Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modeling the high-brightness state of the recurrent nova T CrB as an enhanced mass-transfer event

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read T CrB's high state is a 15-year mass-transfer surge onto a high-viscosity disk, and the pre-eruption dip is the inner edge moving outward.

desk verdict The MTIM brightening model for T CrB is a genuine advance and worth citing; the pre-eruption dip mechanism is a plausible but unproven hypothesis that needs a non-hydrostatic simulation before it can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05098 v1 pith:PMFLLE5S submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Wagner Schlindwein , Raymundo Baptista , Gerardo Juan Manuel Luna This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords TCoronaeBorealisrecurrentnovaeaccretiondisksmass-transferinstabilitypre-eruptiondipsymbioticbinarystarsastronomicalsimulationsinteracting
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

This paper argues that the decades-long brightening of the recurrent nova T Coronae Borealis, seen around both its 1866 and 1946 eruptions, is a single enhanced mass-transfer event rather than a disk instability or a phase of steady nuclear burning. The authors simulate an accretion disk with a high, constant viscosity parameter $\alpha = 3$ responding to a 15-year surge in the mass-transfer rate from the red giant, from $2.0\times10^{-9}$ to $1.9\times10^{-7}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and find that it reproduces the observed BVRI light curves and color changes. They also argue that the pre-eruption dip is the disk's photometric response to a slow, accelerated outward motion of its inner edge at about $0.02\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, caused by the white dwarf envelope expanding during the convection phase that precedes the thermonuclear runaway. If correct, the high state is the cause of the nova rather than a puzzling precursor: the surge supplies about 95% of the envelope mass needed to trigger the eruption and sets the roughly 80-year recurrence interval.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a time-dependent steady-$\alpha$ accretion disk model in which the disk viscosity is set to a constant $\alpha = 3$ and matter is deposited at the outer edge following a quasi-Gaussian enhanced mass-transfer event with a flat plateau (Eq. 1, with plateau parameter $n = 8$ and FWHM $\Delta t_e = 15\,\mathrm{yr}$). The disk emits locally as a blackbody and is combined with an irradiated red-giant companion to produce synthetic BVRI magnitudes. The mass budget is closed with the envelope-ignition masses from Shen & Bildsten (2009): at the fitted high-state rate the 15-year surge accumulates about 95% of the envelope needed for a nova eruption, tying the roughly 80-year recurrence interval to the mass-transfer event. The pre-eruption dip is reproduced by letting the inner disk radius move outward from the white-dwarf radius at constant acceleration, averaging $0.02\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ over 2 years, with a transient magnetosphere mechanism considered as an alternative and disfavored by the absence of EUV/X-ray cyclotron emission and polarization.

