Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

The orbital period changes for novae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the positive and negative orbital period changes observed in cataclysmic variables over 30 years are short-term effects of nova eruptions, and that a model where part of the ejecta is lost through the outer Lagrange…

desk verdict Useful MESA study of binary-driven mass loss in novae, but the Pdot claim rests on comparing cycle averages to 30-year snapshots and does not yet establish the headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22331 v1 pith:NWJNVXB3 submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Wenshi Tang , Xiangdong Li , Bo Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords cataclysmicvariablesnovaeorbitalperiodchangebinary-drivenmasslossfastwindFrankjetmagneticbrakingL2
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

Cataclysmic variables — close binaries in which a white dwarf accretes from a low-mass companion — show both positive and negative changes in orbital period and period derivative over 30 years of observation, which the standard fast-wind theory cannot produce. The paper argues that these observed changes are short-term effects of nova eruptions rather than evidence that magnetic braking theory is wrong. Modelling the instantaneous ejection of nova material with three mechanisms — fast wind, Frank jet, and binary-driven mass loss — the authors find that only the binary-driven mass loss model, in which part of the ejecta escapes through the outer Lagrange point carrying extra angular momentum, can reproduce nearly all observed period jumps and period derivatives. If correct, the standard magnetic braking picture of CV evolution survives the recent observational challenge.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is binary-driven mass loss (BDML): a fraction f_ML,L2 of the nova ejecta, adopted from hydrodynamical simulations of nova outflows, leaves the system through the outer Lagrange point L2, carrying specific angular momentum $a_L2^{2}$ ω rather than the low specific angular momentum of a fast isotropic wind. The orbital response is computed from the relation Δa/a = 2ΔJ/J + (1 + 2q)/(1+q) × M_ejecta/M_WD, where the L2 mass loss makes ΔJ negative enough to flip the sign of Δa. This instantaneous angular-momentum loss is what allows both positive and negative ΔP and Ṃ within one model, and it also produces the discontinuous mass transfer and detached phases seen in the computed tracks.

What would settle it

For a normal CV with independently known white dwarf mass, donor mass, and nova ejecta mass, the FW+BDML model predicts a definite range of ΔP (and of Ṃ via ΔP/τ_rec); a single observed ΔP falling clearly outside that range, or a measured ejecta asymmetry that pushes the orbital response in the opposite direction to the prediction, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed ΔP and Ṃ in cataclysmic variables, which take both positive and negative values, can be explained by the short-term dynamical effect of nova eruptions if a fraction of the ejecta is lost through the outer Lagrange point (L2) rather than as a fast isotropic wind. Building on hydrodynamical simulations of nova outflow, the authors treat mass loss through L2 as carrying additional orbital angular momentum, so a single eruption can either shrink or expand the orbit depending on the ejecta mass, the white dwarf mass, and the mass ratio. When this binary-driven mass loss is combined with fast wind in detailed binary evolution calculations, the resulting ΔP and Ṃ cover nearly all the observed data for normal CVs; the pure fast-wind model cannot explain the negative values, and the Frank jet model fails for the most negative ΔP sources and short-period systems.

