Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Radio Monitoring of Classical Novae using the ASKAP Variable and Slow Transients Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three classical novae detected at 887.5 MHz show non-thermal synchrotron emission as their dominant radio mechanism, argued from single-frequency light-curve fits.

desk verdict A useful survey sample and a suggestive radio/gamma-ray link, but the 'dominant synchrotron' claim outruns the fits because the key model features are hand-set to match the light curves. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13330 v1 pith:CSVU3IIQ submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Aishani Majumder , David L. Kaplan , Laura N. Driessen , Ashna Gulati , Tara Murphy , Dougal Dobie This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords classicalnovaenon-thermalsynchrotronemissionfree-freethermalradiolightcurvesASKAPVASTsurveyshock-drivenparticleaccelerationgamma-raybrokenpower-lawdensityprofile
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

The paper seeks to establish that radio light curves at a single frequency, 887.5 MHz, can identify the dominant emission mechanism in classical novae without multi-frequency spectra. Cross-matching 43 optically discovered novae with ASKAP VAST survey data, the authors find three significant radio sources: V6598 Sgr, V1716 Sco, and V1723 Sco. Fitting thermal free-free, standard synchrotron, and a synchrotron model with a broken power-law density profile, they conclude that non-thermal synchrotron emission dominates all three and that a broken power-law density profile fits better than a standard wind profile. The three radio-detected novae are exactly the gamma-ray-detected ones in the sample, so the paper links radio synchrotron emission to shock-driven particle acceleration and GeV gamma-ray production. If correct, this makes wide-field single-frequency surveys a viable route to discovering and physically classifying shock-driven novae.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a broken power-law radial density profile for the circumbinary material that the nova shock encounters, written as $\rho \propto (R/R_0)^{-k} \left(\frac{1}{2}\left[1 + (R/R_0)^{1/n}\right]\right)^{(k-m)n}$, where $k$ sets the inner slope, $m$ the outer slope, and $n$ the smoothness of the transition at the break radius $R_0$. The paper fixes $k$, $m$, and $n$ by hand from the observed rise and decay slopes of each light curve rather than fitting them, then runs MCMC over five physical parameters: filling factor $f$, wind velocity $V_{\rm wind}$, mass-loss rate $\dot{M}$, explosion energy $E$, and ejecta mass $M_{\rm ej}$. This density profile is what allows the model to reproduce the steep rise and rapid post-peak fall of these flares, which a single power-law profile cannot reproduce.

