Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Five gamma Cas analogues show repeated kilosecond X-ray pulses

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Kilosecond X-ray periodicities are persistent in five γ Cas analogues, with periods and pulsed fractions matching intermediate-polar white dwarfs.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful survey with a plausible central claim that currently outruns its own statistics — five 'persistent' periodicities rest on targeted searches and single-trial p-values. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25913 v1 pith:XQFJ3WVF submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

A systematic assessment of the short-term X-ray behaviour of the $\gamma$ Cas analogues

Robbie Webbe , Ya\"el Naz\'e , N. A. Webb This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma Cas analoguesX-ray variabilityperiodic variabilityintermediate polarswhite dwarfsBe starstiming analysiskilosecond timescales
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether the bright, hard X-rays emitted by gamma Cas analogue stars — hot Be-type stars with unusually luminous X-rays — are periodic on timescales of a few thousand seconds, as expected if the emission comes from accretion onto a spinning magnetic white dwarf companion. Analysing 131 observations of 28 sources, the authors find five objects (gamma Cas, zeta Tau, HD 45314, V771 Sgr, and pi Aqr) in which a kilosecond-period X-ray modulation repeats across multiple observations, with periods of 1.2–5.4 ks and pulsed fractions of 5–35%. These values match those of intermediate polars, magnetic accreting white dwarfs in binary systems. The aperiodic flickering in 18 sources follows a power-law spectrum with index close to −1, also typical of accreting white dwarfs. The paper concludes that the short-term X-ray behaviour of gamma Cas analogues is globally consistent with an accreting white-dwarf interpretation.

Core claim

On the authors' own terms: among the 26 confirmed gamma Cas analogues and two candidates examined, five systems — gamma Cas, zeta Tau, HD 45314, V771 Sgr, and pi Aqr — display persistent periodic X-ray variability on kilosecond timescales (P ~ 1.2–5.4 ks) that recurs across multiple independent observations. The periods and pulsed fractions (5–35%) are consistent with the rotation of magnetic white dwarfs as seen in intermediate polars, although the exact period and folded pulse shape can differ from one observation to the next. In addition, the broadband aperiodic variability of 18 sources is well described by a power law of index ~1, the same red-noise behaviour seen in other accreting whi

What carries the argument

The analysis combines four time-series tools: power spectral densities computed per good-time interval, a generalised Lomb–Scargle Fourier algorithm for unevenly sampled data, epoch folding, and Z^2_n statistics on photon arrival times. Significance is calibrated by simulating 2000 power-law-noise light curves per detection, with the power-law index either fitted or assumed to be 1. The key discriminator is persistence: a periodicity is only counted as real if it appears in more than one observation of the same source, and targeted searches are run at frequencies where a signal is suspected but the initial frequency range was too narrow.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of the five sources as persistently periodic rests on the assumption that the simulated power-law noise accurately represents the real aperiodic variability, so that combining slightly drifting signals across observations is statistically valid.