Load-bearing premise

The model's explanatory power rests on mapping the fraction of nova ejecta that escapes through the outer Lagrange point, f_ML,L2, from hydrodynamical simulations onto every system in the binary evolution grid, and on the assumption that the observed ΔP and Ṃ are dominated by short-term nova effects rather than secular magnetic braking or gravitational radiation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed positive and negative ΔP and Ṃ do not require abandoning standard magnetic braking theory; they can be reconciled as short-term nova effects.
  • The sign of a measured period change in a normal CV cannot be taken as direct evidence against angular momentum loss prescriptions, because the binary-driven mass loss model produces both signs.
  • The Frank jet mechanism, with its adjustable asymmetry parameter, may be needed in addition to BDML for recurrent novae like U Sco and T CrB, whose period changes vary drastically between eruptions despite apparently similar ejecta masses.
  • The BDML-induced orbital expansion shifts the computed CV period gap to longer periods, but the paper argues this discrepancy can be removed by adjusting magnetic braking physics, such as the conditions under which magnetic braking operates or its strength.
  • Within the model, a specific CV's ΔP and Ṃ between eruptions are controlled mainly by its varying ejecta mass, so repeated eruptions of the same system provide a direct test of the mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mapping that assigns an L2 mass-loss fraction to every nova in the model grid is extrapolated from a limited set of hydrodynamical simulations; a direct test would be to measure ejecta asymmetry (for example through polarization or resolved outflows) in a few well-observed novae and check whether the inferred L2 fraction matches the predicted sign and size of ΔP.
  • The model implies that a long baseline of many eruptions from a single CV should show ΔP variations tied only to changing ejecta mass, whereas the Frank jet would allow larger, random sign flips; distinguishing these patterns would separate the two mechanisms observationally.
  • If some of the observed period derivative is actually secular rather than short-term, the binary-driven mass loss model would overpredict the spread of Ṃ; a century-long timing baseline on a few bright CVs would begin to separate the short-term eruption contribution from the secular contribution.
  • The same L2 mass-loss treatment, if correct, should also reshape population-level CV properties such as the period minimum and the bounce period, which could be checked against large photometric surveys.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the observed orbital period changes (\Delta P and \dot P) of cataclysmic variables (CVs) can be explained as short-term effects of nova eruptions rather than as contradictions of standard magnetic braking theory. Using MESA binary evolution calculations with instantaneous nova mass ejection, the authors compare three mass-loss prescriptions: pure fast wind (FW), fast wind plus binary-driven mass loss through the outer Lagrange point (FW+BDML), and fast wind plus an asymmetric Frank jet. They compare their evolutionary tracks with observed \Delta P from Schaefer (2023) and \dot P from Schaefer (2024). The central claim is that FW+BDML can cover nearly all observed \Delta P and \dot P for normal CVs, while FW alone cannot and the Frank jet is needed only for some long-period systems with evolved companions.