What would settle it

Observe any of the three novae at two or more radio frequencies through the rise, peak, and decline; if the spectral index is consistent with free-free emission (roughly $-0.1$ to $+2$) rather than synchrotron with self-absorption or optically thin synchrotron (roughly $-0.5$ or steeper), the dominant-mechanism claim fails. A clumpy thermal model that reproduces the steep light curves without any synchrotron component would also falsify the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-thermal synchrotron radiation from shock-accelerated electrons dominates the 887.5 MHz radio emission of V6598 Sgr, V1716 Sco, and V1723 Sco, and that this can be inferred from the shape of a single-frequency light curve when interpreted with a physically motivated model. The thermal free-free model under-predicts the observed flux and rises too slowly; the standard synchrotron model over-predicts and cannot reproduce the sharp, short-lived flares; the modified synchrotron model with a broken power-law density profile yields the lowest reduced chi-square, AIC, and BIC for V6598 Sgr and V1716 Sco and better captures the steep evolution of V1723 Sco, although none of the fits is formally acceptable for that source. The paper also reports that all three radio-detected novae lie within the six Fermi-LAT gamma-ray-detected novae in the survey footprint, a coincidence with $p \approx 0.004$, supporting the same shock population producing both radio and gamma-ray emission.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the light-curve shape alone, fitted with a broken power-law density model whose slope indices are chosen by hand, can attribute the dominant emission mechanism to non-thermal synchrotron rather than thermal free-free or a different density structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 887.5 MHz light curve, modeled with a broken power-law density profile, can separate shock-dominated novae from thermal ones, so future wide-field surveys can classify novae without multi-frequency follow-up.
  • Because all three ASKAP-detected novae are among the six Fermi-LAT gamma-ray novae in the footprint, radio detection at this frequency selects the same shock-powered population that produces GeV gamma rays, and the radio detection fraction among gamma-ray novae is 50 percent versus zero otherwise.
  • The fitted radio luminosities, around or above $10^{20}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,Hz^{-1}}$, place the three novae among the most luminous synchrotron-emitting novae known, implying efficient particle acceleration.
  • The steep post-peak decays, with flux falling as roughly $t^{-3.3}$ to $t^{-3.6}$, are much faster than the $t^{-2}$ expected for freely expanding thermal ejecta, indicating that the shock encounters a rapidly thinning circumbinary medium.
  • The success of the model with regular two-week monitoring provides a template for future radio surveys, such as the Square Kilometre Array, where targeted follow-up of large source samples will not be feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If single-frequency light-curve shape reliably identifies synchrotron-dominated novae, then archival survey data could be re-mined to build a larger radio-selected nova population, independent of gamma-ray telescope exposure.
  • The paper does not fit the density-profile indices $k$, $m$, and $n$; they are set by hand from the same light curves they are used to explain, so a clumpy or aspherical thermal ejecta model with a variable filling factor might also reproduce the steep light curves and would be a direct challenge to the synchrotron conclusion.
  • With sharper distance measurements for these systems, the degenerate fitted parameters (mass-loss rate, explosion energy, ejecta mass) would become physically informative, potentially separating the three novae into distinct shock regimes.
  • A joint radio-gamma analysis of a larger nova sample could test whether the $p \approx 0.004$ association persists; if it does, low-frequency radio surveys could serve as an unbiased finder for shock-powered novae.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript searches the ASKAP VAST 887.5 MHz survey for radio emission from classical novae, cross-matching 43 optically discovered novae erupting between 2021 September and 2025 November within the Galactic footprint and identifying three with significant radio emission: V6598 Sgr, V1716 Sco, and V1723 Sco. The authors fit the radio light curves with three models: a thermal free-free model, a standard synchrotron model with a wind-like density profile, and a modified synchrotron model incorporating a broken power-law density profile (Eq. 5). They report that the modified synchrotron model is preferred by AIC/BIC for all three novae, that the broken power-law density profile fits better than a standard wind profile, and that all three radio-detected novae are among the six Fermi-LAT-detected novae in the sample, with a Fisher-type p≈0.004 for the association. The paper concludes that single-frequency light-curve shape can identify shock-driven synchrotron-dominated novae.