What would settle it

A non-hydrostatic two-dimensional simulation of the convection phase before a thermonuclear runaway on a 1.29 solar-mass white dwarf should show the envelope expanding by a few solar radii on the pre-eruption timescale if the proposed mechanism is correct; if the envelope does not swell, the moving inner boundary has no physical driver. An observational alternative: during the next pre-eruption dip, measure the H-alpha line half-width at zero intensity; the model predicts it shrinks from about 500 to roughly 230-250 km/s as the inner radius moves outward, whereas a decreasing mass-transfer rate would widen the line.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the observed brightness variations of T CrB during its high-accretion state are reproduced by an enhanced mass-transfer event of duration $\Delta t_e = 15\,\mathrm{yr}$ onto a high-viscosity accretion disk with $\alpha = 3$, with a self-consistent white-dwarf mass of $1.29\,M_\odot$ and inclination $57.3^\circ$. In this picture the nova eruption is superimposed on the high state because the enhanced accretion phase supplies most of the envelope mass required for ignition: the matter accumulated during the 15-year event accounts for 95% of the ignition mass $M_{\mathrm{ig}}$, explaining why the eruption occurs roughly midway through the brightening. The pre-eruption dip is placed in the convection phase before the thermonuclear runaway and is modeled by an inner disk radius that expands from the white-dwarf radius at constant acceleration, with best-fit average velocity $0.02\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ over 2 years. The paper argues that a decrease in the mass-transfer rate cannot produce the dip's color dependence, while an outward-moving inner edge selectively removes the hottest, bluest inner regions and matches the observed $B-V$ behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The pre-eruption dip explanation rests on the premise that the white dwarf's accreted envelope slowly expands by up to a few solar radii during the convection phase before the thermonuclear runaway, pushing the inner disk radius outward; standard 1D nova simulations do not show this because they impose hydrostatic equilibrium, so the premise is argued rather than directly demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The roughly 80-year recurrence interval of T CrB's eruptions is set by the mass budget of the 15-year enhanced mass-transfer event, not by slow quiescent accumulation.
  • The nova eruption occurs during the high state because that state supplies about 95% of the envelope mass required for ignition; the high state is the cause, not a precursor, of the eruption.
  • The disk-instability model, with a low-viscosity quiescent disk, cannot store enough mass to sustain the observed 15-year outburst, and steady nuclear burning is excluded by the inferred luminosity and recurrence behavior.
  • During the pre-eruption dip the mass-transfer rate remains high; the fading is produced by the outward motion of the inner disk radius, which naturally makes the dip deeper in B than in R and I.
  • The next eruption should follow the same pattern, with a 1-2 year pre-eruption dip and an inner disk edge moving outward at roughly 0.02 km/s before the thermonuclear runaway.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the envelope-expansion driver is real, standard 1D nova models that enforce hydrostatic equilibrium through the convection phase systematically miss a slow pre-eruption dimming that should be visible in well-sampled light curves.
  • A clean test is available in recurrent novae with short recurrence times, such as M31N 2008-12a: their convection phases should be much shorter, so a pre-eruption dip there would support the mechanism and its absence would weaken it.
  • The proposed starspot-beat recurrence mechanism is testable by long-term surface imaging of the red giant: a spot-free region drifting across the L1 point with a beat period near 80 years should be detectable over decades of monitoring.
  • The inner-edge expansion implies the boundary layer becomes optically thin during the dip, so dense soft X-ray and EUV monitoring during the next pre-eruption dip could catch the predicted change in boundary layer emission.
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 proposes that the recent ~15-yr high-brightness state of the recurrent nova T CrB is an enhanced mass-transfer event (MTIM) onto a high-viscosity accretion disk, with the pre-eruption dip produced by a slow, accelerated expansion of the inner disk radius. The authors simulate the disk response with a viscosity parameter alpha = 3, fit the BVRI light curves with quiescent and high-state mass-transfer rates of 2.0e-9 and 1.9e-7 Msun/yr, respectively, and obtain a self-consistent WD mass M1 = 1.29 Msun and inclination i = 57.3 deg. They reject the disk-instability model (DIM) and steady nuclear burning as alternatives, and suggest that the inner-radius expansion is caused by physical expansion of the accreted WD envelope during the convective phase preceding the thermonuclear runaway.