Significance. If established, the result would be an important resolution of the apparent conflict between observed period changes in CVs and standard angular momentum loss theory, and it would strengthen the case that binary-driven mass loss is a key ingredient in nova-driven CV evolution. The paper is valuable for implementing three distinct mass-loss mechanisms in a detailed stellar evolution code and for confronting them with the full Schaefer data set rather than with selected systems. The use of independently determined ingredients (Shen & Quataert's hydrodynamic f_{ML,L2}, Chomiuk et al.'s recurrence times, and external observed period changes) avoids fitting the model to the target data. However, the central claim currently rests on visual coverage in the \Delta P and \dot P planes, and the \dot P comparison uses a cycle-averaged quantity that may not correspond to the observed 30-year baseline for long-recurrence systems, so the conclusion is not yet quantitatively established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (10) and Fig. 3] The comparison in Section 3.3 uses the cycle-averaged \langle \dot P\rangle = (P_i - P_{i-1})/\Delta t, which includes the full effect of the sudden period change \Delta P/\tau_{\rm rec}. The observed \dot P values from Schaefer (2024), however, are measured over baselines of roughly 30 years, and for classical novae with recurrence times well above 10^4 yr no eruption occurs within the observing window. In such systems the observed quantity should be the quiescent local derivative \dot P_{\rm MT}+\dot P_{\rm GR}+\dot P_{\rm MB} from Eq. (9), not the recurrence-averaged value. This distinction is not a detail: the paper's own Fig. 1 shows that in the FW+BDML model the post-eruption mass-transfer rate is strongly enhanced and can even lead to detachment, so the local derivative immediately after an eruption differs greatly from the cycle average. As written, the claimed agreement between the FW+BDML model and the observed \dot P could be spurious, because long-recurrence systems have tiny \Delta P/\tau_{\rm rec} and their cycle averages are close to the secular MB+GR values, while the observations show both signs and large magnitudes. The authors should recompute the comparison using local quiescent derivatives over a simulated baseline comparable to the observational one, and show explicitly which systems in Fig. 3 are actually matched under that procedure.
  2. [Section 2, FW+BDML model paragraph] The FW+BDML model hinges on the fraction f_{ML,L2} of nova ejecta lost through the outer Lagrange point, taken from Fig. 8 of Shen & Quataert (2022) and applied to every MESA track. The paper does not propagate uncertainties in this mapping, does not test alternative prescriptions, and does not discuss whether the hydrodynamic regime of Shen & Quataert (2022) is directly applicable to the instantaneous-ejection treatment adopted here. Because the sign and magnitude of \Delta a across an eruption change with f_{ML,L2}, and because the ability of the model to cover both positive and negative observed values depends on that sign, this is a load-bearing assumption. A sensitivity test varying f_{ML,L2} by plausible factors, or at least a discussion of the extrapolation uncertainty, is needed to support the claim that FW+BDML covers nearly all observations.
  3. [Section 3.2, Fig. 2 and Section 3.3, Fig. 3] The central conclusion that the FW+BDML model 'explains' or 'covers' nearly all observed data is supported only by visual inspection of scatter plots. Since the model produces hundreds of evolutionary tracks with a wide range of ejecta masses and periods, some degree of overlap with any finite set of observed points is expected; 'coverage' is not a goodness-of-fit statistic. The authors should define a quantitative criterion (for example, the fraction of observed sources lying within a specified tolerance in \Delta P/P and \dot P, accounting for the reported observational errors and the theoretical spread) and report it for each model. Without such a metric, the comparative claims about FW, Frank-jet, and FW+BDML are not falsifiable in their present form.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and introduction contain several typos and grammatical errors, for example 'Cataclysmic variable (CVs)' should be 'Cataclysmic variables (CVs)', and 'aslo' should be 'also'; these should be corrected before submission.
  2. [Footnote 6, Section 3.3] The criterion that a track is 'available' if the donor loses at least 50% of its initial mass is described as arbitrary, and the statement that it does not affect the conclusions is not demonstrated. The paper should present a robustness check using a different mass-loss threshold, or at least quantify how many tracks are excluded by the 50% criterion.
  3. [Section 2, Frank-jet model] The statement that \xi is chosen randomly as \pm 1 introduces stochasticity into the results without specifying a random seed or demonstrating that the conclusions are stable across realizations; the authors should either fix \xi or show that the distribution of outcomes is insensitive to the random choice.
  4. [Section 4, Conclusion] The discussion of U Sco and T CrB correctly notes that variable \xi could produce variable \Delta P and \dot P, but the paper does not show whether the Frank-jet model with \xi = \pm 1 actually reproduces the magnitudes and signs of the observed period changes for those two systems; a direct comparison would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BDML prediction is benchmarked against external data, with only a minor methodological self-citation to Tang et al. (2024).

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense required for circularity analysis. The central comparison uses observed Delta P/P from Schaefer (2023) and observed Pdot from Schaefer (2024) as external benchmarks. The model's input functions are not fitted to those data: fML,L2 is taken from the independent hydrodynamical simulations of Shen & Quataert (2022, their Figure 8), tau_rec is taken from Chomiuk et al. (2021), and the accretion-efficiency prescriptions come from Wang et al. (2010), Ma et al. (2013), and Wu et al. (2017). Equation (10) defines the model's cycle-averaged <Pdot> from the MESA tracks, not from the observed Pdot; Equation (9) is a decomposition, not a fit. The paper's reliance on Tang et al. (2024) for the MESA implementation of BDML is a genuine self-citation, but it is methodological and does not by itself force the conclusion: the sign and magnitude of Delta a are governed by Equation (4) with the external fML,L2 mapping, and the observed values are not used to select that mapping. A possible concern that observed 30-yr Pdot snapshots should be compared with the quiescent derivative rather than the recurrence-averaged <Pdot> is a question of physical validity of the comparison, not a circular reduction; no equation in the paper defines the observed quantity in terms of the model output or vice versa. Overall the central claim has independent content and is not forced by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several adopted inputs: the short-term interpretation of the observed period changes, the instantaneous-ejection treatment, the recurrence-time and ejecta-mass relation from Chomiuk et al. (2021), the L2 mass-loss fraction from Shen and Quataert (2022), and the standard MB/GR prescriptions. No genuinely new physical entity is introduced; the Frank jet is a prior proposal and BDML is from prior hydrodynamics. The main free choices are the timestep coefficient fdt, the jet asymmetry xi, the ejecta velocity, and the L2 fraction function, none of which are fitted to the observed Delta P and Pdot, but all of which shape the model's coverage of the data.