What would settle it

For each of the five sources, take two well-separated observations where the periodicity was previously claimed and test for phase coherence: fold both on a common ephemeris and check if the phase is stable. If the pulsed phase shifts by more than the expected rotational drift, the signal is quasi-periodic noise, not rotation. Alternatively, a targeted 150 ks observation of HD 45314 at its claimed 5.4 ks period, reaching the same sensitivity, that shows no 3σ peak in the epoch-folding statistic would falsify persistence.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the kilosecond periodicities in these five systems trace the spin of magnetic white dwarfs, providing a direct way to measure rotation in a class of Be binaries.
  • The similarities to intermediate polars strengthen the accreting-white-dwarf scenario over the magnetic star-disk reconnection model for gamma Cas analogues.
  • The observed period drift — though below 2σ in each case — could, if confirmed, measure spin-up driven by accretion, as seen in symbiotic stars like Z And.
  • The power-law index ~1 for aperiodic variability implies the presence of an accretion disk or structured accretion flow, narrowing the parameter space for WD magnetic field strength.
  • The changing period, pulsed fraction, and pulse profile with source brightness suggest that the geometry of accretion regions responds to the mass accretion rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The two coexisting periods in gamma Cas (~1.7 and ~2.5 ks) could be a beat pair produced by WD spin and a Keplerian orbital period in a truncated disk; if so, the implied disk radius (~60 WD radii) can be checked against line-profile data in future high-resolution X-ray spectra.
  • The apparent tendency for pulsed fraction to rise when the source fades (zeta Tau, HD 45314, V771 Sgr) suggests that a constant-amplitude spin modulation becomes relatively stronger as the unpulsed accretion emission drops — a testable prediction for coordinated optical/X-ray monitoring.
  • A phase-coherence test across many cycles, which the paper does not report, would decisively distinguish a rotating hotspot from red-noise quasi-periodicity; the existing folded profiles already show varying shapes, so such a test could be applied to the archival data.
  • If the periods are stable over years, the existence of these five sources implies a large population of hidden magnetic white dwarfs in Be binaries, with potential consequences for rates of white-dwarf mergers and Type Ia supernovae.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic temporal analysis of all pointed XMM-Newton and Chandra observations of 26 gamma Cas analogues plus 2 candidates, 131 detections in total. For each observation the authors compute power spectral densities, generalized Fourier periodograms (GFAs), epoch folding (EF), and Z^2_n statistics, with significance assessed via a Vaughan-type red-noise threshold, Baluev false-alarm probabilities, and Monte Carlo simulations for candidate periods. They find that aperiodic variability is well described by power laws with slopes near -1, consistent with accreting white dwarfs. The central positive result is the classification of five sources — gamma Cas, zeta Tau, HD45314, V771 Sgr, and pi Aqr — as showing persistent kilosecond periodic variability, with periods of 1.2–5.4 ks and pulsed fractions of 5–35%, which the authors argue matches the properties of intermediate polars. A further nine sources show periodicities that cannot be confirmed, and the paper explicitly labels many other detections as likely spurious.

