Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Link Between White Dwarf Pulsars and Polars: Multiwavelength Observations of the 9.36-Minute Period Variable Gaia22ayj

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 9.36-minute pulsations of Gaia22ayj are the spin of a magnetic, accreting white dwarf that is rapidly slowing down, placing it as a missing link between white dwarf pulsars and polars.

desk verdict A genuinely new object with a solid magnetic-accreting WD identification, but the spin-down and the 'missing link' interpretation rest on a timing measurement that needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01490 v1 pith:D5Y24QUF submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Antonio C. Rodriguez , Kareem El-Badry , Pasi Hakala , Pablo Rodríguez-Gil , Tong Bao , Ilkham Galiullin , Jacob A. Kurlander , Casey J. Law
show 25 more authors
Ingrid Pelisoli Matthias R. Schreiber Kevin Burdge Ilaria Caiazzo Jan van Roestel Paula Szkody Andrew J. Drake David A. H. Buckley Stephen B. Potter Boris Gaensicke Kaya Mori Eric C. Bellm Shrinivas R. Kulkarni Thomas A. Prince Matthew Graham Mansi M. Kasliwal Sam Rose Yashvi Sharma Tomás Ahumada Shreya Anand Akke Viitanen Avery Wold Tracy X. Chen Reed Riddle Roger Smith
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords whitedwarfpulsarspolarsmagneticcataclysmicvariablesGaia22ayjcyclotronemissionspin-downintermediateaccretingdwarfs
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

Gaia22ayj is a binary whose white dwarf pulses every 9.36 minutes, and this paper argues that the pulse is the white dwarf's spin (or spin-orbit beat) period, not the orbital period. The white dwarf is magnetic, with linear polarization reaching 40%, a level previously seen only in the white dwarf pulsar AR Sco, and it is accreting from a companion, as shown by X-ray emission, emission lines, and a 2022 outburst. Over six years of photometry the pulse period is lengthening at a rate that gives a spin-down timescale $P/\dot{P} \approx 6.1\times 10^6$ yr, nearly identical to AR Sco. The combination of rapid spin, magnetism, accretion, and spin-down places Gaia22ayj in an evolutionary middle ground: a white dwarf pulsar that has begun accreting and will, in about 40 million years, become a polar. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a rare direct test of the proposed evolutionary link between two classes of magnetic white-dwarf binaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the binary Gaia22ayj, specifically the magnetic white dwarf's 9.36-minute pulse. The argument's load-bearing mechanism is the observed-minus-calculated (O$-$C) timing analysis: the paper folds archival and high-speed optical light curves on the pulse period, tracks the drift of the light-curve minimum from 2018 to 2024, and fits a parabola to obtain the period derivative $\dot{P}$. Supporting machinery includes the cyclotron harmonic formula $\lambda = (10710\,\AA/n)(100\,\mathrm{MG}/B)\sin\theta$, used with the absence of resolved harmonics to bound the field between roughly 5 and 15 MG; the spin equilibrium condition $P_{\rm eq} \propto B^{6/7}\dot{M}^{-3/7}$, used to set a lower limit on the accretion rate; and the donor evolutionary tracks used to constrain the orbital period to 3.5 to 5.2 hours.

