Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Optical Spectroscopy of the Most Compact Accreting Binary Harboring a Magnetic White Dwarf and a Hydrogen-rich Donor

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

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

Pith's one-line read Gaia19bxc, a binary that orbits every 64.42 minutes, is the first polar — a white dwarf magnetically pulling gas from a hydrogen-rich companion — found below the cataclysmic-variable period floor, and probably the first metal-poor one.

desk verdict A genuine discovery of a 64.42-minute polar; the Population II interpretation is plausible but rides on a distance-dependent donor temperature limit the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20170 v1 pith:IENIKBP4 submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Ilkham Galiullin , Antonio C. Rodriguez , Kareem El-Badry , Ilaria Caiazzo , Paula Szkody , Pranav Nagarajan , Samuel Whitebook This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords cataclysmicvariablespolarsmagneticwhitedwarfsperiodminimumPopulationIIdonorsmetal-poorstarscyclotronemissionGaia19bxc
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 claims that Gaia19bxc is a polar — a binary in which a strongly magnetic white dwarf (field above roughly 10 megagauss) pulls hydrogen-rich gas directly from a companion star — and that its orbital period of 64.42 minutes puts it below the ~76–82 minute minimum period that ordinary cataclysmic variables are thought to reach. No polar was previously known below that floor. Because the donor star is not seen in the spectra and its inferred temperature is below about 3500 K, the paper argues that this is not the hot, evolved donor required by the usual 'evolved CV' channel; instead, the short period and the system's halo-like motion indicate a metal-poor (Population II) donor. If that reading is right, Gaia19bxc is the first metal-poor polar, and a live confirmation that low-metallicity donors are compact enough to drive binaries to periods of 51–67 minutes.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked pieces. (1) The 64.42-minute photometric period, confirmed by the radial-velocity motion of the Balmer and He II lines, locks the system below the canonical period minimum. (2) Cyclotron beaming — the double-peaked light curve and a broad optical cyclotron hump — identifies the white dwarf as magnetic (B ≳ 10 MG) and excludes a non-magnetic disk accretor. (3) The donor temperature upper limit Teff ≲ 3500 K, derived from a spectral energy distribution built at an adopted distance of 2 kpc, is placed against binary evolution models that expect evolved donors to be hotter than ~4000 K; that cold-donor limit is what rules out the evolved scenario and leave

What would settle it

A near-infrared spectrum taken near orbital minimum would settle it: a donor continuum or molecular bands (such as TiO) indicating Teff above about 4000 K, or any metal absorption lines, would falsify the cold metal-poor donor. Independently, a Gaia parallax with error below about 0.2 mas that places the system beyond roughly 2.8 kpc would loosen the temperature bound enough to reinstate the evolved-donor scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Gaia19bxc is a polar: a binary whose white dwarf is strongly magnetic (≳10 MG) and whose 64.42-minute orbital period is the shortest known for such a system, below the ~76–82 minute floor that normal hydrogen-rich cataclysmic variables cannot cross. Stable photometric and spectroscopic periods agree (64.420 ± 0.006 min vs 63.0 ± 3.9 min); a broad cyclotron hump and double-peaked beaming mark the accretor as magnetic; hydrogen and helium emission lines show no donor features; and Doppler tomography shows stream accretion, not a disk. Because the donor is undetectable and its SED-based temperature is below about 3500 K — cooler than evolved-donor mo