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a method to identify non-thermal radio emission from classical novae using single-frequency light-curve morphology rather than multi-frequency spectra or brightness-temperature measurements, which would be valuable for interpretation of current and future synoptic radio surveys such as SKA. The measured 887.5 MHz light curves of three gamma-ray-detected novae are a useful data product, and the statistical association between ASKAP detections and Fermi-LAT detections, though based on small numbers, is suggestive. The paper honestly reports the poor reduced-chi2 values and parameter degeneracies. However, the central claim that all three novae are dominated by synchrotron emission is not established by the analysis as presented; the broken power-law indices are fixed from the data and no clumpy or aspherical thermal alternative is tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (5), Table 6] The broken power-law indices k, m, n are not fitted; they are chosen by hand from the observed rise and decay slopes, as stated in the text ('we fixed them at certain values depending on the steepness of temporal evolution'). Because the modified synchrotron model's superior AIC/BIC is largely attributable to these hand-tuned slopes, the model-selection comparison is partially circular: the model is engineered to reproduce the very light-curve shape it is then preferred for. The analysis would need to treat k, m, n as free parameters, or marginalize over a physically motivated prior, to support the claim that the broken power-law density profile is genuinely required.
  2. [Table 7 and Section 4.3] The reduced chi2 values are 2.9 (V6598 Sgr), 3.7 (V1716 Sco), and 37.8 (V1723 Sco), and the text states that 'none of the models has a formally acceptable fit' and that V1723 Sco 'has no acceptable fit with any of the models.' Despite this, the abstract asserts that all three novae 'show evidence of non-thermal synchrotron emission as the dominant emission mechanism at this frequency.' This is an overstatement; for V1723 Sco the paper explicitly does not identify a preferred model, so the abstract should be revised to reflect the uncertainty.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 5] The thermal comparison model is a single, spherically symmetric, uniformly filled shell. Novae with aspherical or clumpy thermal ejecta can produce steep, early single-frequency radio light curves (e.g., V1723 Aql, V959 Mon), and the paper does not fit any such thermal model. Without comparing against a clumpy or aspherical thermal free-free model, the steep observed decline S_nu ~ t^{-3.3} to t^{-3.6} does not uniquely require synchrotron emission, so the dominant-mechanism conclusion is not established by light-curve shape alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The text states that V6598 Sgr radio observations ran from 2022 November 14, but Table 1 lists observations beginning 2023 August 4; similarly V1716 Sco is said to be observed from 2022 November 19, while Table 1 starts 2023 May 21. Please reconcile the dates, perhaps by clarifying whether the earlier dates refer to the start of the VAST survey monitoring campaign rather than the first detection.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 10] The p-value is computed from a 2x2 contingency table, but the comparison is post-hoc and the 95% confidence interval for the detection fraction in gamma-ray novae (12% to 88%) is very broad; the text should state more explicitly that the association is tentative rather than definitive.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 6] The fixed values of epsilon_e = epsilon_B = 0.01 and p = 2.5 are standard but arbitrary; since the fitted physical parameters scale strongly with these choices, please briefly justify or discuss their influence on the derived energetics.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract and conclusion should be harmonized: the conclusion says V1723 Sco is 'not well described by either model,' while the abstract claims all three novae are dominated by synchrotron emission; please adjust both to match the stated uncertainty.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Model-selection step partially circular: broken-power-law indices are fixed from observed slopes before fitting, then reported as the fit's success; independent Fermi-LAT and thermal under-prediction provide partial support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eq. (5) and Table 6 caption]
    "However, we did not fit for these indices, we fixed them at certain values depending on the steepness of temporal evolution asR(t) ∝ tthen fit for five parameters such as filling factorf, wind velocityV wind, mass loss rate ˙M, explosion energyE, ejected massM ej, via MCMC sampling."

