Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Mechanisms for magnetic braking boost and disruption: the role of irradiation-driven winds and convective turnover time spike in cataclysmic variables

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-19 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A spike in convective turnover time at the fully convective boundary disrupts magnetic braking in cataclysmic variables while irradiation-driven winds supply the boost during accretion.

desk verdict The paper grounds the SBD boost and disruption in a MESA-derived tau_c spike plus irradiation winds, but the efficiencies still need tuning to match the same observations the model aims to explain. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.15897 v1 pith:7USJEWE5 submitted 2026-05-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Vladislav Dodon , Xiang-Dong Li , Xiao-jie Xu , Ilkham Galiullin , Askar Sibgatullin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords cataclysmicvariablesmagneticbrakingconvectiveturnovertimeirradiation-drivenwindsperiodgapdonorstarstructurestellarevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper seeks physical origins for the empirical boost and disruption factors in magnetic braking prescriptions used for cataclysmic variable evolution. It computes convective turnover time directly from the donor star's internal structure in MESA models instead of using empirical fits. This reveals a sharp spike near the transition to full convection that sets the disruption parameter and starts the period gap. Irradiation from the accreting white dwarf heats the donor and drives extra winds that can supply the required boost when plausible efficiency values are adopted. The combined iτSBD model produces evolutionary tracks that align with major observed CV properties such as the period gap and mass-transfer rates.

What carries the argument

Convective turnover time τ_c computed directly from the donor's internal structure, together with irradiation-driven winds from the heated outer layers.

What would settle it

High-precision measurements of mass-loss rates or spin-down in CVs just above the period gap that show neither the expected wind enhancement from irradiation nor the structural signature of a τ_c spike would falsify the proposed mechanisms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The structure-based convective turnover time calculation shows a pronounced spike as the donor approaches full convection, which drives the disruption parameter η and initiates the period gap in CVs. Plausible choices for accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the boost K during accreting phases. The resulting iτSBD MB framework supplies a physically motivated account of the empirical factors in the SBD model.

Load-bearing premise

Uncertain efficiencies for accretion, irradiation, and winds can be chosen in a way that simultaneously reproduces the needed boost K while remaining consistent with the modeled donor structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Magnetic braking disruption at the fully convective boundary produces the observed period gap.
  • Irradiation-driven winds account for the boosted braking rate while mass transfer is active.
  • The iτSBD prescription yields evolutionary tracks consistent with main CV observables.
  • The same τ_c spike may disrupt braking in other fast-rotating saturated stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The irradiation-wind mechanism could operate in other strongly irradiated close binaries beyond CVs.
  • Stellar models that track τ_c explicitly might predict activity changes at the convective boundary in single stars.
  • Direct detection of enhanced winds or altered magnetic activity near the period gap would test the model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an iτSBD magnetic braking model for cataclysmic variables, in which MESA evolutionary calculations with structure-derived convective turnover time τ_c produce a pronounced spike near the fully convective boundary that sets the disruption parameter η and initiates the period gap; irradiation from the white dwarf is invoked to drive winds that supply the boost factor K during accretion, with the combined prescription yielding tracks broadly consistent with observed CV properties when plausible (but poorly constrained) values are chosen for accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a physically motivated origin for the empirical boost K and disruption η parameters of the SBD framework, linking the τ_c spike directly to the fully convective transition and irradiation-driven mass loss to enhanced angular-momentum loss in accreting systems. The direct computation of τ_c from the stellar structure rather than empirical fits is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (model description): the statement that 'plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost K' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet no quantitative scan, grid, or posterior over the joint space of accretion efficiency, irradiation efficiency, and wind efficiency is presented to demonstrate that any single vector simultaneously reproduces both the observed K values across the period gap and the location of the gap when τ_c is computed self-consistently from the MESA donor structure.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract notes that the outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the three efficiencies, all stated to be poorly constrained; because these same efficiencies enter both the wind mass-loss rate (hence K) and the heating that affects the outer layers (hence radius and τ_c), the absence of a consistency check between the two requirements constitutes a circularity risk for the validation of the physical mechanism.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The acronym iτSBD is used without an explicit expansion on first appearance in the abstract, although the meaning is recoverable from context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful report, which highlights both the strengths of our approach and areas where additional clarification would strengthen the manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (model description): the statement that 'plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost K' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet no quantitative scan, grid, or posterior over the joint space of accretion efficiency, irradiation efficiency, and wind efficiency is presented to demonstrate that any single vector simultaneously reproduces both the observed K values across the period gap and the location of the gap when τ_c is computed self-consistently from the MESA donor structure.