Significance. If the model is correct, it provides a single framework explaining the 80-yr recurrence, the 15-yr duration of the high state, and the color behavior of the pre-eruption dip. The paper has clear strengths: a quantitative mass-budget consistency check (Section 3, Figure 3), an independent HWZI-based estimate of the inner radius at dip minimum (Section 4.3), explicit quantitative arguments against DIM and steady burning (Section 4.1), and a falsifiable prediction for the magnetic-field scenario that the authors then compare to existing observations. The light-curve reproduction is, however, a fit rather than a prediction, and the physical driver of the expanding inner disk radius is the least supported part of the argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The thermodynamic argument for envelope expansion is not valid as stated. From dq/dt = c_rho dT/dt + c_T dρ/dt, the signs c_rho > 0 and c_T < 0 do not imply that dT/dt > 0 and dρ/dt < 0 whenever dq/dt > 0, because a positive total does not force the sign of each term. The conclusion that the envelope must slowly expand during the convection phase is therefore not established by this argument. Since the magnetic-field scenario is disfavored by the same section's observational checks, this leaves the dip model without a quantitatively supported physical driver; the expanding inner boundary is currently an ad hoc prescription fitted to the light curve. Please replace the thermodynamic argument with an explicit (even order-of-magnitude) non-hydrostatic estimate, or clearly label the envelope-expansion mechanism as a speculation.
  2. [Section 5 and Section 4.3] The central conclusion that the pre-eruption dip is 'best described by a slow, accelerated expansion of the inner disk radius' is supported only by a fit to the light curve plus the HWZI estimate, not by a demonstrated physical mechanism. The proposed driver—envelope expansion during the convective pre-TNR phase—is not found in standard 1D nova simulations, and the paper's explanation that those simulations impose hydrostatic equilibrium is an assertion about what a non-hydrostatic calculation would show, not a result. Because this is the only surviving physical scenario, the claim should be tempered to state that the dip is consistent with an expanding inner radius whose physical cause remains unidentified, unless the authors can provide a concrete testable prediction of the envelope-expansion scenario (e.g., a relation between dip depth/duration and WD mass, or a spectroscopic signature of the expanding envelope).
  3. [Section 4.1] The 5-sigma rejection of the DIM based on outburst duration compares the predicted DIM outburst length of 10.3 ± 0.5 yr with the 'overall length of the high-brightness state' of about 15 yr. But the high state is explicitly interrupted by the nova eruption, and the paper itself argues that the nova ejects the accretion disk. A DIM outburst cannot continue across the eruption, so the only valid comparison is with the pre-eruption segment, which lasts about 8 yr and is not ruled out by the 10.3 yr prediction. The subsequent argument (limited mass available after disk re-establishment, ≤ 60 d) still disfavors DIM, but the headline 5-sigma claim is not correct as stated. Please rephrase the duration comparison or remove the 5-sigma statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract claims reproduction of color changes 'throughout the transient event,' but the text states that the model describes the color variations 'for the rise to the high-accretion state.' Please align the abstract with the qualified claim.
  2. [Section 3] Because 'the remaining model parameters were fitted through a set of reduced simulations optimized for this purpose,' the agreement in Figures 2 and 4 should be explicitly described as a fit, not as predictive validation; the independent checks are the HWZI estimate and the Figure 3 mass-budget relation.
  3. [Section 4.3] There is a numerical inconsistency in the required inner-radius increase: the text says an increase by a factor of about 100 produces the dip, but the HWZI data imply Rin of roughly 3.9-4.6 R_sun, a factor of about 900 larger than the assumed WD radius of 0.0045 R_sun (model II), and the simulations are described as expanding to 'a few R_sun.' Please state explicitly the actual inner-radius range used in the simulations and reconcile these numbers.
  4. [Throughout] Small wording and typographical errors should be corrected: 'fator' for 'factor,' 'constrainted' for 'constrained,' 'restablish' for 're-establish,' and the garbled author name in the reference to Iłkiewicz et al.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Model is an openly described fit; the only mild circularity is a fitted multiband color curve being called 'predicted,' while the central MTIM and dip scenarios are presented as fits or hypotheses rather than first-principles predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Figure 4 paragraph]
    "The predicted colour variations of model II are shown as a solid line in the right-hand panel of Figure 4, and provide a good description of the observed color variations for the rise to the high-accretion state."

    Model II's parameters (Mdot_h = 1.9e-7 Msun/yr, alpha = 3, M1 = 1.29 Msun, i = 57.3 deg, and the passband-specific T2 values) were fitted to the BVRI light curve, as the paper states: 'The remaining model parameters were fitted through a set of reduced simulations optimized for this purpose.' The B-V color is therefore not an independent, held-out observable; it is the same multiband fit recast as a color curve. Calling these fitted color changes 'predicted' overstates their evidential status. This is a framing issue rather than a load-bearing circularity: the central MTIM interpretation also rests on the independent recurrence-timescale/envelope-mass constraint of Figure 3, and the paper does not claim the color curve is an out-of-sample test.