    Equation (5)'s indices k, m, n set the density slopes that determine the model's rise and decay slopes. Reading them off the observed light-curve slopes before fitting means the modified synchrotron model is pre-tuned to the exact temporal shape it is later said to 'capture'. The AIC/BIC comparison then penalizes only the five fitted parameters, not the data-derived indices, so part of the model-selection advantage is built in.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, V1716 Sco]
    "We modelled the radio light curves by fixing the slopes tok= 3.1 for the optically thick phase,m= 3.3 for the optically thin phase, andn= 2.7 for the transition between the two. From the fit, it is evident that both the rise (S ν ∝ t3.1) and decay (Sν ∝ t−3.3) are far more rapid than expected for freely expanding, optically thick thermal ejecta, which scales asS ν ∝t 2."

    The 'rise' and 'decay' slopes quoted as the fit result are the same numbers k=3.1 and m=3.3 that were fixed from the data before fitting; the match is therefore by construction, not an independent prediction. This is the quantitative core of the claim that the modified synchrotron model captures the steep flare shape.

full rationale

The derivation is not fully circular. The radio detections are new survey data, the thermal free-free model under-predicts the flux independently, and the Fermi-LAT association (3/6 gamma-ray-detected novae radio-detected vs 0/26 non-gamma-ray novae, p ≈ 0.004) is external support for shock activity. However, the quantitative model-selection step is partially circular: the broken-power-law indices k, m, n of Eq. (5) are not fitted by MCMC but fixed by hand from the observed rise and decay slopes (Section 3.2; Table 6), so the modified synchrotron model is pre-tuned to produce the steep temporal shape that is then reported as the reason it fits better. The AIC/BIC comparison does not penalize these data-derived indices, loading the comparison in favor of the modified model. The paper's own quoted slopes for V1716 Sco (rise Sν ∝ t^3.1, decay Sν ∝ t^-3.3) are the same numbers as the fixed k and m. The poor reduced chi-square values (2.9, 3.7, 37.8) and the explicit statement that V1723 Sco 'has no acceptable fit with any of the models' further weaken the model-selection claim. Thus the dominant-synchrotron conclusion retains independent support from gamma-rays, thermal under-prediction, and steep-slope morphology, but the central model-comparison step is partly built in.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The machinery rests on standard nova radio models, but the key added assumption is a broken power-law density profile with slopes chosen from the data. The distances are adopted from external Bayesian estimates and strongly affect inferred energies and masses. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • f (filling factor, modified synchrotron model) = 0.7 +/- 0.2 (V6598 Sgr), 0.6 +/- 0.3 (V1716 Sco), 0.7 +/- 0.2 (V1723 Sco)
    MCMC fit parameter for each source; degenerate with energy and density profile.
  • V_wind (wind velocity of slow circumbinary material) = 26 +/- 14, 221 +/- 64, 122 +/- 56 km/s
    Fitted via MCMC; interpreted as velocity of slower material the shock encounters.
  • log Mdot (mass-loss rate) = -6.4 +/- 0.3, -5.6 +/- 0.1, -5.6 +/- 0.2 (M_sun/yr)
    Fitted via MCMC; correlated with V_wind in the rho proportional to Mdot/V_wind profile.
  • log E (explosion energy) = 43.6 +/- 0.1, 43.4 +/- 0.2, 44.2 +/- 0.2 (erg)
    Fitted via MCMC; anti-correlated with filling factor.
  • log M_ej (ejecta mass, modified synchrotron model) = -6.7 +/- 0.9, -5.5 +/- 0.3, -4.8 +/- 0.4 (M_sun)
    Fitted via MCMC; poorly constrained.
  • k, m, n (broken-power-law density indices) = V6598: 2.4, 2.5, 0.7; V1716: 3.1, 3.3, 2.7; V1723: 3.1, 3.6, 3.0
    Fixed by hand depending on the steepness of temporal evolution, not derived from first principles; central to the modified model's better fit.
  • Break radius R0 in broken power-law density profile = not tabulated
    Required by Equation (5) and set during model construction to match the peak; not reported in the tables.
  • log M_ej, v2, v1/v2 (thermal free-free model) = log M_ej -3.1, -4.0, -4.1; v2 about 9300 to 9900 km/s; v1/v2 0.6 to 0.8
    Fitted for the thermal model; this model under-predicts the observed flux and is not the preferred model.
  • Electron index p and shock energy fractions epsilon_e, epsilon_B = p=2.5, epsilon_e=epsilon_B=0.01
    Fixed to typical values from Pacholczyk 1970 and prior nova studies; not varied.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Thermal free-free model with a spherically symmetric, uniformly filled shell, Te=10^4 K and Hubble-type expansion
    Section 3.1, following Hjellming et al. 1979; used as the baseline model.
  • domain assumption Standard synchrotron shock model with rho proportional to R^-2, SSA and FFA
    Section 3.2, following Chevalier 1998 and Nyamai et al. 2023; fixed p and epsilon values are taken from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Broken power-law density profile with chosen k, m, n and break radius R0
    Equation (5), Section 3.2. Introduced to capture the observed steep rise and decay; the indices are set from the light curves themselves.
  • domain assumption Adopted distances: 7.6 kpc for V6598 Sgr, 3.0 kpc for V1716 Sco, 8.0 kpc for V1723 Sco
    Section 2, from Schaefer 2025 and Bailer-Jones et al.; distances are highly uncertain and strongly affect fitted energies and masses.
  • domain assumption Optical discovery date t0 equals the ejection time and initial shell radii are negligible
    Section 2 and Section 3.1; all light curve phases are measured from t0.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-frequency light-curve shape can distinguish thermal from non-thermal emission
    Central interpretive premise; not validated by independent multi-frequency data for these sources.
  • domain assumption All three hosts have main-sequence companions and a tenuous circumbinary medium
    Section 5, from Schaefer 2025; used to explain the rapid post-peak radio decay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio Monitoring of Classical Novae using the ASKAP Variable and Slow Transients Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSVU3IIQ