    Authors: We agree that a systematic scan or grid over the joint efficiency space would provide stronger quantitative support for the claim that plausible choices simultaneously satisfy both the boost K and the gap location. The manuscript demonstrates the mechanism using representative values for the three efficiencies that are consistent with existing observational estimates in the literature, and shows that these choices produce evolutionary tracks matching key CV observables when τ_c is computed directly from the MESA structure. A full multi-dimensional exploration is computationally demanding for full evolutionary sequences and lies beyond the scope of the present study; however, we will add a dedicated subsection in §3 together with a table of the adopted parameter values, their literature justification, and a limited sensitivity test for a small number of nearby combinations to illustrate robustness. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract notes that the outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the three efficiencies, all stated to be poorly constrained; because these same efficiencies enter both the wind mass-loss rate (hence K) and the heating that affects the outer layers (hence radius and τ_c), the absence of a consistency check between the two requirements constitutes a circularity risk for the validation of the physical mechanism.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern regarding potential circularity. The efficiencies do affect both the irradiation-driven wind mass-loss rate (which supplies K) and the outer-layer heating (which can influence radius and, indirectly, the computed τ_c). Nevertheless, our MESA calculations show that the pronounced spike in τ_c arises primarily from the interior structural transition at the fully convective boundary and remains present across the range of irradiation levels explored; the outer heating modifies the envelope but does not erase or relocate the spike. We will revise the abstract and the model-description section to explicitly separate these effects, state that the chosen parameters satisfy both requirements simultaneously in the presented models, and add a short consistency check confirming that the τ_c spike location is robust to moderate changes in irradiation efficiency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Irradiation-driven wind boost K achieved via selection of poorly constrained efficiencies rather than independent prediction

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "The outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies, all of which are poorly constrained from observations. Despite these uncertainties, plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost K during accreting phases."

    The required boost K is supplied by selecting the very efficiencies the paper states are poorly constrained; the mechanism therefore reproduces the target observational quantity by construction of the parameter choice rather than predicting it from the donor structure or irradiation physics alone.

full rationale

The paper computes τ_c directly from MESA donor structure, yielding a spike at the fully convective boundary that sets η; this step is independent. However, the claimed boost mechanism relies on choosing accretion/irradiation/wind efficiencies (explicitly called poorly constrained) so that irradiation-driven winds reproduce the empirically required K. The abstract states that only 'plausible parameter choices' work and that the model is then 'broadly consistent' with CV properties. This reduces the boost claim to a fit of the same adjustable parameters introduced to explain the observed boost, constituting partial circularity of the fitted-input-called-prediction type. No quantitative scan or self-consistent posterior is described that simultaneously satisfies both K and the gap location without retuning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on several poorly constrained efficiencies that function as free parameters and on the assumption that MESA accurately captures the donor's internal structure for the purpose of computing convective turnover time.

free parameters (3)
  • accretion efficiency
    Affects how much mass reaches the white dwarf and therefore the irradiation flux; stated to be poorly constrained.
  • irradiation efficiency
    Determines the fraction of irradiation energy that drives additional winds; poorly constrained and used to achieve the required boost K.
  • wind efficiency
    Controls how effectively the irradiation-driven winds remove angular momentum; poorly constrained.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar structure calculations accurately reproduce the convective turnover time profile of the donor star near the fully convective boundary.
    The disruption mechanism relies on the spike that appears only when τ_c is computed directly from the model structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanisms for magnetic braking boost and disruption: the role of irradiation-driven winds and convective turnover time spike in cataclysmic variables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7USJEWE5

@misc{pith2026260515897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanisms for magnetic braking boost and disruption: the role of irradiation-driven winds and convective turnover time spike in cataclysmic variables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7USJEWE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.15897}
}
abstract