Significance. If the five-source persistence claim holds, the paper materially strengthens the case that gamma Cas analogues are Be + white-dwarf binaries with magnetically accreting white dwarfs. The work is valuable for its homogeneous treatment of a large archival sample, its explicit reporting of null and ambiguous detections, and its use of multiple period-search methods. The aperiodic-variability results are a useful systematic measurement. The main risk is statistical: the quoted high significances for the persistent signals are not derived from the Monte Carlo false-alarm distributions described in Section 2.3, and the look-elsewhere cost of targeted frequency windows is not included. These issues are repairable but are load-bearing for the paper's headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.1–4.2.5 and §2.3] The persistence claim rests on reported significances of ">5σ" or ">4σ" described as "as per the χ² test" (e.g., §4.2.1, §4.2.3) or "against the χ² statistic". These are single-trial tail probabilities of the EF/Z^2_n statistic, not outcomes of the Monte Carlo maximum-statistic distribution described in §2.3. Two thousand simulations cannot resolve a true 5σ tail (one-sided p ≈ 3×10^-7). The "overall significance considering the two observations" is also never defined algorithmically. Please report, for each of the five persistent sources, the maximum-statistic p-value from the §2.3 Monte Carlo procedure, and state explicitly how multiple observations are combined.
  2. [§4.2.1, §4.2.2, §4.2.4, §4.2.5] Several confirmations come from targeted searches in frequency windows chosen after inspecting the same data: gamma Cas 0.33–0.67 mHz after peaks near 0.4/0.6 mHz; zeta Tau 0.77–0.91 mHz after interpreting 2.4/3.7 ks features as harmonics; V771 Sgr 1.6–2.4 ks after seeing the strongest signal; pi Aqr 0.56–0.71 mHz after observing the second epoch. The look-elsewhere factor from these window choices is not included in the reported p-values. These windows must either be justified from independent data or their trial count must enter the false-alarm calculation.
  3. [§2.3 and §2.2] The Monte Carlo significance simulations assume a single power-law PSD with α fitted or set to 1, and the Baluev GFA significance is formally for white noise. If the red noise contains a broad QPO-like component or a break—the paper itself cites a previous broken-power-law fit for gamma Cas (Lopes de Oliveira et al. 2010)—the false-alarm estimates are too low. The statement in §2.2 that this "caused no problems" is asserted rather than demonstrated. I recommend injecting the fitted observed PSD (including any additional Lorentzian or broken-power-law components) into the simulations and reporting how the false-alarm probabilities change.
  4. [§4.2.1, §4.2.2, §4.2.5, §4.3] The period values assigned to a single persistent signal drift beyond the quoted formal errors in some cases; for gamma Cas Table 4 gives f1 between 0.51 and 0.67 mHz, and zeta Tau/pi Aqr show shifts of 1.28→1.14 ks and 1.79→1.59 ks between epochs. This is hard to reconcile with a coherent WD rotation clock and is a known signature of red-noise "moving" peaks. The paper states the values are consistent within errors, but the epoch-to-epoch scatter needs to be quantified against the reported uncertainties, or modelled explicitly as period evolution, before the values can be interpreted as a stable rotation period.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] The list of sources with a single XMM-Newton observation contains "HD45995" twice. Please correct the duplicate.
  2. [§2.3] The description of the Monte Carlo significance would be clearer if the authors stated whether the simulated light curves were generated with the same GTI sampling and exposure as the real observations, and whether the maximum statistic was taken over the same frequency grid.
  3. [Table 2] The source name "NGC 6649 9" is typographically awkward; please format consistently (e.g., NGC 6649/9 or as used in the source catalogue).
  4. [§4.2] The sentence "there were no Chandra observations resulting in any significant detections through the PSD, EF, or Z^2_n searches. There was only one observation that identified a significant periodicity through the GFA analyses" is confusing: the second clause appears to refer to Chandra but should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Fig. 3] The legend "Best Periodic Candidates" is used before the five persistent sources are introduced; consider defining the term in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the five-source periodicities are empirical data products, and the WD/polar comparison is a compatibility argument rather than a derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is observational: PSD, GFA, EF, and Z2n searches on 131 X-ray observations produce the candidate frequencies and pulsed fractions; significance is estimated with Monte Carlo simulations of power-law noise (Section 2.3), and the paper explicitly demotes many detections to 'spurious' or 'candidate' status on sensitivity and noise grounds (Section 4.1, Table 3). The five 'persistent' sources are classified by repeated data-level detections, not by evaluating a model that already contains the answer. The comparison with intermediate polars in Section 4.3 uses published external samples (Mukai 2017; Bernardini et al. 2017) and a prior spin-up estimate (Nazé et al. 2024, with Frank et al. 2002) only as consistency references; no fitted parameter from this paper is renamed as a prediction. The background WD-accretion scenario is inherited from same-group work (Nazé et al. 2026b), but the persistence claim does not reduce to that citation: the periods would stand or fall on the time-series analysis itself. Statistical concerns about targeted frequency windows, single-trial chi-square tails, and an assumed single-power-law red-noise model are legitimate false-alarm risks, but they are not circularity; the paper itself acknowledges several of these limitations, e.g. 'the disagreement in periodicities detected across the GFA, EF, and Z2n approaches in some observations could be the result of spurious detections.' No equation is defined in terms of a target result and no fitted input is later relabeled as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The statistical pipeline supplies most of the support; the paper's interpretation additionally assumes the WD-accretion paradigm from prior group work. Free parameters are measured α values plus one hand-set α=1 for simulations. One speculative undetected beat component is introduced for γ Cas, but it is flagged as such.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law exponent α per observation = ~0.5–1.6 (e.g., γ Cas 0651670301 α=1.31±0.19; HD110432 0109480201 α=0.80±0.07)
    Fitted to PSDs/GFAs (Table 1); used both to characterize aperiodic variability as f^-α and to set the spectral index for the 2000 simulated light curves used in period-significance tests.
  • Simulation power-law index when PSD fit unavailable = 1.0
    Section 2.3: observations without a well-fitted PSD are simulated with α=1 based on previous literature; this choice directly sets the false-alarm distribution used to certify detected periodicities.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The X-ray emission of γ Cas analogues is powered by accretion onto a (magnetic) white dwarf.
    Stated in abstract/intro and used to interpret ks periodicities as WD rotation; supported by prior XRISM results (Nazé et al. 2026b) but not independently established in this paper.
  • domain assumption Underlying aperiodic variability is a single power-law PSD without additional quasi-periodic oscillations in the candidate sources.
    Section 2.3's Monte Carlo simulations generate 2000 light curves from a power-law PSD; if the true noise contains breaks or QPOs, significance estimates for periodicities are miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Baluev false-alarm probabilities for the generalized Fourier algorithm remain approximately valid in red noise.
    Section 2.2 explicitly notes the test is formally valid for white noise while red noise is expected; the paper asserts consistency with other methods, but there is no quantitative red-noise validation.
  • domain assumption Rotation periods of accreting WDs can shorten to ~1 ks via accretion spin-up.
    Section 4.3 cites Nazé et al. 2024 and Frank et al. 2002 to argue that ks periods are plausible; if spin-up cannot reach these periods, the interpretation of P~1.2 ks detections fails.
  • domain assumption The source sample (26 analogues, 2 candidates) is complete and correctly classified per Smith et al. 2016 and Nazé et al. 2020a,b, 2024.
    The survey conclusions are conditioned on the curated class; misclassification or incompleteness would bias the fraction of sources with persistent periodicities.
invented entities (1)
  • Undetected P~6.5 ks modulation/beat component in γ Cas no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains two observed periodicities (P~1.7 and P~2.5 ks) as a beat between WD rotation and a second signal; suggested to arise from Keplerian material in a truncated accretion disc.
    Section 4.2.1 introduces this component without a direct detection; it is explicitly tentative and alternatives (optical QPOs) are mentioned, so it is an ad hoc interpretive element rather than a central detection.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A systematic assessment of the short-term X-ray behaviour of the $\gamma$ Cas analogues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQFJ3WVF