free parameters (4)
  • fdt (timestep resolution coefficient) = 0.5 for MWD,i >= 1.0 solar masses; 0.03, 0.1, or 0.5 for lower-mass WDs, choosing the smallest convergent value
    Controls how finely nova eruptions are resolved in MESA; affects how many novae are captured and the resulting evolutionary tracks. The paper states conclusions are not very sensitive to fdt, but no convergence study is shown.
  • xi (Frank jet asymmetry parameter) = Randomly set to +1 or -1 in the Frank-jet model; can in principle vary continuously between -1 and 1, with |xi|=2…
    Enters Eq. (8) linearly and sets the magnitude and sign of the jet-induced period change. The paper intentionally uses the extreme values to maximize the model's coverage of observed Delta P.
  • Vejecta (nova ejecta velocity) = 1000 km/s
    Adopted from Schaefer (2023) and used in Eq. (8) for the Frank jet; not independently measured or varied in this paper, but it directly scales the jet effect.
  • fML,L2 (fraction of ejecta lost through L2) = Function of MWD and Mejecta from Figure 8 of Shen and Quataert (2022); in practice about 20-30 percent BDML, with…
    This split controls the strength of binary-driven mass loss in Eq. (7) and determines whether Delta a can become negative. It is adopted from external hydrodynamics, not fitted here, but the central claim depends on it.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Orbital angular momentum conservation and Kepler's third law (Eqs. 3-4, Eq. 8)
    Used to translate mass and angular momentum loss into changes in orbital separation and period; standard mechanics with no controversy.
  • domain assumption Observed Delta P and Pdot over roughly 30 years are dominated by short-term effects of nova eruptions rather than secular magnetic braking or gravitational radiation
    Stated in the abstract and Section 1 following King and Lasota (2024). If this is false, the entire comparison of MESA tracks to Schaefer's observed values is not a test of the models.
  • domain assumption Nova mass ejection is instantaneous and no ejecta is recaptured by the companion
    Section 2: 'We neglect any recapture of the nova ejecta by the companion star.' This sets the impulsive Delta a model and may overestimate or misestimate the period change if recapture matters.
  • domain assumption The recurrence time tau_rec(Mdot2, MWD) from Chomiuk et al. (2021) Figure 2, with Mejecta = |Mdot2| * tau_rec
    Sets the ejected mass per eruption and therefore the amplitude of Delta P and Pdot. The paper adopts this relation without propagating its uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The L2 mass-loss fraction fML,L2 from Figure 8 of Shen and Quataert (2022) applies to all nova eruptions and remains valid in the MESA instantaneous-ejection implementation
    This is the key input that allows the FW+BDML model to produce negative Delta a. If the hydrodynamical fraction is not universal or does not carry over to the MESA treatment, the central result changes.
  • domain assumption Standard gravitational radiation and magnetic braking prescriptions with gamma=3, with MB activation as implemented in MESA version 11701
    Used for the secular Pdot terms in Eq. (9). Appendix A shows that the period-gap location depends on the MB activation condition and strength, so the adopted MB treatment affects the model's long-period tracks.
  • domain assumption In the nova region the white dwarf has no net mass growth; all transferred mass is ejected each eruption
    Section 2: the WD accretes then ejects Mejecta instantaneously, so the WD mass does not grow. This affects the binary mass ratio and subsequent evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper A MESA track is counted as available if the donor loses at least 50 percent of its initial mass
    Footnote 6 states this criterion is 'somewhat arbitrary' and is used because many simulations terminate prematurely. It shapes which tracks enter the comparison figures and therefore the apparent coverage of observations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The orbital period changes for novae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWJNVXB3