The saturated, boosted, and disrupted magnetic braking (SBD MB) model is an empirical prescription that has recently gained support from close-binary observations. Different boosting ($K$) and disruption ($\eta$) parameters appear necessary for different systems, but their physical origins remain uncertain. We aim to identify the mechanisms that boost magnetic braking (MB) and cause its disruption at the fully convective boundary in cataclysmic variables (CVs). We modelled CV evolution with MESA and compared the results with observed CV properties. We computed the convective turnover time ($\tau_c$) directly from the donor's structure rather than adopting empirical relations. We also included irradiation from the accreting white dwarf, which heats the donor's outer layers and can drive additional winds that enhance MB. The structure-based $\tau_c$ calculation reveals a pronounced spike as the donor approaches full convection, which drives the disruption parameter $\eta$ and initiates the period gap in CVs. The outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies, all of which are poorly constrained from observations. Despite these uncertainties, plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost $K$ during accreting phases. We refer to the combined prescription as the i$\tau$SBD MB model and find that it yields evolutionary tracks broadly consistent with the main CV properties. Our i$\tau$SBD MB framework offers a physically motivated interpretation of the empirical boost and disruption factors in SBD MB for CV evolution. We suggest that the convective turnover time spike at the fully convective boundary may drive MB disruption for fast-rotating stars in the saturated regime, while irradiation-driven winds may be the dominant mechanism boosting MB in accreting binaries and other strongly irradiated close systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CV evolution models using the SBD MB prescription with the convective turnover time τc computed directly from the donor structure. Upper left: mass transfer rate M˙ versus orbital period Porb. Upper right: donor radius R2 versus donor mass M2. Grey star symbols show observa￾tional determinations from McAllister et al. (2019), and the red line is the semi-empirical donor sequence of Knigge et al. (2011). For comparis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. compares CV evolutionary tracks computed with these three τc prescriptions. For each case, we allowed the MB boost parameters to be adjusted so as to preserve a broadly consistent CV evolutionary picture, including the period gap and period minimum. To illustrate the behaviour over a wider mass range, we used an initial donor mass of 1 M⊙. The fig￾ure also compares the resulting τc–M2 relations with the em￾pirical r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the two positive feedback loops in our irradiation model that make the mass-transfer response stiff and result in mass-transfer cycles. An increase in the accretion rate M˙ acc raises the accretion luminosity LX and the absorbed irradiation power Pabs. In the heating loop (left), irradiation modifies the donor’s outer boundary conditions, driving expansion (R2 ↑), which increases the Roche lobe … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass-transfer rate as a function of time since the onset of mass transfer for the irradiated model (see text for details). The evolution exhibits recurrent mass-transfer cycles. After ≈ 600 Myr, M˙ rises to ≳ 10−6 M⊙ yr−1 and the simulation terminates. The middle and b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CV evolution with the iτSBD MB model, including irradiation-driven winds and convective turnover times computed directly from the stellar structure. The adopted irradiation parameters are αacc = 0.1, αirr = 0.5, αwind = 10−1 , β = 0.40 (with αwind reduced to 10−4 in th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolutionary age as a function of orbital period for the iτSBD MB model (blue) and the empirical SBD MB model with K = η = 30 (green). The dashed horizontal lines and annotations mark the time of first Roche lobe contact (tonset) and the termination time of the calcula…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolutionary tracks for different component masses using the iτSBD MB model. M˙ versus Porb (top row) and R2 versus M2 (bottom row). Left column: tracks computed for fixed MWD = 0.8 M⊙ while varying the initial donor mass. Right column: tracks computed for fixed M2 = 0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of the iτSBD MB evolutionary tracks in the M˙ –Porb plane on model parameters. The top panel varies αacc and the bottom panel varies αwind, with all other parameters fixed. The blue curve cor￾responds to the fiducial model from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: M˙ versus Porb for the calibrated models used to reproduce the CV period gap and period minimum (see text for the model parameters). The approximate period minimum at 76–82 min and the period gap at 2.15–3.18 hr are shown by the grey shaded regions (Knigge 2006). The v…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulations with the iτSBD MB model illustrating episodes of enhanced mass transfer that may be associated with nova-like CVs. Upper left: M˙ versus Porb. Upper right: M˙ versus time since the onset of mass transfer. Lower panels: evolution of convective and radiative…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A survey of ultra-compact high-state AM CVn binaries with ZTF and Gaia: New discoveries and observational constraints on Galactic space density

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Three new high-state AM CVn binaries are discovered, giving a local space density of about 1 to 3 per 10^8 cubic parsecs and LISA detection estimates near 36% of the Galactic population.