@misc{pith2026260725913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A systematic assessment of the short-term X-ray behaviour of the $\gamma$ Cas analogues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQFJ3WVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25913}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Context. Overall, $\gamma$ Cas analogues represent a class of OBe stars displaying bright and hard X-ray emission. This emission was recently determined to be the result of accretion onto a companion white dwarf (WD), which might possibly be a magnetic WD. Aims. We present a systematic review of the properties of $\gamma$ Cas analogues on short-term (kilosecond, ks) scales to further investigate the nature of the X-ray source. In particular, the presence of periodicities could be associated with the rotation of a magnetic WD. Methods. We generated the power spectra and a generalised Fourier algorithm. We applied an epoch folding method, along with Z2n approaches, to 131 X-ray detections of 26 $\gamma$ Cas analogues and two candidate sources. Results. We identified five sources ($\gamma$ Cas, $\zeta$ Tau, HD45314, V771 Sgr, and $\pi$ Aqr), with recurrent periodic variability (P $\sim$ 1.2-5.4 ks) across observations. Period values and pulsed fractions are consistent with those reported for intermediate polars. However, while similar periods are found in all exposures of an object, the exact period value or folded light curve shape can vary. We also identify another nine sources displaying periodicities that cannot be confirmed, as there was only one observation available for their analysis. In other cases, periodicities appear (at best) transient and/or marginally significant. Aperiodic variability could be fitted by a power law in 18 of the sources, while the power-law index always is $\sim$ 1, as observed in other accreting WDs. Conclusions. The global properties of the observed short-term X-ray variability of the $\gamma$ Cas analogues are consistent with those observed from other accreting WD systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25913 by N. A. Webb, Robbie Webbe, Ya\"el Naz\'e.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of observation lengths, and observed source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Histograms showing populations of source photon counts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4 but for a period of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curve of γ Cas folded using a period of P ∼ 1.7 ks and binned using 16 bins. Folding periods are as per the values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pulsed fraction for periodicities of P ∼ 1.7 ks (red circle) and P ∼ 2.5 ks (blue diamond) detected across observations of γ Cas compared with the observed source count rate. C o u nts (1 0 0 0 s) 0920020301 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0920020401 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 Phase 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗

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

57 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2020, Adv

    Balman, ¸ S. 2020, Adv. in Sp. Res., 66, 1097

    2020

  2. [2]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279

    Baluev, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279

    2008

  3. [3]

    1997, A&A, 322, 167

    Berghoefer, T., Schmitt, J., Danner, R., & Cassinelli, J. 1997, A&A, 322, 167

    1997

  4. [4]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4815

    Bernardini, F., de Martino, D., Mukai, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4815

    2017

  5. [5]

    2002, ApJ, 573, 812

    Bjorkman, K., Miroshnichenko, A., McDavid, D., & Pogrosheva, T. 2002, ApJ, 573, 812

    2002

  6. [6]

    1983, A&A, 128, 245 de Martino, D., Bernardini, F., Mukai, K., Falanga, M., & Masetti, N