Load-bearing premise

The cold-donor limit (Teff ≲ 3500 K) that excludes the evolved-donor scenario is computed from a spectral energy distribution at an adopted distance of 2 kpc, while the Gaia parallax (0.57 ± 0.77 mas) is consistent with distances up to several kiloparsecs; if the true distance is much larger, a hotter, evolved donor cannot be excluded and the metal-poor interpretation loses its main support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gaia19bxc becomes the benchmark short-period polar: magnetic white dwarfs can be found in hydrogen-rich systems well below the cataclysmic-variable period minimum.
  • The system's period sits inside the range predicted for metal-poor (Population II) donors, so if the interpretation holds, it validates a formation channel that had no confirmed magnetic member.
  • The system is not an AM CVn: hydrogen lines as strong as helium lines show the donor is hydrogen-rich, distinguishing this channel from the helium-dominated ultracompact binaries.
  • Its faintness (about 20–21 mag) means current surveys glimpse only the brightest such systems; deeper surveys should find dozens more.
  • Because the donor is invisible in the optical, infrared spectroscopy is the necessary next step to measure its temperature and metallicity directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the metal-poor interpretation is right, a near-infrared spectrum should reveal a very low-metallicity donor with Teff below about 3500 K; detecting solar-metallicity bands such as TiO would instead favor the evolved-donor channel — a testable prediction beyond the paper's optical data.
  • The two unequal cyclotron peaks per orbit could be modeled to constrain the magnetic field geometry (two-pole accretion versus aspect-dependent beaming); the paper notes but does not carry out such modeling.
  • The donor-temperature limit leans on an adopted distance of 2 kpc; a future parallax measurement with error well below the current 0.77 mas could either cement the cold-donor conclusion or resurrect a hot, evolved donor.
  • Long-term timing of the 64.42-minute period could measure a period derivative and distinguish a pre-bounce system (period still shrinking) from a period-bouncer (period growing) — the paper leaves both open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports optical photometry and phase-resolved spectroscopy of the Cataclysmic Variable Gaia19bxc. It finds a photometric period of 64.420 ± 0.006 min in ZTF and CHIMERA data, and an independent spectroscopic period of 63.0 ± 3.9 min from H and He emission lines; both are consistent, and the double-peaked light curves, broad cyclotron hump, and stream-like Doppler tomograms identify the system as a magnetic CV (polar) with an orbital period far below the canonical CV period minimum of ~76–82 min. From the absence of donor features and a simplified SED fit, the paper derives an upper limit Teff ≲ 3500 K for the donor and argues that this disfavors an evolved-donor origin, instead proposing that Gaia19bxc is a metal-poor (Population II) polar—the first such magnetic system below the period minimum.