full rationale

The central derivation is an openly labeled fit, not a hidden prediction. The paper states that te and Delta-te are inferred from the historical light curve, that Mdot_q2 and T2 are fitted to the quiescent BVRI levels, and that 'the remaining model parameters were fitted through a set of reduced simulations optimized for this purpose.' The resulting 'satisfactorily reproduced' high-state light curves are therefore quality-of-fit statements rather than deductive predictions; that is honest modeling, not circularity. The self-consistency check between M1, Mdot_h, the ~80 yr recurrence interval, and the Shen & Bildsten envelope-mass relation is an independent external constraint (Figure 3), and it is used to reject model I and select model II. The pre-eruption dip is likewise introduced as a hypothesis: photometric color changes and HWZI narrowing motivate an expanding inner radius, and then a simulation with a variable inner radius is fit to the dip, with vexp = 0.02 km/s as the best-fit velocity. No prediction is claimed from a first-principles envelope-expansion calculation; the physical driver is explicitly proposed as a suggestion, and the magnetic-field alternative is tested against observations. The only mild overstatement is calling the fitted multiband colors 'predicted'; this is not load-bearing. Self-citations to Schlindwein & Baptista (2024) supply the disk-evolution code and an alpha >= 1 plausibility discussion, but alpha >= 1 is also tied to the observed decline timescale, so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central model is parameter-rich: the key numbers (alpha, Mdot_h2, Delta_t, n, dip expansion velocity) are fitted to the same light curves they reproduce, while the binary geometry (M1, i) is chosen to satisfy a separate mass-budget constraint. Independent anchors exist: the X-ray lower limit, the Shen & Bildsten envelope relations, the HWZI line-width data, and the DIM and steady-burning exclusions. The most fragile element is the convective-phase envelope expansion assumed to drive the dip, which is asserted against the standard simulation result.

free parameters (8)
  • Viscosity parameter alpha = 3
    Set by the observed decline timescale of the transient; alpha >= 1 required, alpha > 3 changes little (Section 3).
  • High-state mass-transfer rate Mdot_h2 = 1.9e-7 M_sun/yr (model II); 1.7e-7 (model I)
    Fitted to the brightening amplitude in BVRI; twice the independent X-ray lower limit of Luna et al. (2018).
  • Event duration Delta_t_e = 15 yr
    Read off the historical light curve (Figure 1), not derived from the model.
  • Plateau shape exponent n = 8
    Fitted to reproduce the flat maximum of the light curve; controls the plateau width of the mass-transfer event in Eq. (1).
  • Inner disk radius expansion velocity = 0.02 km/s average (accelerated case)
    Best fit to the pre-eruption dip light curves; bounded above by the HWZI-based estimate of 0.13-0.16 km/s.
  • Red giant effective temperatures T2 per passband = 2910-3277 K depending on band and model
    Chosen so the red giant matches the observed quiescent BVRI brightness; the giant is the dominant light source in R and I.
  • Red giant albedo eta = 0.6
    Adopted from the Hameury et al. (2020) irradiation model rather than fitted to T CrB data.
  • White dwarf mass M1 and inclination i = 1.29 M_sun and 57.3 deg (model II)
    Selected so the light-curve solution satisfies the recurrence-time envelope-mass constraint (Figure 3); model I with 1.37 M_sun is rejected as non-self-consistent.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption MTIM: a disk with constant high viscosity produces the observed outburst in response to a sudden increase in the mass-transfer rate.
    Stated in Section 3 (Bath 1972, 1975; Bath & Pringle 1981); the entire modeling approach depends on this hypothesis.
  • ad hoc to paper alpha >= 1 (specifically alpha = 3) is physically plausible for this accretion disk.
    Required to match the decline timescale; plausibility rests on the authors' own prior papers (Baptista & Schlindwein 2022; Schlindwein & Baptista 2024), not on an independent derivation.
  • domain assumption The disk emits locally as a blackbody and matter is deposited uniformly over the outer 0.1 R_d.
    Simplifications stated in Section 3; they set the spectral energy distribution and the disk response to the mass-transfer event.
  • domain assumption The Shen & Bildsten (2009) envelope-ignition mass curves and the 80 +/- 2 yr recurrence interval constrain the allowed (M1, Mdot_h2) combinations.
    Used in Section 3 and Figure 3 to reject model I and fix model II parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper The white dwarf envelope slowly expands by up to a few solar radii during the convection phase, pushing the inner disk radius outward; 1D nova simulations miss this expansion because they impose hydrostatic equilibrium.
    Load-bearing for the pre-eruption dip mechanism (Section 4.3); no direct evidence is provided, and the paper argues by absence from simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper The accretion disk is fully ejected during the nova and is re-established within about 400 days, so the post-eruption brightening is the restored high-viscosity disk.
    Assumed in Section 4.2 to treat the 15-year brightening as one continuous transient spanning the eruption.
  • domain assumption The convection phase duration scales as 1/20 to 1/100 of the preceding accretion phase (Prialnik 1986).
    Used in Section 4.3 to identify the 1-2 year pre-eruption dip with the convective phase.
invented entities (2)
  • Transient strong magnetic field on the white dwarf (up to 1.6e9 G) independent evidence
    purpose: Alternative driver of the inner disk radius expansion that produces the pre-eruption dip during the convective phase.
    The paper derives falsifiable handles: cyclotron harmonics at 19-190 eV, polarization, and X-ray variability at the WD rotation period (Section 4.3). It reports none are detected, so the scenario is disfavored.
  • Starspot-free region on the red giant surface passing in front of L1 independent evidence
    purpose: Beat-period mechanism to explain the roughly 80-year recurrence of the enhanced mass-transfer events.
    The paper predicts a relative period offset epsilon ~ 0.008 and proposes direct searches for starspot-free regions (Section 4.4); it is presented as speculative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the high-brightness state of the recurrent nova T CrB as an enhanced mass-transfer event." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMFLLE5S