  2. Cataclysmic Variables Photometric Periods from TESS

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    TESS photometry yields coherent periods for 1,362 CVs, including roughly 465–565 first determinations, and confirms the 2–3 h period gap with a median period near 3.68 h.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    & Li, X.-D

    Ablimit, I. & Li, X.-D. 2015, ApJ, 815, 17

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 358

    Andronov, N., Pinsonneault, M., & Sills, A. 2003, ApJ, 582, 358

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    S., et al

    Araujo-Betancor, S., Knigge, C., Long, K. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 437

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 464

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Barraza-Jorquera, J. A., Schreiber, M. R., & Belloni, D. 2025, A&A, 696, A92

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Barraza-Jorquera, J. A., Schreiber, M. R., Littlefair, S., Belloni, D., & Schwope, A. D. 2026, A&A, 708, L11

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    M., Hatchett, S., McCray, R., & Sunyaev, R

    Basko, M. M., Hatchett, S., McCray, R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 276

    work page 1977

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    Basko, M. M. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Ap&SS, 23, 117

    1973

  2. [10]

    M., Sunyaev, R

    Basko, M. M., Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1974, A&A, 31, 249

    1974

  3. [11]

    & Schreiber, M

    Belloni, D. & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129

    2023

  4. [12]

    R., Moe, M., El-Badry, K., & Shen, K

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Moe, M., El-Badry, K., & Shen, K. J. 2024, A&A, 682, A33

    2024

  5. [13]

    R., Pala, A

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Pala, A. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5717

    2020

  6. [14]

    R., Zorotovic, M., et al

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5626

    2018

  7. [15]

    2024, PASP, 136, 124201

    Blomberg, L., El-Badry, K., Breivik, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 124201

    2024

  8. [16]

    & Subramanian, K

    Brandenburg, A. & Subramanian, K. 2005, Phys. Rep., 417, 1 Büning, A. & Ritter, H. 2004, A&A, 423, 281

    2005

  9. [17]

    Canuto, V . M. 2000, ApJ, 534, L113

    2000

  10. [18]

    Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 1995, ApJ, 441, 865

    1995

  11. [19]

    & Baraffe, I

    Chabrier, G. & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 1039

    1997

  12. [20]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Chen, W.-C. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2016, ApJ, 830, 131

    2016

  13. [21]

    L., Heintz, T

    Chiti, F., van Saders, J. L., Heintz, T. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 15

    2024

  14. [22]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2708

    Conrad-Burton, J., Shabi, A., & Ginzburg, S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2708

    2023

  15. [23]

    L., Körding, E

    Coppejans, D. L., Körding, E. G., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3801 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

    2015

  16. [24]

    1998, A&A, 331, 581

    Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Perrier, C., & Mayor, M. 1998, A&A, 331, 581

    1998

  17. [25]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 174

    Deng, Z.-L., Li, X.-D., Gao, Z.-F., & Shao, Y . 2021, ApJ, 909, 174

    2021

  18. [26]

    2018, A&A, 617, A26

    Dubus, G., Otulakowska-Hypka, M., & Lasota, J.-P. 2018, A&A, 617, A26

    2018

  19. [27]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368

    1983

  20. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916

    El-Badry, K., Conroy, C., Fuller, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916

    2022

  21. [29]

    & Prša, A

    Fabry, M. & Prša, A. 2025, ApJ, 995, 19

    2025

  22. [30]

    & Opher, R

    Felsteiner, J. & Opher, R. 1976, A&A, 46, 189

    1976

  23. [31]

    2014, A&A, 569, A63

    Gabriel, M., Noels, A., Montalbán, J., & Miglio, A. 2014, A&A, 569, A63

    2014

  24. [32]

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

    Galiullin, I., Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A374 Gänsicke, B. T., Dillon, M., Southworth, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2170

    2024

  25. [33]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, A&A, 595, A110

    2016

  26. [34]

    J., Dotter, A., et al

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 90

    2018

  27. [35]

    Gilliland, R. L. 1985, ApJ, 299, 286

    1985

  28. [36]

    & Selvelli, P

    Gilmozzi, R. & Selvelli, P. 2024, A&A, 681, A83

    2024

  29. [37]

    & Quataert, E

    Ginzburg, S. & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3656

    2020

  30. [38]

    & Quataert, E

    Ginzburg, S. & Quataert, E. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1592

    2021

  31. [39]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 27

    Gossage, S., Kalogera, V ., & Sun, M. 2023, ApJ, 950, 27

    2023

  32. [40]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 102

    Gossage, S., Kiman, R., Monsch, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 102

    2025

  33. [41]

    K., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E

    Guerrero, G., Smolarkiewicz, P. K., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Kosovichev, A. G., & Mansour, N. N. 2016, ApJ, 819, 104

    2016

  34. [42]

    M., Pretorius, M

    Hewitt, D. M., Pretorius, M. L., Woudt, P. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2542 Article number, page 14 Vladislav Dodon et al.: Physical SBD magnetic braking in CVs