@misc{pith2026260813330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio Monitoring of Classical Novae using the ASKAP Variable and Slow Transients Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSVU3IIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13330}
}
read the original abstract

We present a search for radio emission from classical novae at 887.5 MHz using data from the Australian SKA Pathfinder Variable And Slow Transient (VAST) survey. We cross-matched 43 optically discovered classical novae that erupted between 2021 September and 2025 November within the 1200-square-degree Galactic survey footprint, and found three which show significant radio emission: V6598 Sgr, V1716 Sco, and V1723 Sco. To analyse their radio light curves, we use both thermal free-free and non-thermal synchrotron emission models. We fit the data using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to constrain parameters, including the ejected mass and ejecta velocities for the thermal models, and mass-loss rate, explosion energy, wind velocity, and filling factor for the non-thermal model. All three novae show evidence of non-thermal synchrotron emission as the dominant emission mechanism at this frequency. We use a broken power law to describe the radial density structure of a non-uniform circumbinary material, which provides a better fit than a standard wind density profile. This strong early-time synchrotron emission is strong evidence of shock-driven particle acceleration, which may be related to detections of gamma-rays from all three novae as well. In contrast to earlier studies that used multi-frequency data to distinguish between emission models, our analysis is based on single-frequency radio light curves, which can still provide useful constraints on the dominant emission mechanism when interpreted with physically motivated models

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical (top) and radio (bottom) light curves for V6598 Sgr, V1716 Sco, and V1723 Sco. Optical data are from AAVSO; radio data at 887.5 MHz are from ASKAP VAST. Triangles indicate 5σ upper limits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model fit of thermal, non-thermal, and modified non-thermal emission to V6598 Sgr at 887.5 MHz, with the red, green, and blue light curves representing the respective model fits. Spaghetti plots based on 100 posterior samples from MCMC fitting are shown to illustrate the spread and uncertainty of the model, while the bold curve denotes the best-fit model. 4.2 V1716 Sco V1716 Sco is a classical nova with significant … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This is the corner plot of V6598 Sgr, showing the posterior distribution of the five parameters fit with the modified synchrotron emission model. The parameters that we varied are filling factor f , wind velocity Vwind, mass-loss rate M˙ energy E, ejected mass Mej. This 2D contour plot corresponds to the best-fitting model among the three fits. The correlations between the parameters show that they are coupled and a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio light curve fitting of V1716 Sco for thermal, non-thermal, and modified non-thermal emission models. Red, green, and blue curves show three different models. From the MCMC posterior distribution, 100 samples are used to generate a spaghetti plot illustrating the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distribution of the parameters in the broken power-law synchrotron model fit to V1716 Sco. These parameters are poorly constrained, resulting in a poor fit to the data. Mass loss rate M˙ and wind velocity Vwind showed a positive correlation, reflecting the mo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio light curve fitting of V1723 Sco for thermal, non-thermal, and modified non-thermal emission models. Red, green, and blue curves show three different models. From the MCMC posterior distribution, 100 samples are used to generate a spaghetti plot illustrating the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This is the corner plot showing the posterior distributions from the broken power law synchrotron model fit with the lowest χ 2 value via MCMC analysis of V1723 Sco. Negative correlations in the energy-filling factor contour and a mildly positive correlation in the mas…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of classical novae as a function of dis￾tance (kpc), separated by emission mechanisms. The histogram uses logarithmically spaced distance bins to provide equal￾interval spacing. Most of the novae within 1 kpc show either non-detections or thermal radiation…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of Fermi-LAT γ-ray and ASKAP VAST radio detections of novae, to assess whether radio de￾tections are preferentially associated with prior gamma-ray detections. Each cell gives the number of novae in the corres￾ponding detection category. The colour intensit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 817