@misc{pith2026250605098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the high-brightness state of the recurrent nova T CrB as an enhanced mass-transfer event},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMFLLE5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05098}
}
abstract

T~Coronae Borealis is the nearest symbiotic recurrent nova. Twice in the last two centuries, in 1866 and 1946, the accreted material ignited on the surface of the white dwarf via runaway thermonuclear fusion reactions and produced a nova eruption. Both eruptions occurred approximately midway through a transient state of high luminosity. A possible explanation of such a state is a dwarf-nova-like outburst, which may arise from a transient increase in the mass-transfer rate of the donor star. We simulate the response of an accretion disk to an event of enhanced mass-transfer that is ``interrupted'' by a pre-eruption dip associated to the convective phase leading to the thermonuclear runaway, and model the resulting optical light curve using the parameters of the T~CrB binary. Our model represents the first attempt to reproduce the transient high-accretion state. The observed brightening can be satisfactorily reproduced by models of an accretion disk with a viscosity parameter $\alpha = 3$, an event of enhanced mass-transfer with a duration of $\Delta t = 15$\,yr, and quiescent and high-state mass-transfer rates of $2.0 \times 10^{-9} \, M_\odot$\,yr$^{-1}$ and $1.9 \times 10^{-7} \, M_\odot$\,yr$^{-1}$, respectively, while the pre-eruption dip can be reproduced by the small, accelerated expansion of the inner disk radius, at an average velocity of 0.02\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Our model is also capable of reproducing the observed changes in color of T~CrB throughout the transient event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. B-magnitudes light curves of T CrB during the 1938-1955 brightening state including the 1946 thermonu￾clear runaway (black crosses). We include the AAVSO data from the 2004 until April 2024 – brightening state shifted by -78 yr and with a 113-days median filter (blue dots with error bars). The same filter is used for the historical data (red dots with error bars). before and after the nova eruption as a single trans… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation results with model I (green solid curve) and model II (black solid curve) parameters. The points with error bars are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of accretion rate versus WD mass for T CrB. The upper black dashed line represents the limit above which steady nuclear burning occurs. The lower limit in M˙ (from Luna et al. 2018) is indicated by the black dashed-dotted line. The black solid and dotted lines mark the relationship M˙ (M1) from the envelope mass that pro￾duces a nova eruption, where TR = 80 ± 2 yr is the as￾sumed value of the nova eruption r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left-hand: T CrB light curve in the V band. Right-hand: Colour variations across the most recent high￾accretion state of T CrB. The dots are the AAVSO data and the solid line is the result of the simulations of model II, while the colour-coding represents the time. 4.1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results with expansion of the inner ra￾dius with constant acceleration (black solid curve) and con￾stant velocity (red solid curve). The points with error bars are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When will T Coronae Borealis next erupt as a nova? Constraints from recurrence, orbital phase, and accretion-state evolution

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    T CrB's next eruption is not uniquely predictable; conditional scenarios point to a possible 2026 December eruption if the current decline mimics 1946, or a lower limit near 2029 May if the recent high state left an a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gruppe/Group 6 Astronomy and Astrophysics