@misc{pith2026250722331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The orbital period changes for novae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWJNVXB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22331}
}
abstract

Cataclysmic variable (CVs) are close interacting binaries in which a white dwarf accretes materials from a low mass main sequence companion. CVs can experience nova eruptions due to low mass transfer rates. In the standard theory of CV evolution, the ejected materials during nova eruptions are assumed to leave the system in the form of fast, isotropic, optically thick winds, which predicts that novae only result in positive variation (expansion) of orbital period (i.e. positive $\Delta P$). In addition, the angular momentum losses (magnetic braking and gravitational radiation) only predicts a steady long-term decay in the orbital period of CVs, i.e. $\dot P$ is negative. Interestingly, an observation lasting over 30 years reveals positive and negative values for both $\Delta P$ and $\dot P$ in CVs, strongly conflicting with the standard evolutionary patterns. However, it cannot be excluded that these observations originate from short-term phenomena caused by nova eruptions because of a short timescale of observations. In this paper, we model the effect of instantaneous nova eruptions on the evolution of CVs, considering three mechanisms associated with mass loss in nova eruptions, including fast wind, Frank jet and binary-driven mass loss. By assuming that the observed $\Delta P$ and $\dot P$ are dominated by short-term phenomena, our results show that the binary-driven mass loss can explain almost all of the observations of normal CVs. However, the Frank jet may be needed for some of long-period CVs with evolved companions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of demonstrating the effects of BDML and jet on CV evolution, where the initial binary parameters are (MWD,i , M2,i , Pi)=(0.8 M⊙, 0.6 M⊙, 0.6 days) and (0.8 M⊙, 1.0 M⊙, 1.2 days) for upper and lower panels, respectively. The left panels show the evolution of mass transfer rate as a function of orbital period, while the variation of binary separation across nova eruptions is shown in the right panels. Note … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison with observed ∆P/P in the unit of parts-per-million (ppm). The left and right panels are the Frank-jet model and the FW+BDML model, respectively. The colored stars are observed ∆P from Schaefer (2023). The colored points are our evolutionary data which include all systems that can form CVs, where there are 433 and 389 individual tracks for the Frank-jet model and FW+BDML model, respectively. The upper pan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison with observed P˙ in the unit of s s−1 . The left, middle and right panels are the FW model, Frank-jet model and the FW+BDML model, respectively. There are 384, 433 and 389 individual systems contributing to the FW model, Frank-jet model and FW+BDML model, respectively. The magenta stars are observed P˙ from Schaefer (2024). The color bar represents the mass of nova ejecta. The upper panels show positive P… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    I @cs+- ; 7;*, v 7?? < , |d޼y c]vC aҤIK_RNt/Bw ^ w1o 7r_*'x

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Izzo, L., et al.\ 2020, , 905, 62. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb 2020

  5. [5]

    L., Kuin, N

    Aydi, E., Page, K. L., Kuin, N. P. M., et al.\ 2018, , 474, 2679. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2678

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2678 2018

  6. [6]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J.\ 2021, , 59, 391. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502 2021

  7. [7]

    D., Yang, J., et al.\ 2014, , 514, 339

    Chomiuk, L., Linford, J. D., Yang, J., et al.\ 2014, , 514, 339. doi:10.1038/nature13773

    doi:10.1038/nature13773 2014

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/132.2.317

    Friedjung, M.\ 1966, , 132, 317. doi:10.1093/mnras/132.2.317

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/132.2.317 1966

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    & Hachisu, I.\ 1994, , 437, 802