Significance. If the Population II interpretation holds, this would be a striking result: a polar below the canonical period minimum with implications for CV evolution, magnetic field generation, and the Galactic halo population. The observational identification of Gaia19bxc as a polar is robust: the photometric and spectroscopic periods are independent and agree; the cyclotron hump and tomograms are characteristic of magnetic accretion. The weaker link is the donor-temperature constraint: it is derived at an assumed distance of 2 kpc despite a very uncertain Gaia parallax, and the paper itself acknowledges that future infrared spectroscopy is needed. Thus the core observational claim is valuable and publishable, but the evolutionary (Population II) conclusion is conditional on a distance-dependent limit that is not yet secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C / Figure 6] The donor temperature upper limit Teff ≲ 3500 K is directly distance-dependent. The Gaia DR3 parallax is π = 0.57 ± 0.77 mas; the Bailer-Jones geometric distance is 2009 +832/−960 pc. At the 1σ upper distance (~2.84 kpc), a 5000 K donor’s flux is reduced by a factor (2/2.84)^2 relative to the adopted distance, so it would not overproduce the ZTF r-band minimum as claimed. The statement that a 5000 K donor 'should be visible in optical spectra' is not quantified: no synthetic spectra, line-strength limits, or signal-to-noise threshold are given. Because the evolved-donor scenario is excluded only by this temperature limit, the distance uncertainty propagates directly into the central evolutionary conclusion. Please re-derive the limit with distance marginalized over the Gaia parallax and provide quantitative spectroscopic detectability limits.
  2. [§3(b) and Figure 6 right] The comparison with MESA models (El-Badry et al. 2021a,b) is used to argue that an evolved donor would have Teff ≳ 4000 K and is therefore excluded. But as noted above, the observed SED can accommodate a 4000–5000 K donor if the distance is near the upper end of the allowed range. Moreover, the SED model assumes T_WD = 14000 K, log g = 8.0, A_V = 0.2, and solar-metallicity atmosphere grids without exploring their uncertainties. A model with a slightly different WD temperature or extinction could shift the donor temperature limit. The conclusion that Gaia19bxc is a Population II CV rather than an evolved CV is therefore not yet securely established; it should be presented as a conditional interpretation.
  3. [§3(c) kinematics] The Population II interpretation also relies on kinematics: a transverse velocity of approximately 91 km/s is quoted assuming d = 2 kpc. At the 1σ upper distance of 2.84 kpc, this becomes ~130 km/s, which is consistent with halo kinematics but also with the thick disk. The comparison with SDSS J15072 is qualitative. This kinematics argument is supportive rather than decisive; please state explicitly how the distance uncertainty affects the kinematic classification and avoid implying that the halo-like kinematics independently confirm the Population II interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'low-metallicty' should be 'low-metallicity'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states 'The dashed line indicates when CHIMERA photometry was acquired and the dashed lines indicate Keck I/LRIS spectroscopy'—the singular/plural distinction is confusing; use different line styles or clarify.
  3. [Table 1] The table heading contains 'T able 1' with a space; fix formatting.
  4. [Appendix B] The MCMC description would benefit from stating the adopted priors explicitly in the text (they are only implied by the ranges given) and from reporting the posterior uncertainties on K and γ, which are not shown in Figure 5.
  5. [Appendix C] The WISE (W1−W2) ≈ 1.0 color argument for Teff ≈ 1500 K assumes that only the donor contributes in the infrared; cyclotron emission can contaminate WISE bands. Please clarify the assumption and acknowledge this caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: period determination and donor-temperature comparison are independent of the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims rest on independent measurements and external comparisons, not on self-defined quantities or fitted inputs. The orbital period is established by two independent datasets: the ZTF/CHIMERA photometric period (64.420 ± 0.006 min) and a phase-resolved spectroscopic period (63.0 ± 3.9 min), which agree within uncertainties; neither is derived from the other. The magnetic nature is inferred from cyclotron beaming signatures in photometry and a broad cyclotron hump in spectroscopy, again independent of the evolutionary interpretation. The donor temperature upper limit (Teff ≲ 3500 K) is obtained from an SED model that adopts a fiducial distance of 2 kpc, but this is a constraint, not a fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction. The evolved-donor scenario is tested against published MESA models (El-Badry et al. 2021a,b) that are parameterized by initial orbital periods and are not fitted to Gaia19bxc; although one author of those models overlaps with the current paper, the models are external, falsifiable predictions with stated assumptions that do not include the target result. The Population II scenario is compared to published period-minimum calculations (Stehle et al. 1997). Even though the distance is uncertain and the donor-temperature limit is conditional, that is a scientific limitation, not a circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained and the paper earns a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard CV physics and model grids plus several adopted numerical inputs. The most consequential is the poorly constrained distance, which determines the donor temperature limit that separates the evolved and Population II interpretations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial distance d = 2 kpc = 2 kpc (Bailer-Jones et al. 2021, +832/-960 pc; Gaia pi = 0.57 +/- 0.77 mas)
    Adopted despite parallax error exceeding the measurement; scales the donor flux and the transverse velocity, directly affecting the Teff <= 3500 K limit and the kinematic comparison.
  • Assumed WD effective temperature = T_WD = 14,000 K
    Chosen as typical for CV WDs near the period minimum; enters the WD plus donor SED decomposition used to derive the donor temperature upper limit.
  • Assumed extinction = A_V = 0.2 mag
    Taken from the Bayestar19 dust map; changes the dereddened donor flux and therefore the inferred donor temperature.
  • Assumed WD and donor atmosphere grid parameters = WD log g = 8.0, M = 0.8 Msun; donor log g = 5.0, solar metallicity
    Used to compute model fluxes. Notably, the donor is modeled with solar metallicity even though the paper's preferred interpretation is a metal-poor donor.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cyclotron beaming from a strongly magnetized WD in a high-state polar produces a double-peaked orbital light curve and a broad optical hump indicating B >~ 10 MG.
    Used in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to classify Gaia19bxc as a polar, following Campbell et al. (2008) and standard polar phenomenology.
  • domain assumption The WD in a polar is synchronized with the orbit, so the 64.42-minute photometric period is the orbital period, not a spin period.
    The absence of other periods in ZTF data supports this; without it, the claim of the shortest magnetic CV orbital period would not follow.
  • domain assumption MESA binary models with initial periods >= 2.2 days produce evolved CV donors with effective temperatures >= 4000 K at this orbital period.
    Used in Appendix C and Figure 6 to argue that the Teff <= 3500 K limit disfavors the evolved donor scenario.
  • domain assumption Stehle et al. (1997) models predicting a Population II CV period minimum of 51 to 67 minutes apply to this system.
    Basis for interpreting the 64.42-minute period as consistent with a metal-poor donor rather than an evolved donor.
  • domain assumption BT-NextGen and Koester model atmospheres with the assumed parameters adequately represent the donor and WD emission in the SED.
    Required for the donor temperature constraint in Appendix C; the paper notes this is a simplified approach because cyclotron emission is not modeled.
  • standard math A circular Keplerian sinusoidal radial velocity curve (Eq. B1) describes the emission-line motion.
    Standard assumption for close binaries; used to derive the spectroscopic period via MCMC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Spectroscopy of the Most Compact Accreting Binary Harboring a Magnetic White Dwarf and a Hydrogen-rich Donor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IENIKBP4

@misc{pith2026250820170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Spectroscopy of the Most Compact Accreting Binary Harboring a Magnetic White Dwarf and a Hydrogen-rich Donor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IENIKBP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20170}
}
abstract