What would settle it

Directly measure the orbital period, for example by detecting donor absorption or emission lines with a variable radial velocity, or by confirming a distinct X-ray spin period. If the 9.36-minute signal is the spin-orbit beat and the tentative 9.64-minute X-ray period is the spin, the orbital period would be about 5.37 hours, and the O$-$C drift would need to be reinterpreted as at least partly orbital in origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, Gaia22ayj is a magnetic accreting white dwarf in a close binary, and the 9.36-minute modulation is the white dwarf's spin period, or the spin-orbit beat period, rather than the orbital period. The white dwarf is spinning down, with $\dot{P} = (2.89 \pm 0.12)\times 10^{-12}$ s s$^{-1}$ and $P/\dot{P} = 6.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\times 10^6$ yr, closely matching the spin-down timescale of the white dwarf pulsar AR Sco. Accretion is supported by double-peaked Balmer and He emission lines, an X-ray luminosity of $2.7^{+6.2}_{-0.8}\times 10^{32}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and a brief optical outburst; magnetism is supported by 40% linear polarization and a broad cyclotron-hump-like spectral modulation between 4000 and 8000 \AA. The radio non-detection at a 3$\sigma$ limit of $15.8\,\mu$Jy differs from the known white dwarf pulsars, while the inferred orbital period of 3.5 to 5.2 hours overlaps both white dwarf pulsars and polars. The paper concludes that Gaia22ayj is an accreting analog of white dwarf pulsars and a plausible missing link that will evolve into a polar in roughly 40 Myr.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the 9.36-minute pulse is the white dwarf's spin period; if it is actually the beat between spin and orbit, the measured period drift could be caused partly by orbital evolution rather than white-dwarf spin-down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the spin-down continues at roughly the measured rate, Gaia22ayj will synchronize with its orbit in about 40 Myr and become a polar.
  • The 9.36-minute period cannot be an orbital period, so the system is not an ultracompact double-degenerate binary; its orbital period is probably 3.5 to 5.2 hours.
  • Gaia22ayj occupies a previously empty region of spin-period versus optical-amplitude space, between intermediate polars and polars, and may define a new subclass of magnetic cataclysmic variables.
  • The radio non-detection, at a level below what the known white dwarf pulsars would produce at that distance, suggests accretion suppresses or replaces the WD-pulsar radio emission mechanism.
  • Deeper wide-field surveys should detect dozens of Gaia22ayj-like systems within a few years, making the proposed evolutionary phase testable as a population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 9.36-minute signal is really the spin-orbit beat and the tentative 9.64-minute X-ray period is the true spin, the orbital period would be roughly 5.37 hours, and the reported O$-$C drift would need to be partly attributed to orbital evolution rather than pure white-dwarf spin-down.
  • The high linear polarization with two peaks and a swing in polarization angle suggests two accretion poles; future circular polarimetry could directly test this geometry and sharpen the field-strength estimate.
  • The extreme polarization combined with absent radio emission hints that accretion quenches the coherent radio pulses seen in white dwarf pulsars, which could sharpen searches for long-period radio transients in accreting magnetic cataclysmic variables.
  • Measuring higher-order period derivatives over the next few years would show whether the spin-down accelerates as the donor approaches Roche-lobe overflow, a prediction of the proposed WD-pulsar-to-polar evolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength characterization of Gaia22ayj, a 9.36-min periodic variable that underwent a 2022 outburst. Combining ZTF/ATLAS/Gaia photometry, high-speed optical photometry, linear and circular polarimetry, phase-resolved spectroscopy, Swift X-ray spectroscopy and timing, VLA radio observations, and near-infrared photometry/spectroscopy, the authors argue that the system is a magnetic accreting white dwarf with a spin or spin-orbit beat period of 9.36 min. They report strong (40%) linear polarization, a broad cyclotron-like hump, double-peaked emission lines with v ~ 1200 km/s, and an X-ray luminosity of ~2.7e32 erg/s. From an O-C diagram spanning 2018-2024 they derive Pdot = 2.89e-12 s/s and P/Pdot = 6.1e6 yr, and propose Gaia22ayj as a missing link between rapidly spinning-down, non-accreting WD pulsars and synchronized accreting polars.