    Aller, L. H., Appenzeller, I., Baschek, B., et al. 1996, Landolt-B¨ ornstein: Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology - New Series “ Gruppe/Group 6 Astronomy and Astrophysics ” Volume 3 Voigt: Astronomy and Astrophysics. Extension and Supplement to Volume 2 ” Stars and Star Clusters, Vol. 3

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    2022, AJ, 163, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3fb8

    Baptista, R., & Schlindwein, W. 2022, AJ, 163, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3fb8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3fb8 2022

  3. [3]

    Bath, G. T. 1972, ApJ, 173, 121, doi: 10.1086/151405 —. 1975, MNRAS, 171, 311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/171.2.311

    work page doi:10.1086/151405 1972

  4. [4]

    T., & Pringle, J

    Bath, G. T., & Pringle, J. E. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/194.4.967

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/194.4.967 1981

  5. [5]

    1998, MNRAS, 296, 77, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01301.x

    Belczynski, K., & Mikolajewska, J. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 77, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01301.x

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Bode, M. F. 1982, Vistas in Astronomy, 26, 369, doi: 10.1016/0083-6656(82)90012-5 B¨ ohm-Vitense, E. 1992, Introduction to Stellar

    work page doi:10.1016/0083-6656(82)90012-5 1982

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    Casanova, J., Jos´ e, J., Garc´ ıa-Berro, E., & Shore, S. N. 2016, A&A, 595, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628707

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628707 2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Calder, A. C. 2011, Nature, 478, 490, doi: 10.1038/nature10520

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Casanova, J., Jos´ e, J., & Shore, S. N. 2018, A&A, 619, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833422

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, MNRAS, in press, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04098

    Chong, A., Aydi, E., Craig, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, in press, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04098

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Williams, S

    Darnley, M. J., Williams, S. C., Bode, M. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423411

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Joyce, R

    Fekel, F. C., Joyce, R. R., Hinkle, K. H., & Skrutskie, M. F. 2000, AJ, 119, 1375, doi: 10.1086/301260

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2002

  7. [15]

    Fujimoto, M. Y. 1982, ApJ, 257, 767, doi: 10.1086/160030 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    1982 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Livne, E., & Truran, J

    Glasner, S. A., Livne, E., & Truran, J. W. 1997, ApJ, 475, 754, doi: 10.1086/303561 14 Schlindwein, Baptista & Luna

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, ApJS, 242, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b43

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2019, ApJS, 242, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b43

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Knigge, C., Lasota, J

    Hameury, J. M., Knigge, C., Lasota, J. P., Hambsch, F. J., & James, R. 2020, A&A, 636, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037631

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Lasota, J

    Hameury, J. M., & Lasota, J. P. 2014, A&A, 569, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424535

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Hutchings, J. B. 1972, MNRAS, 158, 177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/158.2.177

    1972 doi

  13. [21]

    1992, PASJ, 44, 15 I/suppress lkiewicz, K., Miko/suppress lajewska, J., & Stoyanov, K

    Ichikawa, S., & Osaki, Y. 1992, PASJ, 44, 15 I/suppress lkiewicz, K., Miko/suppress lajewska, J., & Stoyanov, K. A. 2023, ApJL, 953, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace9dc Jos´ e, J., Shore, S. N., & Casanova, J. 2020, A&A, 634, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936893

    1992 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Cannizzo, J

    King, A. R., & Cannizzo, J. K. 1998, ApJ, 499, 348, doi: 10.1086/305630

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

    1990

  16. [24]

    2001, NewAR, 45, 449, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00112-9

    Lasota, J.-P. 2001, NewAR, 45, 449, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00112-9

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    Livio, M., & Pringle, J. E. 1994, ApJ, 427, 956, doi: 10.1086/174202

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    Luna, G. J. M., Sokoloski, J. L., Mukai, K., & M. Kuin, N. P. 2020, ApJL, 902, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbb2c

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Luna, G. J. M., Mukai, K., Sokoloski, J. L., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833747

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Mclaughlin, D. B. 1946, PASP, 58, 159, doi: 10.1086/125799

    1946 doi

  21. [29]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1960, in Stellar atmospheres. Edited by Jesse Leonard Greenstein. Supported in part by the National Science Foundation. Published by the University of Chicago Press, ed. J. L. Greenstein, 585