    2020

  35. [43]

    B., Nelson, L

    Howell, S. B., Nelson, L. A., & Rappaport, S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 897

    2001

  36. [44]

    V ., & Fedorova, A

    Iben, Jr., I., Tutukov, A. V ., & Fedorova, A. V . 1997, ApJ, 486, 955

    1997

  37. [45]

    T., Breedt, E., et al

    Inight, K., Gänsicke, B. T., Breedt, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4867

    2023

  38. [46]

    K., Burke, C

    Irwin, J., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 56

    2011

  39. [47]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  40. [48]

    & Chaboyer, B

    Joyce, M. & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 10

    2018

  41. [49]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415 Käpylä, P

    Justham, S., Rappaport, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415 Käpylä, P. J., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., Guerrero, G., & Warnecke, J. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 58

    2006

  42. [50]

    Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236

    1988

  43. [51]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03779

    2021

  44. [52]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03948

    2024

  45. [53]

    R., Frank, J., Kolb, U., & Ritter, H

    King, A. R., Frank, J., Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1996, ApJ, 467, 761

    1996

  46. [54]

    King, A. R. & Kolb, U. 1995, ApJ, 439, 330

    1995

  47. [55]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 484

    Knigge, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 484

    2006

  48. [56]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28

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

    2011

  49. [57]

    & Baraffe, I

    Kolb, U. & Baraffe, I. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1034

    1999

  50. [58]

    Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1975, The classical theory of fields

    1975

  51. [59]

    1947, ApJ, 105, 305

    Ledoux, P. 1947, ApJ, 105, 305

    1947

  52. [60]

    K., Wu, K

    Li, J. K., Wu, K. W., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 61

    1994

  53. [61]

    London, R., McCray, R., & Auer, L. H. 1981, ApJ, 243, 970

    1981

  54. [62]

    L., See, V ., Amard, L., Angus, R., & Matt, S

    Lu, Y . L., See, V ., Amard, L., Angus, R., & Matt, S. P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 223

    2024

  55. [63]

    R., et al

    Magaudda, E., Stelzer, B., Covey, K. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A20

    2020

  56. [64]

    J., Kashyap, V ., & Steeghs, D

    Matranga, M., Drake, J. J., Kashyap, V ., & Steeghs, D. 2012, ApJ, 747, 132

    2012

  57. [65]

    P., Brun, A

    Matt, S. P., Brun, A. S., Baraffe, I., Bouvier, J., & Chabrier, G. 2015, ApJ, 799, L23

    2015

  58. [66]

    P., MacGregor, K

    Matt, S. P., MacGregor, K. B., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Greene, T. P. 2012, ApJ, 754, L26

    2012

  59. [67]

    P., Parsons, S

    McAllister, M., Littlefair, S. P., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5535

    2019

  60. [68]

    1968, MNRAS, 138, 359

    Mestel, L. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 359

    1968

  61. [69]

    2017, PASP, 129, 062001

    Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001

    2017

  62. [70]

    1972, ApJ, 175, 417 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Gänsicke, B

    Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A43

    1972

  63. [71]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93

    2016

  64. [72]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763 Paczy´nski, B. 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 287

    1984

  65. [73]

    F., Gänsicke, B

    Pala, A. F., Gänsicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6110

    2022

  66. [74]

    Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293

    1955

  67. [75]

    Parker, E. N. 1975, ApJ, 198, 205

    1975

  68. [76]

    1984, ApJS, 54, 443

    Patterson, J. 1984, ApJS, 54, 443

    1984

  69. [77]

    & Raymond, J

    Patterson, J. & Raymond, J. C. 1985, ApJ, 292, 535

    1985

  70. [78]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  71. [79]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  72. [80]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  73. [81]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  74. [82]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  75. [83]

    2003, A&A, 397, 147

    Pizzolato, N., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., & Ventura, P. 2003, A&A, 397, 147

    2003

  76. [84]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. D. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1107

    2002

  77. [85]

    E., Diaz, M

    Puebla, R. E., Diaz, M. P., & Hubeny, I. 2007, AJ, 134, 1923

    2007

  78. [86]

    & Nelson, L

    Quintin, J. & Nelson, L. 2013, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Ab- stracts, V ol. 221, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #221, 202.05

    2013

  79. [87]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713

    1983

  80. [88]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  81. [89]

    & Basri, G

    Reiners, A. & Basri, G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1390

    2008

  82. [90]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 538 Réville, V ., Brun, A