Significance. If the spin-down and period identification hold, Gaia22ayj would be the first accreting analog of the WD pulsars, with an evolutionary timescale compatible with the Schreiber et al. (2021) dynamo scenario, and would establish a new, empirically defined subclass bridging intermediate polars and polars. The paper's strengths are the breadth of independent observational evidence for magnetically channeled accretion (emission lines, X-rays, polarization, cyclotron hump) and the explicit caution about the Swift X-ray period. However, the central 'missing link' claim depends on the spin-down measurement, which currently lacks a demonstrated stable timing reference, and on the spin-vs-beat identification, which is acknowledged in the abstract but not propagated into the spin-down interpretation. The conclusion is therefore conditional rather than fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.7; Appendix A, Figs. 18–19] The O-C measurement uses the phase of the light-curve minimum as a stable clock, but Appendix A demonstrates that the pulse shape is unstable: in the CHIMERA g-band run (Fig. 18), the higher peak declines from a relative flux of ~4 at minute 7 to ~2.5 at minute 42, and the ULTRACAM run (Fig. 19) shows comparable peak-amplitude variations. For a double-peaked pulse modeled as a two-component sinusoid, the phase of the minimum is a function of the amplitude ratio and harmonic phase offset, so an amplitude change of this size can shift the fitted minimum by tens of seconds, comparable to the ~90 s drift in Fig. 12 that anchors Pdot. The paper does not report the O-C residuals versus the fitted amplitude ratio, nor does it fit per-epoch free amplitudes or phases. The fit is also based on a small number of high-speed epochs (2022–2024) plus ZTF folded photometry, so the formal covariance error in §4.7 does not capture shape-variability systematics. Until such a robustness test is provided, or the systematic uncertainty is folded into Pdot, the quoted Pdot = (2.89 ± 0.12) × 10^-12 s/s and P/Pdot = 6.1 × 10^6 yr are not established at the reported precision.
  2. [§4.7, §5.2, Table 2] The spin-down interpretation assumes that the 9.36-min optical period is the WD spin period, but the abstract and §5.2 explicitly allow that this period may instead be the spin-orbit beat period; if the 9.64-min X-ray period is the spin, the implied orbital period is 5.37 h. In the beat-period case, the observed O-C drift can be contributed by orbital period evolution, so the derived P/Pdot would not directly measure WD magnetic braking. The paper should propagate this ambiguity throughout: Table 2 lists Pdot and P/Pdot without qualification, and §5.1 uses the 40 Myr spin-down-to-synchronization timescale as a central evolutionary argument. Please either defend the spin identification with additional timing arguments or present the spin-down as conditional on that identification.
  3. [§4.5, Fig. 11] The lower limit B ≳ 5 MG is adopted from the assertion that n > 20 harmonics must be present at optical wavelengths, but this assertion is not derived from a cyclotron model or a comparison to observed polar spectra. The accretion-rate lower limit Mdot ≳ 5 × 10^-10 Msun/yr in Fig. 11 and the resulting orbital-period range 3.5–5.2 h in §5.2 depend on this field limit. Since the magnetic field is explicitly not measured (as the authors acknowledge), the orbital-period constraint should be presented as conditional on an assumed harmonic order rather than as a firm constraint, or the harmonic-order assumption should be justified quantitatively.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1] In the second paragraph of Section 2.1, 'perations' should read 'operations'.
  2. [§2.3] The text 'The full light polarimetric light curve is shown in the Appendix Figure 20' should read 'The full polarimetric light curve is shown in the Appendix Figure 20'.
  3. [§4.5] The statement that the n = 7 feature is not seen at λ < 8800 Å should state the wavelength range actually covered by the LRIS spectra, since the figure does not mark this cutoff.
  4. [Fig. 12] The caption says the light-curve minimum has drifted over six years, but the high-speed O-C points are from 2022–2024; please clarify which data define the 2018–2024 baseline in the fit and whether outburst epochs were excluded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an observational characterization whose spin-down, polarization, accretion, and X-ray/radio constraints come from independent data and external benchmarks, with the evolutionary framework cited as prior model rather than fitted to the target.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The spin-down measurement in Sec. 4.7 is a standard O–C timing analysis: a template is built from the ZTF light curve, high-speed light curves are fitted with the same two-component sinusoid, and the drift of the light-curve minimum yields Pdot. This is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the timing residuals are new information across a six-year baseline. The identification of the 9.36-min period as WD spin or spin-orbit beat is an interpretation supported by the hydrogen-dominated spectrum and the CV orbital-period minimum, not a definitional identity, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the spin-orbit-beat alternative when discussing the tentative X-ray period. The polarization (40%), cyclotron-like spectral hump, emission-line broadening, outburst behavior, X-ray luminosity, and radio upper limit are independent observational constraints. The use of Schreiber et al. (2021), Pelisoli et al. (2022a), and other prior work—some co-authored—is as published external measurements or published evolutionary models, not as inputs fitted to Gaia22ayj. The claimed agreement between the measured spin-down timescale and the Schreiber et al. prediction is a comparison, not a reduction to the model. The skeptical concern that variable peak amplitudes could bias the O–C minimum phase is a robustness question about systematic error, not circularity; it does not involve a quantity being defined in terms of the thing it is used to predict. No step in the paper's argument reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central observational claims (period, spin-down, polarization, accretion signatures) depend on standard timing and polarimetry reductions. The more interpretive claims (Porb, B, evolutionary link) rely on model assumptions and on choices such as the viewing angle and cyclotron harmonic range, listed above. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • X-ray spectral model parameters (NH, photon index/kT, mkcflow Mdot) = NH ~ 0.02-0.09 x 10^22 cm^-2; Mdot ~ 2.8-3.8 x 10^-11 Msun/yr
    Fitted to the combined Swift/XRT spectrum to compute X-ray luminosity and accretion rate; not central to the classification but used for quantitative claims.
  • Donor star effective temperature and radius = Teff = 3900 K, R = 0.62 Rsun
    Obtained from SED fitting at light-curve minimum using BT-Settl models and Knigge et al. tracks; used to set an upper limit on the orbital period.
  • Magnetic pole viewing angle theta = 60 degrees (assumed lower limit)
    Chosen to convert the absence of resolved cyclotron harmonics into an upper limit of B <= 15 MG; the inferred B changes if theta differs.
  • Cyclotron harmonic lower limit n > 20 = 20
    Assumed to place a lower limit of B >= 5 MG; the authors call this conservative, but it is an ad hoc choice in the B inference.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Cyclotron harmonic wavelength relation (Eq. 1)
    Used to convert the observed absence of individual cyclotron humps into a magnetic field upper limit of B <= 15 MG.
  • standard math Magnetospheric radius and spin equilibrium formulas (Eqs. 2-3)
    Used to argue that stable accretion requires Mdot >= 5e-10 Msun/yr given the inferred B and 9.36-min spin period.
  • domain assumption CV orbital period minimum ~78 min for hydrogen-rich donors
    Used in Sec. 4.2 to exclude the 9.36-min period as orbital, since the spectrum is hydrogen dominated.
  • domain assumption The system is accreting, not in a propeller phase
    Supported by X-ray luminosity and lack of propellar flaring; needed for the spin-equilibrium and evolutionary interpretation.
  • domain assumption Schreiber et al. (2021) model that WD pulsars evolve into polars
    Interpretive framework for the 'missing link' claim; cited, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Knigge et al. (2011) CV evolutionary tracks
    Used to relate donor properties to orbital period and to place Porb in the 3.5-5.2 h range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Link Between White Dwarf Pulsars and Polars: Multiwavelength Observations of the 9.36-Minute Period Variable Gaia22ayj." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5Y24QUF