Accreting white dwarfs in close binary systems, commonly known as cataclysmic variables (CVs), with orbital periods below the canonical period minimum ($\approx$ 80 minutes) are rare. Such short periods can only be reached if the donor star in the CV is either significantly evolved before initiating mass transfer to the white dwarf (WD) or metal-poor. We present optical photometry and spectroscopy of Gaia19bxc, a high-amplitude variable identified as a polar CV with an exceptionally short orbital period of 64.42 minutes - well below the canonical CV period minimum. High-speed photometry confirms persistent double-peaked variability consistent with cyclotron beaming, thus indicating the presence of a magnetic WD. Phase-resolved Keck/LRIS spectroscopy reveals strong hydrogen and helium emission lines but no donor features, indicating the accretor is a magnetic WD and the donor is hydrogen-rich, but cold and faint. The absence of a detectable donor and the low inferred temperature ($\lesssim$ 3500 K) disfavor an evolved donor scenario. Instead, the short period and the system's halo-like kinematics suggest Gaia19bxc may be the first known metal-poor polar. Because metal-poor donors are more compact than solar-metallicity donors of the same mass, they can reach shorter minimum periods. Gaia19bxc is one of only a handful of known metal-poor CVs below the canonical period minimum and has the shortest period of any such magnetic system discovered to date.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20170 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Archival ZTF photometry data and follow-up high-speed photometry of Gaia19bxc with CHIMERA. Upper left: The six-year-long ZTF light curve shows high and low state changes typically seen in magnetic CVs. The dashed line indicates when CHIMERA photometry was acquired and the dashed lines indicate Keck I/LRIS spectroscopy. Lower left: A phase-folded ZTF light curve. A clear period is identified (64.42 minutes) while th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Keck I/LRIS phase-resolved spectroscopy of Gaia19bxc. The corresponding orbital phases for each spectrum are indicated by the text. Spectra exhibit prominent hydrogen Balmer emission lines along with high-excitation helium lines (He I and He II). A broad cyclotron hump is observed at phase of ϕ = 0.28. A small discontinuity in the spectra is caused by cosmic rays in the data. Upper right: Continuum-normalized … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The period distribution of known polars from Rit￾ter & Kolb (2003) (gray). The orbital period of Gaia19bxc, with its 64.42-minute period is marked by the red verti￾cal line, showing that Gaia19bxc is the most compact polar known to date. The cyan region indicates the predicted Pmin range (51 − 78 minutes) for Population II (metal-poor) CVs (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Full CHIMERA high-speed photometry light curves in g, i, r filters covering the entire orbital period of Gaia19bxc: 22 August 2022 (r filter, top panel), and 25 May 2023 (g, i filters, bottom panel; blue and dark red, respectively). The orbital period of 64.42 minutes …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RV measurements (black points) of prominent hydrogen (Hβ, Hγ) and helium (He II 4686˚A) emission lines, from left to right. Solid red lines represent the RV model constructed from the median parameters of the MCMC parameter exploration. Shaded red regions indicate mode…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Observed SED of Gaia19bxc. Photometric data from GALEX (UV, cyan), PanSTARRS PS1 (optical, black circles), ZTF (optical, black squares), and CatWISE (mid-IR, dark red) are shown. The ZTF data at the light curve minimum (upward triangles) and maximum (downward tri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 91, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1011.5405

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.5405 2011

  2. [2]

    H., & van Paradijs, J

    Augusteijn, T., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & van Paradijs, J. 1993, A&A, 267, L55

    1993

  3. [3]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, A&A, 678, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347047 10 Galiullin and Rodriguez et al

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347047 2023

  5. [5]

    T., Marsh, T

    Breedt, E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2548, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21724.x

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    B., El-Badry, K., Marsh, T

    Burdge, K. B., El-Badry, K., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2022, Nature, 610, 467, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05195-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05195-x 2022

  7. [7]

    Howell, S. B. 2008, ApJ, 672, 531, doi: 10.1086/523632

    work page doi:10.1086/523632 2008

  8. [8]

    J., Steeghs, D., de Miguel, E., et al

    Carter, P. J., Steeghs, D., de Miguel, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt169 2013

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2019-838, 1

    Delgado, A., Harrison, D., Hodgkin, S., et al. 2019, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2019-838, 1

    2019

  2. [10]

    S., Marsh, T

    Dhillon, V. S., Marsh, T. R., Stevenson, M. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x

    2007

  3. [11]

    Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Marocco, F., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Shen, K. J. 2021a, MNRAS, 508, 4106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2583

    doi

  5. [13]

    2021b, MNRAS, 505, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1318

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2021b, MNRAS, 505, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1318

    doi

  6. [14]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Dillon, M., Southworth, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS,...