    Reiners, A., Basri, G., & Browning, M. 2009, ApJ, 692, 538 Réville, V ., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., & Pinto, R. F. 2015, ApJ, 798, 116

    2009

  83. [91]

    2000, A&A, 360, 959

    Ritter, H., Zhang, Z.-Y ., & Kolb, U. 2000, A&A, 360, 959

    2000

  84. [92]

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

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V ., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 014201 Rodríguez-Gil, P., Gänsicke, B. T., Hagen, H.-J., et al. 2007a, MNRAS, 377, 1747 Rodríguez-Gil, P., Schmidtobreick, L., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2007b, MNRAS, 374, 1359

    2025

  85. [93]

    1989, ApJ, 343, 292

    Ruderman, M., Shaham, J., Tavani, M., & Eichler, D. 1989, ApJ, 343, 292

    1989

  86. [94]

    & Tout, C

    Sarkar, A. & Tout, C. A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4169

    2022

  87. [95]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2024, ApJ, 966, 155

    2024

  88. [96]

    1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18

    Schatzman, E. 1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18

    1962

  89. [97]

    Schreiber, M. R. & Belloni, D. 2025, A&A, 698, L22

    2025

  90. [98]

    R., Belloni, D., Gänsicke, B

    Schreiber, M. R., Belloni, D., Gänsicke, B. T., Parsons, S. G., & Zorotovic, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 648

    2021

  91. [99]

    R., Belloni, D., & Schwope, A

    Schreiber, M. R., Belloni, D., & Schwope, A. D. 2024, A&A, 682, L7

    2024

  92. [100]

    Schreiber, M. R. & Gänsicke, B. T. 2003, A&A, 406, 305

    2003

  93. [101]

    R., Gänsicke, B

    Schreiber, M. R., Gänsicke, B. T., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, L7

    2010

  94. [102]

    R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T

    Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T. P. G. 2016, MNRAS, 455, L16 Schröder, K.-P. & Cuntz, M. 2005, ApJ, 630, L73

    2016

  95. [103]

    H., & Terndrup, D

    Sills, A., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Terndrup, D. M. 2000, ApJ, 534, 335

    2000

  96. [104]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565

    1972

  97. [105]

    Spiegel, E. A. & Zahn, J.-P. 1992, A&A, 265, 106

    1992

  98. [106]

    Spruit, H. C. & Ritter, H. 1983, A&A, 124, 267

    1983

  99. [107]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 34

    Tang, W.-S., Li, X.-D., & Cui, Z. 2024, ApJ, 977, 34

    2024

  100. [108]

    Tauris, T. M. & Savonije, G. J. 1999, A&A, 350, 928

    1999

  101. [109]

    & London, R

    Tavani, M. & London, R. 1993, ApJ, 410, 281

    1993

  102. [110]

    Van, K. X. & Ivanova, N. 2019, ApJ, 886, L31

    2019

  103. [111]

    X., Ivanova, N., & Heinke, C

    Van, K. X., Ivanova, N., & Heinke, C. O. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5595 van Teeseling, A. & King, A. R. 1998, A&A, 338, 957

    2019

  104. [112]

    & Zwaan, C

    Verbunt, F. & Zwaan, C. 1981, A&A, 100, L7

    1981

  105. [113]

    S., & Izzard, R

    Walters, N., Farihi, J., Dufour, P., Pineda, J. S., & Izzard, R. G. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5096

    2023

  106. [114]

    2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars

    Warner, B. 2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars

    2003

  107. [115]

    Webbink, R. F. & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 330, The Astrophysics of Cataclysmic Vari- ables and Related Objects, ed. J. M. Hameury & J. P. Lasota, 137

    2005

  108. [116]

    Weber, E. J. & Davis, Jr., L. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217

    1967

  109. [117]

    E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

    Wood, B. E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 37

    2021

  110. [118]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48

    2011

  111. [119]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2351

    2018

  112. [120]

    & Li, X.-D

    Xing, Z.-P. & Li, X.-D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 201

    2019

  113. [121]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398

    2005

  114. [122]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 162

    Zhao, W., Meng, X., Cui, Y ., & Guo, Y . 2026, ApJ, 997, 162

    2026

  115. [123]

    2026, A&A, 707, A76

    Zhou, B., Zhu, C., Lü, G., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A76

    2026

  116. [124]

    & Schreiber, M

    Zorotovic, M. & Schreiber, M. R. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1080

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed May 19, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.