@misc{pith2026250101490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Link Between White Dwarf Pulsars and Polars: Multiwavelength Observations of the 9.36-Minute Period Variable Gaia22ayj},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5Y24QUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01490}
}
abstract

White dwarfs (WDs) are the most abundant compact objects, and recent surveys have suggested that over a third of WDs in accreting binaries host a strong (B $\gtrsim$ 1 MG) magnetic field. However, the origin and evolution of WD magnetism remain under debate. Two WD pulsars, AR Sco and J191213.72-441045.1 (J1912), have been found, which are non-accreting binaries hosting rapidly spinning (1.97-min and 5.30-min, respectively) magnetic WDs. The WD in AR Sco is slowing down on a $P/\dot{P}\approx 5.6\times 10^6$ yr timescale. It is believed they will eventually become polars, accreting systems in which a magnetic WD (B $\approx 10-240$ MG) accretes from a Roche lobe-filling donor spinning in sync with the orbit ($\gtrsim 78$ min). Here, we present multiwavelength data and analysis of Gaia22ayj, which outbursted in March 2022. We find that Gaia22ayj is a magnetic accreting WD that is rapidly spinning down ($P/\dot{P} = 6.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\times 10^6$ yr) like WD pulsars, but shows clear evidence of accretion, like polars. Strong linear polarization (40%) is detected in Gaia22ayj; such high levels have only been seen in the WD pulsar AR Sco and demonstrate the WD is magnetic. High speed photometry reveals a 9.36-min period accompanying a high amplitude ($\sim 2$ mag) modulation. We associate this with a WD spin or spin-orbit beat period, not an orbital period as was previously suggested. Fast (60-s) optical spectroscopy reveals a broad ``hump'', reminiscent of cyclotron emission in polars, between 4000-8000 Angstrom. We find an X-ray luminosity of $L_X = 2.7_{-0.8}^{+6.2}\times10^{32} \textrm{ erg s}^{-1}$ in the 0.3-8 keV energy range, while two VLA radio campaigns resulted in a non-detection with a $F_r < 15.8\mu\textrm{Jy}$ 3$ \sigma$ upper limit. The shared properties of both WD pulsars and polars suggest that Gaia22ayj is a missing link between the two classes of magnetic WD binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: ZTF light curve of Gaia22ayj in r and g bands folded on the 9.36-min period. Right: Comparison of the Gaia22ayj ZTF r band light curve (red) to that of an archetypal polar, GG Leo (top; black points; Pspin = Porb = 1.3 h) and an archetypal IP, V418 Gem (bottom; black points; Pspin = 8.0 min). The light curves of GG Leo and V418 are offset to match with the minimum of Gaia22ayj. Gaia22ayj pulsates at the short … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaia coverage from 2014–2024 shows consistent high amplitude modulation, while both ZTF (2018–onwards) and Gaia show a ∼ 3-mag outburst beginning on 3 April 2022. ATLAS coverage demonstrates that the outburst lasts two days, during which the high amplitude modulation seen in quiescence disappears. The low amplitude and short duration of the outburst more closely resembles those seen in IPs than those in non-magnetic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A Lomb-Scargle periodogram constructed from ZTF r and g photometry only reveals peaks at 9.36 min (true period) and 4.68 min (half of that). No other peaks, including one corresponding to a possible orbital period, pass the typical ZTF detection threshold of 25 in these units (see text for details). maxima per spin period are clearly seen, as in the ZTF light curve, but the multi-band coverage shows that one peak is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Quintuple-band simultaneous high speed (3.77 s) photometry of Gaia22ayj acquired over 20 min with HiPER￾CAM on the GTC shows that Gaia22ayj can increase in brightness by a factor of ∼ 10 in 2.5 minutes, and that the variability amplitude varies significantly with…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-resolved spectroscopy of Gaia22ayj shows that overall modulation between 4000–8000Å leads to the observed high-amplitude photometric variability. Gray shaded areas are telluric features. Upper left: Two hours of Keck I/LRIS spectra, stacked into ten bins folded o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trailed Keck I/LRIS continuum-normalized spec￾tra acquired over ≈ 2 h do not reveal any RV shifts in emis￾sion lines down to the limiting resolution of ≈ 30 km s−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Low-resolution spectropolarimetry acquired with SALT reveals a possible (> 1σ) detection of a circularly po￾larized continuum, peaking around 6800 Å. The height of the feature corresponds to a five percent level of circular polar￾ization, consistent with magnetic CVs. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The combined X-ray spectrum of Gaia22ayj from all 11 Swift/XRT observations (from June 21, 2005 to December 6, 2005). The red line shows the best-fit tbabs × pcfabs × mkcflow model. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data divided by the model spectrum. Right…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: VLA non-detection (3σ upper limit of 15 µJy) of Gaia22ayj (a 6′′ radius white circle is shown around the optical position). An unassociated radio source is located approximately 1.45′ to the south west of the field center, with the synthesized beam shown on the lo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A 3900-K donor, with Rdonor = 0.62 R⊙ best fits the optical light curve minimum of Gaia22ayj. This is consistent with near-IR and mid-IR photometry from VISTA and WISE, respectively, and allows us to place upper limits on the orbital period of Gaia22ayj ( [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Equilibrium spin period as a function of mag￾netic field strength, for different accretion rates (Equation 3). Limits on magnetic field strength from Equation 1 are shown as vertical blue lines, and the 9.36-min spin period as a horizontal red line. Given the magnetic…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The “observed" minus “expected" (O–C) dia￾gram of Gaia22ayj (top) shows that the expected time of the light curve minimum has drifted over six years. A multi￾year, high-speed optical photometry campaign demonstrated that Gaia22ayj is spinning down at P˙ = (2.89 ± 0.12…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: IPs that show consistent spin up (squares) or spin down (circles), including the propeller AE Aqr, are shown on the P − P˙ diagram. AR Sco and Gaia22ayj are related in having the longest characteristic spin-down times of known systems. Quantity Value Source RA (hms) 0…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top: Gaia22ayj occupies a new region in the phase space of WD spin period vs. optical amplitude, sug￾gesting that, at least empirically, it represents a new class of magnetic CVs. Bottom: Gaia22ayj is roughly located be￾tween IPs and polar CVs in the Gaia HR diagram. …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cartoon of the possible evolution of WD pulsars into Gaia22ayj and then into polars. WD pulsars must be products of common envelope evolution, and WDs are likely spun up by an early accretion phase. WD pulsars are detached (non-accreting) systems, which are spinning d…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The evolutionary models of Knigge et al. (2011) illustrate the possible orbital period of Gaia22ayj. The SED at light curve minimum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Simulated r-band light curve by injecting a Gaia22ayj-like signal into the simulated cadence of the LSST (top). Given typical periodicity detection thresholds, tested on real data with ZTF, Gaia22ayj-like systems should be de￾tectable ≈ 3 yr after the start of the LSS…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: P200/CHIMERA light curve from 13 Nov 2023. In g band, the second peak of the spin phase (higher of the two peaks) steadily decreases over the course of the observing window, from a relative flux of 4 at minute 7 to a relative flux of 2.5 at minute 42. Similar behavior…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: NTT/ULTRACAM light curve from 25 Apr 2022. In g band, the second peak of the spin phase (higher of the two peaks) is variable throughout the observing window, reaching its highest value at the 40 minute mark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: NOT/ALFOSC light curve from 13 Apr 2024. The dotted black line in the top panel denotes 15,000 counts, demonstrating that even at light curve minimum, a significant measurement is recorded. Linear polarization percentage regularly reaches 30%, and exceeds 40% in four …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: High speed photometry carried out with the Sutherland High Speed Optical Cameras (SHOC) on the 1m SAAO telescope reveals consistent modulation similar to that seen in other photometric runs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Spectroscopic Detection of a 2.9-hour Orbit in a Long Period Radio Transient