    Buccheri, R., Bennett, K., Bignami, G., et al. 1983, A&A, 128, 245 de Martino, D., Bernardini, F., Mukai, K., Falanga, M., & Masetti, N. 2020, Adv. in Sp. Res., 66, 1209

    1983

  7. [7]

    & Leibowitz, E

    Formiggini, L. & Leibowitz, E. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1507

    2009

  8. [8]

    2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer Singapore), 143

    Fornasini, F., Antoniou, V ., & Dubus, G. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer Singapore), 143

    2023

  9. [9]

    2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition (Cambridge University Press)

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition (Cambridge University Press)

    2002

  10. [10]

    1987, ApJ, 320, L127

    Frontera, F., dal Fiume, D., Robba, N., et al. 1987, ApJ, 320, L127

    1987

  11. [11]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 105

    Gunderson, S., Huenemoerder, D., Torrejón, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 105

    2025

  12. [12]

    1995, A&A, 296, 685

    Haberl, F. 1995, A&A, 296, 685

    1995

  13. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 140

    Hamaguchi, K., Oskinova, L., Russell, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 140

    2016

  14. [14]

    2000, Properties and nature of Be stars

    Harmanec, P., Habuda, P., Štefl, S., et al. 2000, Properties and nature of Be stars. XX. Binary nature and orbital elements of gamma Cas

    2000

  15. [15]

    1985, A&A Supp

    Heck, A., Manfroid, J., & Mersch, G. 1985, A&A Supp. Ser., 59, 63

    1985

  16. [16]

    2017, ApJ Supp

    Hermes, J., Gänsicke, B., Kawaler, S., et al. 2017, ApJ Supp. Ser., 232, 23

    2017

  17. [17]

    1994, PASJ, 46, 9

    Horaguchi, T., Kogure, T., Hirata, R., et al. 1994, PASJ, 46, 9

    1994

  18. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 966, L23

    Huenemoerder, D., Pradhan, P., Canizares, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, L23

    2024

  19. [19]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 39

    Huppenkothen, D., Bachetti, M., Stevens, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 39

    2019

  20. [20]

    2015, Rotation of White Dwarf Stars

    Kawaler, S. 2015, Rotation of White Dwarf Stars

    2015

  21. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 70

    Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Gies, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 70

    2024

  22. [22]

    2006, X-rays from cata- clysmic variables

    Kuulkers, E., Norton, A., Schwope, A., & Warner, B. 2006, X-rays from cata- clysmic variables

    2006

  23. [23]

    1983, ApJ, 266, 160 Lopes de Oliveira, R., Motch, C., Haberl, F., Negueruela, I., & Janot-Pacheco, E

    Leahy, D., Darbro, W., Elsner, R., et al. 1983, ApJ, 266, 160 Lopes de Oliveira, R., Motch, C., Haberl, F., Negueruela, I., & Janot-Pacheco, E. 2006, A&A, 454, 265 Lopes de Oliveira, R., Motch, C., Smith, M., Negueruela, I., & Torrejón, J. 2007, A&A, 474, 983 Lopes de Oliveira, R., Smith, M., & Motch, C. 2010, A&A, 512, A22

    1983

  24. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 852, L8

    Luna, G., Mukai, K., Orio, M., & Zemko, P. 2018, ApJ, 852, L8

    2018

  25. [25]

    2024, A&A, 683, A84

    Merc, J., Beck, P., Mathur, S., & García, R. 2024, A&A, 683, A84

    2024

  26. [26]

    1990, Acta Astr., 40, 129

    Mikolajewski, M., Mikolajewska, J., Tomov, T., et al. 1990, Acta Astr., 40, 129

    1990

  27. [27]

    2024, A&A, 686, A125

    Mondal, S., Ponti, G., Bao, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A125

    2024

  28. [28]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 177

    Motch, C., Lopes de Oliveira, R., & Smith, M. 2015, ApJ, 806, 177

    2015

  29. [29]

    2017, PASP, 129, 062001

    Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001

    2017

  30. [30]

    2019, arXiv ePrints:1909.01389

    Munari, U. 2019, arXiv ePrints:1909.01389

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    1986, ApJ, 310, L31 Nazé, Y ., Rauw, G., Webbe, R., Smith, M., & Motch, C

    Murakami, T., Koyama, K., Inoue, H., & Agrawal, P. 1986, ApJ, 310, L31 Nazé, Y ., Rauw, G., Webbe, R., Smith, M., & Motch, C. 2026a, A&A, 710, A410 Nazé, Y ., Tsujimoto, M., Rauw, G., & Gunderson, S. J. 2026b, A&A, 707, A334 Nazé, Y . 2009, A&A, 506, 1055 Nazé, Y . & Motch, C. 2018, A&A, 619, A148 Nazé, Y ., Motch, C., Rauw, G., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 493, ...