    1960

  22. [30]

    2023a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 145, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ace527 —

    Munari, U. 2023a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 145, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ace527 —. 2023b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 251, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0f26

    doi

  23. [31]

    2016, NewA, 47, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2016.01.002

    Munari, U., Dallaporta, S., & Cherini, G. 2016, NewA, 47, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2016.01.002

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    R., & Boyarchuk, A

    Mustel, E. R., & Boyarchuk, A. A. 1970, Ap&SS, 6, 183, doi: 10.1007/BF00651221

    1970 doi

  25. [33]

    Nikolov, Y., Luna, G. J. M., Stoyanov, K. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346997

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    1983, ApJ, 264, 282, doi: 10.1086/160596

    Paczynski, B. 1983, ApJ, 264, 282, doi: 10.1086/160596

    1983 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, A&A, 694, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452833

    Planquart, L., Jorissen, A., & Van Winckel, H. 2025, A&A, 694, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452833

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    1986, ApJ, 310, 222, doi: 10.1086/164677

    Prialnik, D. 1986, ApJ, 310, 222, doi: 10.1086/164677

    1986 doi

  29. [37]

    Sanford, R. F. 1946, PASP, 58, 156, doi: 10.1086/125798

    1946 doi

  30. [38]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2010, ApJS, 187, 275, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/275 —. 2019, AAS Meeting, 51, 122.07 —. 2023a, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 54, 436, doi: 10.1177/00218286231200492 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 524, 3146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad735

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Kloppenborg, B., Waagen, E

    Schaefer, B. E., Kloppenborg, B., Waagen, E. O., & The AAVSO Observers. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16107, 1 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77ba

    Schlindwein, W., & Baptista, R. 2024, ApJ, 975, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77ba

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    1981, AcA, 31, 241

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1981, AcA, 31, 241

    1981

  34. [42]

    L., Cassatella, A., & Gilmozzi, R

    Selvelli, P. L., Cassatella, A., & Gilmozzi, R. 1992, ApJ, 393, 289, doi: 10.1086/171506

    1992 doi

  35. [43]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  36. [44]

    M., Prialnik, D., Hillman, Y., & Kovetz, A

    Shara, M. M., Prialnik, D., Hillman, Y., & Kovetz, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbd

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Shen, K. J., & Bildsten, L. 2009, ApJ, 692, 324, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/324

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    2004, A&A, 415, 609, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034623

    Stanishev, V., Zamanov, R., Tomov, N., & Marziani, P. 2004, A&A, 415, 609, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034623

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Stoyanov, K. A., M. Luna, G. J., Zamanov, R. K., et al. 2025, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, 42, 29, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01971

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, Vol

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, Vol. 28 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    1995

  41. [49]

    A., Naylor, T., & Jeffries, R

    Webb, N. A., Naylor, T., & Jeffries, R. D. 2002, ApJL, 568, L45, doi: 10.1086/340271

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Livio, M., Truran, J

    Webbink, R. F., Livio, M., Truran, J. W., & Orio, M. 1987, ApJ, 314, 653, doi: 10.1086/165095

    1987 doi

  43. [51]

    Williams, R. E. 1977, in IAU Colloq. 42: The Interaction of Variable Stars with their Environment, ed. R. Kippenhahn, J. Rahe, & W. Strohmeier, 242

    1977

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    E., Banerjee, D

    Woodward, C. E., Banerjee, D. P. K., & Evans, A. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16120, 1

    2023

  46. [54]

    Y., et al

    Zamanov, R., Boeva, S., Latev, G. Y., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348372

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Marchev, V., Marti, J., & Latev, G

    Zamanov, R. K., Marchev, V., Marti, J., & Latev, G. Y. 2024a, Bulgarian Journal of Physics, 51, 263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.04104

    doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    K., Stoyanov, K

    Zamanov, R. K., Stoyanov, K. A., Marchev, V., et al. 2024b, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240036, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240036

    doi

  49. [57]

    J., ZuHone, J., et al

    Zingale, M., Dursi, L. J., ZuHone, J., et al. 2002, ApJS, 143, 539, doi: 10.1086/342754

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.