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    2014, Science, 345, 554

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 554

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16155, 1

    Anumarlapudi, A., Kaplan, D., Sivakoff, G., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16155, 1

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021a, AJ, 161, 147 —. 2021b, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia EDR3 (Bailer-Jones+, 2021), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/352. Originally published in: 2021AJ....161..147B

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    F., & Evans, A

    Bode, M. F., & Evans, A. 2012, Classical Novae

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    J., Blondin, J

    Borkowski, K. J., Blondin, J. M., & Sarazin, C. L. 1992, ApJ, 400, 222

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Cheung, C. C. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16439, 1

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    C., & Jean, P

    Cheung, C. C., & Jean, P. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16441, 1

    work page 2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    C., Jean, P., Shore, S

    Cheung, C. C., Jean, P., Shore, S. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 142

    2016

  2. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810

    1998

  3. [11]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268

    1994

  4. [12]

    I., Rupen, M

    Chomiuk, L., Krauss, M. I., Rupen, M. P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 173

    2012

  5. [13]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482

    2009

  6. [14]

    Dobie, D., Rose, K., Kaplan, D., & Sivakoff, G. R. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16383, 1

    2023

  7. [15]

    Duerbeck, H. W. 1981, PASP, 93, 165

    1981

  8. [16]

    2026, A&A, 705, A19

    Fauverge, P., Jean, P., Sokolovsky, K., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A19

    2026

  9. [17]

    D., et al

    Finzell, T., Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 108

    2018

  10. [18]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  11. [19]

    S., & Starrfield, S

    Gallagher, J. S., & Starrfield, S. 1978, ARA&A, 16, 171

    1978

  12. [20]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    2004

  13. [21]

    L., et al

    Gulati, A., Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e025

    2023

  14. [22]

    R., & Das, R

    Habtie, G. R., & Das, R. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16454, 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 108

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2018, ApJ, 858, 108

    2018

  16. [24]

    P., Tomsick, J

    Hare, J., Halpern, J. P., Tomsick, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 85

    2021

  17. [25]

    J., Beswick, R., Avison, A., & Argo, M

    Healy, F., O’Brien, T. J., Beswick, R., Avison, A., & Argo, M. K. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3976

    2017

  18. [26]

    2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 62

    Hernanz, M., & Tatischeff, V. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 62

    2012

  19. [27]

    M., Wade, C

    Hjellming, R. M., Wade, C. M., Vandenberg, N. R., & Newell, R. T. 1979, AJ, 84, 1619

    1979

  20. [28]

    M., Afonso, J., Chan, B., et al

    Hopkins, A. M., Afonso, J., Chan, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 465

    2003

  21. [29]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009

    2021

  22. [30]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Kato, M. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 261, The Physics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. B. T. Gänsicke, K. Beuermann, & K. Reinsch, 595

    2002

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28

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

    2011

  24. [32]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74

    2007

  25. [33]

    W., Minniti, D., Kamble, A., et al

    Lucas, P. W., Minniti, D., Kamble, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4847

    2020

  26. [34]

    Luna, G. J. M., Dobrotka, A., & Orio, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.06399

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E., & Kelker, D

    Lutz, T. E., & Kelker, D. H. 1973, PASP, 85, 573

    1973

  28. [36]