    Kato, M. & Hachisu, I.\ 1994, , 437, 802. doi:10.1086/175041

    1994 doi

  2. [10]

    & Lasota, J.-P.\ 2024, arXiv:2406.03948

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P.\ 2024, arXiv:2406.03948. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.03948

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

    Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J.\ 2011, , 194, 28. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1086/324074

    Kolb, U., Rappaport, S., Schenker, K., et al.\ 2001, , 563, 958. doi:10.1086/324074

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M.\ 1959, Course of theoretical physics, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1959

    1959

  6. [14]

    G., Livio, M., & Schaefer, B

    Martin, R. G., Livio, M., & Schaefer, B. E.\ 2011, , 415, 1907. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18835.x

    2011

  7. [15]

    liang ., et al.\ 2013, , 778, L32

    Ma, X., Chen, X., Chen, H.-. liang ., et al.\ 2013, , 778, L32. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/L32

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    F., G \"a nsicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G \"a nsicke, B. T., Townsley, D., et al.\ 2017, , Effective temperatures of cataclysmic-variable white dwarfs as a probe of their evolution, 466, 3, 2855. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3293

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    F., G \"a nsicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G \"a nsicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 6110. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3449

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2019, , 243, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 34

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2015, , 220, 15. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al.\ 2013, , 208, 4. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al.\ 2011, , 192, 3. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    C.\ 1983, , 275, 713

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C.\ 1983, , 275, 713. doi:10.1086/161569

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    B., et al.\ 2023, , 525, L50

    Scaringi, S., Breivik, K., Littenberg, T. B., et al.\ 2023, , 525, L50. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad093

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    E.\ 2020, , 492, 3343

    Schaefer, B. E.\ 2020, , 492, 3343. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3424

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    E.\ 2023, , 525, 785

    Schaefer, B. E.\ 2023, , 525, 785. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2223

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    E.\ 2024, , 966, 155

    Schaefer, B. E.\ 2024, , 966, 155. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a9

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Shore, S

    Schwarz, G. J., Shore, S. N., Starrfield, S., et al.\ 2001, , 320, 103. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03960.x

    2001

  21. [29]

    M., Livio, M., Moffat, A

    Shara, M. M., Livio, M., Moffat, A. F. J., et al.\ 1986, , 311, 163. doi:10.1086/164762

    1986 doi

  22. [30]

    Shen, K. J. & Quataert, E.\ 2022, , 938, 31. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9136

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A.\ 1972, , 171, 565. doi:10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  24. [32]

    M., & Truran, J

    Starrfield, S., Sparks, W. M., & Truran, J. W.\ 1985, , 291, 136. doi:10.1086/163048

    1985 doi

  25. [33]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8880

    Tang, W.-S., Li, X.-D., & Cui, Z.\ 2024, , 977, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8880

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15857.x

    Wang, B., Li, X.-D., & Han, Z.-W.\ 2010, , 401, 4, 2729. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15857.x

    2010

  27. [35]

    Wang, B., 2018, RAA (Res. Astron. Astrophys.), 18, 049

    2018

  28. [36]

    & Han, Z.\ 2012, , 56, 122

    Wang, B. & Han, Z.\ 2012, , 56, 122. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2012.04.001

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Wang, B., Li, Y., Ma, X., et al.\ 2015, , 584, A37

    2015

  30. [38]

    Astrophys

    Warner, B.\ 1995, Camb. Astrophys. Ser., Vol. 28,

    1995

  31. [39]

    M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., et al.\ 2013, , 777, 136

    Wolf, W. M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., et al.\ 2013, , 777, 136. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/136

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630099

    Wu, C., Wang, B., Liu, D., et al.\ 2017, , 604, A31. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630099

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.