    1986

  32. [32]

    2005, A&A, 439, 213

    Parker, T., Norton, A., & Mukai, K. 2005, A&A, 439, 213

    2005

  33. [33]

    1993, A&A, 275, 227 Pekön, Y

    Parmar, A., Israel, G., Stella, L., & White, N. 1993, A&A, 275, 227 Pekön, Y . & Balman, S. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1177

    1993

  34. [34]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, L119

    Postnov, K., Oskinova, L., & Torrejón, J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L119

    2017

  35. [35]

    2026, A&A, submitted

    Rauw, G., Nazé, Y ., Bryssinck, E., et al. 2026, A&A, submitted

    2026

  36. [36]

    2025, A&A, 701, A67

    Rauw, G., Nazé, Y ., & Gilon, C.-A. 2025, A&A, 701, A67

    2025

  37. [37]

    2022, A&A, 664, A184

    Rauw, G., Nazé, Y ., Motch, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A184

    2022

  38. [38]

    2018, A&A, 615, A44

    Rauw, G., Nazé, Y ., Smith, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A44

    2018

  39. [39]

    2011, Astrophysics and Space Science, 332, 1

    Reig, P. 2011, Astrophysics and Space Science, 332, 1

    2011

  40. [40]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 1317

    Revnivtsev, M., Potter, S., Kniazev, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1317

    2011

  41. [41]

    & Smith, M

    Robinson, R. & Smith, M. 2000, ApJ, 540, 474

    2000

  42. [42]

    & Li, X.-D

    Shao, Y . & Li, X.-D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 67

    2021

  43. [43]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 84

    Shrader, C., Hamaguchi, K., Sturner, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 84

    2015

  44. [44]

    2004, ApJ, 600, 972

    Smith, M., Cohen, D., Gu, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 972

    2004

  45. [45]

    2016, Adv

    Smith, M., Lopes de Oliveira, R., & Motch, C. 2016, Adv. in Sp. Res., 58, 782

    2016

  46. [46]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 1502

    Smith, M., Lopes de Oliveira, R., & Motch, C. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1502

    2017

  47. [47]

    & Robinson, R

    Smith, M. & Robinson, R. 1999, ApJ, 517, 866

    1999

  48. [48]

    1998, ApJ, 507, 945

    Smith, M., Robinson, R., & Hatzes, A. 1998, ApJ, 507, 945

    1998

  49. [49]

    Smith, M. A. & Lopes de Oliveira, R. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5048

    2019

  50. [50]

    & Bildsten, L

    Sokoloski, J. & Bildsten, L. 1999, ApJ, 517, 919 Torrejón, J., Schulz, N., & Nowak, M. 2012, ApJ, 750, 75

    1999

  51. [51]

    2005, A&A, 431, 391

    Vaughan, S. 2005, A&A, 431, 391

    2005

  52. [52]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 3087

    Veresvarska, M., Scaringi, S., Knigge, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3087

    2024

  53. [53]

    & Cassinelli, J

    Waldron, W. & Cassinelli, J. 2007, ApJ, 668, 456

    2007

  54. [54]

    2023, arXiv ePrints:2303.10055

    Webb, N. 2023, arXiv ePrints:2303.10055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    2026, A&A, 706, A168

    Webbe, R., Quintin, E., Webb, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A168

    2026

  56. [56]

    & Kürster, M

    Zechmeister, M. & Kürster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577

    2009

  57. [57]

    & Palla, P

    Zhekov, S. & Palla, P. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1124 Article number, page 12 Robbie Webbe, Yaël Nazé, and N. A. Webb: Short-term X-ray behaviour ofγCas Analogues Appendix A: Observations ofγCas analogues We list the details of all observations of theγCas analogues included in this analysis. Table A.1: Observations analysed in this work, listed chronologically fo...

    2007

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.