    2015, ASKAP antenna aperture efficiency estimation, ASKAP Memos No

    McConnell, D. 2015, ASKAP antenna aperture efficiency estimation, ASKAP Memos No. 005 005, CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility (A TNF)

    2015

  29. [37]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048

    2020

  30. [38]

    D., Hascoët, R., Vurm, I., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Hascoët, R., Vurm, I., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 713

    2014

  31. [39]

    2022, A&A, 666, L6

    Munari, U., Giroletti, M., Marcote, B., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L6

    2022

  32. [40]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16141, 1

    Munari, U., Ochner, P., Siviero, A., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16141, 1

    2023

  33. [41]

    Murphy, T., & Kaplan, D. L. 2026, PASA, 43, e006

    2026

  34. [42]

    L., et al

    Murphy, T., Chatterjee, S., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e006

    2013

  35. [43]

    L., Stewart, A

    Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., Stewart, A. J., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e054

    2021

  36. [44]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16172, 1

    Nesci, R., & Fiocchi, M. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16172, 1

    2023

  37. [45]

    M., Chomiuk, L., Ribeiro, V

    Nyamai, M. M., Chomiuk, L., Ribeiro, V. A. R. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1394

    2021

  38. [46]

    M., Linford, J

    Nyamai, M. M., Linford, J. D., Allison, J. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1661

    2023

  39. [47]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    1989

  40. [48]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio Astrophysics: Nonthermal Processes in Galactic and Extragalactic Sources (W. H. Freeman)

    1970

  41. [49]

    M., & Taam, R

    Pan, K.-C., Ricker, P. M., & Taam, R. E. 2015, ApJ, 806, 27

    2015

  42. [50]

    R., & Mattei, J

    Percy, J. R., & Mattei, J. A. 1993, Ap&SS, 210, 137

    1993

  43. [51]

    2022, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Pintaldi, S., Stewart, A., O’Brien, A., Kaplan, D., & Murphy, T. 2022, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 532, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXX, ed. J. E. Ruiz, F. Pierfedereci, & P. Teuben, 333

    2022

  44. [52]

    Y., Papadopoulos, P

    Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Zhang, Z. Y., Papadopoulos, P. P., & Ivison, R. J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 401

    2017

  45. [53]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16969, 1

    Rose, K., Dobie, D., Murphy, T., & Driessen, L. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16969, 1

    2025

  46. [54]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 6150 —. 2025, ApJ, 993, 232

    2022

  47. [55]

    Seaquist, E. R. 2008, in Classical Novae, ed. M. F. Bode & A. Evans, V ol. 43 (Cambridge University Press), 141–166

    2008

  48. [56]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 16018, 1

    Sokolovsky, K., Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 16018, 1

    2023

  49. [57]

    Sokolovsky, K., Luna, G. J. M., Aydi, E., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16444, 1

    2024

  50. [58]

    W., Sparks, W

    Starrfield, S., Truran, J. W., Sparks, W. M., & Arnould, M. 1978, ApJ, 222, 600

    1978

  51. [59]

    J., Schaefer, B

    Strope, R. J., Schaefer, B. E., & Henden, A. A. 2010, AJ, 140, 34

    2010

  52. [60]

    Tan, M. Y. J., & Biswas, R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3292

    2012

  53. [61]

    Vlasov, A., Vurm, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 394

    2016

  54. [62]

    H., Yan, H

    Wang, H. H., Yan, H. D., Takata, J., & Lin, L. C. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.19233

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Weston, J. H. S., Sokoloski, J. L., Zheng, Y., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 490, Stellar Novae: Past and Future Decades, ed. P. A. W oudt & V. A. R. M. Ribeiro, 339

    2014

  56. [64]

    Weston, J. H. S., Sokoloski, J. L., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 460, 2687 W oodward, C. E., Shaw, G., Starrfield, S., Evans, A., & Page, K. L. 2024, ApJ, 968, 31 W orley, J. T., Orio, M., Dobrotka, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 30

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.