & Li, K.-L

    Lin, L. C.-C., Fan, J.-L., Hu, C.-P., Takata, J., & Li, K.-L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L97, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac117

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac117 2022

  30. [30]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  31. [31]

    Luna, G. J. M., Lima, I. J., & Orio, M. 2024, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 65, 60, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.02220

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02220 2024

  32. [32]

    J., Beardmore, A., Mukai, K., et al

    Maccarone, T. J., Beardmore, A., Mukai, K., et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14776, 1

    2021

  33. [33]

    Magdziarz, P., & Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 1995

  34. [34]

    v., et al

    Mroz, P., Burdge, K., Roestel, J. v., et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14720, 1

    2021

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    2015, ApJL, 807, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/2/L30

    Mukai, K., Rana, V., Bernardini, F., & de Martino, D. 2015, ApJL, 807, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/2/L30

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/807/2/l30 2015

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    J., Wynn, G

    Norton, A. J., Wynn, G. A., & Somerscales, R. V. 2004, ApJ, 614, 349, doi: 10.1086/423333

    work page doi:10.1086/423333 2004

  39. [39]

    2001, A&A, 373, 542, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010537

    Orio, M., Covington, J., & ¨Ogelman, H. 2001, A&A, 373, 542, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010537

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010537 2001

  40. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63be

    Orio, M., Gendreau, K., Giese, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac63be 2022

  41. [41]

    F., G¨ ansicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Breedt, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa764

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa764 2020

  42. [42]

    L., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Park, T., Kashyap, V., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2006, Astrophysical Journal, 652, 610, doi: 10.1086/507406 17

    work page doi:10.1086/507406 2006

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14856, 1

    Kemp, J. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14856, 1

    2021

  45. [45]

    M., Metzger, B

    Quimby, R. M., Metzger, B. D., Shen, K. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad887f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad887f 2024

  46. [46]

    M., Shafter, A

    Quimby, R. M., Shafter, A. W., & Corbett, H. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 160, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac14c0

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac14c0 2021

  47. [47]

    2008b, MNRAS, 389, 989, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13627.x

    Baskill, D. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1157, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13299.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13299.x 2008

  48. [48]

    2010, A&A, 513, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913355

    Revnivtsev, M., Burenin, R., Bikmaev, I., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913355

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913355 2010

  49. [49]

    Thefractionofbinarysystemsinthecoreof13low-densityGalactic globularclusters,

    Ramsay, G. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 779, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11958.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11958.x 2007

  50. [50]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    work page doi:10.1086/160554 1982

  51. [51]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2025, ApJ, 993, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0616

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0616 2025

  52. [52]

    E., Shugarov, S

    Schmidt, R. E., Shugarov, S. Y., & Afonina, M. D. 2021, JAAVSO, 49, 257

    2021

  53. [53]

    Z., et al

    Shappee, B., Prieto, J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2014, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 223, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #223, 236.03

    2014

  54. [54]

    Shara, M. M. 1981, ApJ, 243, 926, doi: 10.1086/158657

    work page doi:10.1086/158657 1981

  55. [55]

    2021, Peremennye Zvezdy, 41, 4, doi: 10.24412/2221-0474-2021-41-14-18

    Shugarov, S., & Afonina, M. 2021, Peremennye Zvezdy, 41, 4, doi: 10.24412/2221-0474-2021-41-14-18

    work page doi:10.24412/2221-0474-2021-41-14-18 2021

  56. [56]

    Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91, doi: 10.1086/322992

    work page doi:10.1086/322992 2001

  57. [57]

    V., Mukai, K., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Sokolovsky, K. V., Mukai, K., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2104

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2104 2020

  58. [58]

    V., Johnson, T

    Sokolovsky, K. V., Johnson, T. J., Buson, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad887 Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad887 2023

  59. [59]

    V., & Werner, K

    Suleimanov, V., Doroshenko, V., Ducci, L., Zhukov, G. V., & Werner, K. 2016, A&A, 591, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628301

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628301 2016

  60. [60]

    F., Doroshenko, V., & Werner, K

    Suleimanov, V. F., Doroshenko, V., & Werner, K. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2952

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2952 2019

  61. [61]

    F., Ducci, L., Doroshenko, V., & Werner, K

    Suleimanov, V. F., Ducci, L., Doroshenko, V., & Werner, K. 2025, A&A, 700, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554368

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554368 2025

  62. [62]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace90c

    Vermette, B., Salcedo, C., Mori, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace90c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace90c 2023

  63. [63]

    M., Woodward, C

    Wagner, R. M., Woodward, C. E., Starrfield, S., Banerjee, D. P. K., & Evans, A. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14746, 1

    2021

  64. [64]

    M., Woodward, C

    Wagner, R. M., Woodward, C. E., Starrfield, S., & Rupert, J. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15312, 1

    2022

  65. [65]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

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

    1995

  66. [66]

    1990, ARA&A, 28, 103, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.00053510.1146/ annurev.astro.28.1.103

    Weidemann, V. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 103, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.00053510.1146/ annurev.astro.28.1.103

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.00053510.1146/ 1990

  67. [67]

    On the Absorption of X-rays in the Interstellar Medium

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  68. [68]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0824 2017

  69. [69]

    E., Banerjee, D

    Woodward, C. E., Banerjee, D. P. K., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3518

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3518 2021

  70. [70]

    1994, ApJ, 426, 664, doi: 10.1086/174103

    Wu, K., Chanmugam, G., & Shaviv, G. 1994, ApJ, 426, 664, doi: 10.1086/174103

    work page doi:10.1086/174103 1994

  71. [71]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398, doi: 10.1086/428435

    work page doi:10.1086/428435 2005