    2013

  7. [15]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    J., van Roestel, J., & Wong, T

    Green, M. J., van Roestel, J., & Wong, T. L. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10535, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10535

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    J., Marsh, T

    Green, M. J., Marsh, T. R., Carter, P. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1509

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Hallinan, G., Milburn, J., et al

    Harding, L. K., Hallinan, G., Milburn, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw094

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    1970 doi

  12. [20]

    T., Harrison, D

    Hodgkin, S. T., Harrison, D. L., Breedt, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140735

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    B., & Szkody, P

    Howell, S. B., & Szkody, P. 1990, ApJ, 356, 623, doi: 10.1086/168868

    1990 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezic, Z., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.04603

    Kato, T. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.04603

    2022 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/131

    Kennedy, M., Garnavich, P., Callanan, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/131

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 484, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11096.x

    Knigge, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 484, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11096.x

    2006

  18. [26]

    2010, Mem

    Koester, D. 2010, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 81, 921

    2010

  19. [27]

    J., Potter, S

    Kotze, E. J., Potter, S. B., & McBride, V. A. 2015, A&A, 579, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526381

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Moon, D.-S., et al

    Lee, Y., Kim, S. C., Moon, D.-S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 925, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4c41

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Park, H

    Lee, Y., Moon, D.-S., Kim, S. C., Park, H. S., & Ni, Y. Q. 2024, ApJ, 964, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25ff

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Kupfer, T., Najera Casarrubias, E., et al

    Maccarone, T. J., Kupfer, T., Najera Casarrubias, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad194

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    R., & Horne, K

    Marsh, T. R., & Horne, K. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/235.1.269

    1988 doi

  24. [32]

    R., G¨ ansicke, B

    Marsh, T. R., G¨ ansicke, B. T., H¨ ummerich, S., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 374, doi: 10.1038/nature18620

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    1982, ApJ, 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682

    Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682

    1982 doi

  27. [35]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 1269, doi: 10.1086/518465

    Nomoto, K., Saio, H., Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1269, doi: 10.1086/518465

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562 Paczy´ nski, B. 1967, AcA, 17, 287

    1995 doi

  29. [37]

    F., G¨ ansicke, B

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

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    F., G¨ ansicke, B

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

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Knigge, C

    Patterson, J., Thorstensen, J. R., & Knigge, C. 2008, PASP, 120, 510, doi: 10.1086/588615

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Buckley, D

    Pelisoli, I., Marsh, T. R., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 931, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01995-x

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, 1214, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06380.x

    Podsiadlowski, P., Han, Z., & Rappaport, S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1214, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06380.x

    2003

  35. [43]

    J., Marsh, T

    Ramsay, G., Green, M. J., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834261

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2006, A&A, 452, 169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054268

    Sunyaev, R. 2006, A&A, 452, 169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054268

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    2003, A&A, 404, 301, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030330

    Ritter, H., & Kolb, U. 2003, A&A, 404, 301, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030330

    2003 doi

  38. [46]

    C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2025a, PASP, 137, 014201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ada185

    doi

  39. [47]

    C., El-Badry, K., Hakala, P., et al

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Hakala, P., et al. 2025b, PASP, 137, 024202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adb0f1

    doi

  40. [48]

    Sarkar, A., Ge, H., & Tout, C. A. 2023a, MNRAS, 519, 2567, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3688 Gaia19bxc 11 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 520, 3187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad354

    doi

  41. [49]

    R., Belloni, D., G¨ ansicke, B

    Schreiber, M. R., Belloni, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Parsons, S. G., & Zorotovic, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 648, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Silber, A. D. 1992, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    1992

  43. [51]

    J., Faherty, J

    Skrzypek, N., Warren, S. J., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424570

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    Solheim, J. E. 2010, PASP, 122, 1133, doi: 10.1086/656680

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    1997, A&A, 320, 136

    Stehle, R., Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1997, A&A, 320, 136

    1997

  46. [54]

    R., Fenton, W

    Thorstensen, J. R., Fenton, W. H., Patterson, J. O., et al. 2002, ApJL, 567, L49, doi: 10.1086/339905

    2002 doi

  47. [55]

    Yungelson, L. R. 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 52

    1985

  48. [56]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, L85, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01061.x van Roestel, J., Rodriguez, A

    Thorstensen, J. 2011, MNRAS, 414, L85, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01061.x van Roestel, J., Rodriguez, A. C., Szkody, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A242, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451945

    2011

  49. [57]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

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

    1995

  50. [58]

    1973, ApJ, 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565

    Whelan, J., & Iben, Jr., I. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565

    1973 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., & Paxton, B

    Wolf, W. M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., & Paxton, B. 2013, ApJ, 777, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/136

    2013 doi

Pith tools

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