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The 2.9-hour radio period of GLEAM-X J0704-37 is the orbital period of a compact white dwarf plus M dwarf binary at about 400 pc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz181

    Abril, J., Schmidtobreick, L., Ederoclite, A., & López-Sanjuan, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz181

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz181 2020

  2. [2]

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

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 91, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1011.5405 22 Rodriguez et al

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.5405 2011

  3. [3]

    A., Ward, M

    Allen, D. A., Ward, M. J., & Hyland, A. R. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 969, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.969

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.969 1982

  4. [4]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad836

    Bao, T., Li, Z., & Cheng, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad836

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad836 2023

  8. [8]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3665

    Bao, T., Li, Z., Cheng, Z., & Belloni, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3665

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3665 2024

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    C., Burke, C

    Bellm, E. C., Burke, C. J., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4602

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019a, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi

  3. [11]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019b, PASP, 131, 068003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

    doi

  4. [12]

    R., Pala, A

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Pala, A. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3413

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Ivezic, Z., Jones, R

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezic, Z., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Braithwaite, J., & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819, doi: 10.1038/nature02934

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Buckley, D

    Brink, J. D., Buckley, D. A. H., Nordsieck, K. H., & Potter, S. B. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773517,...

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Meintjes, P. J., Potter, S. B., Marsh, T. R., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0029, doi: 10.1038/s41550-016-0029

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Sekiguchi, K., Motch, C., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.4.1028

    1995 doi

  10. [18]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6267, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 62670Z, doi: 10.1117/12.673750

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 571, 528, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1403-0

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Nordsieck, K

    Burgh, E. B., Nordsieck, K. H., Kobulnicky, H. A., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1463–1471,...

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Schreiber, M

    Camisassa, M., Fuentes, J. R., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452539

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Clark, B. G. 1980, A&A, 89, 377

    1980

  16. [24]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4905459 de Jager, O

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4905459 de Jager, O. C., Meintjes, P. J., O’Donoghue, D., &

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Robinson, E. L. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/267.3.577 de Ruiter, I., Rajwade, K. M., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11536, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11536

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Delgado, F., & Reuter, M. A. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9910, Observatory Operations:

    2016

  20. [28]

    Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, R. L. Seaman, & C. R. Benn, 991013, doi: 10.1117/12.2233630

    doi

  21. [29]

    S., Marsh, T

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

    2007

  22. [30]

    S., Bezawada, N., Black, M., et al

    Dhillon, V. S., Bezawada, N., Black, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2130

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2945

    El-Badry, K., Conroy, C., Fuller, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2945

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    1995, MNRAS, 273, 17, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.1.17

    Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D., Bailey, J., & Buckley, D. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 17, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.1.17

    1995 doi

  26. [35]

    2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D., & Kawka, A. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    I., & Gilfanov, M

    Galiullin, I. I., & Gilfanov, M. R. 2021, Astronomy Letters, 47, 587, doi: 10.1134/S1063773721090048 A Link Between White Dw arf Pulsars and Polars 23 Gänsicke, B. T., Dillon, M., Southworth, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2170, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15126.x

    2021

  28. [37]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/25

    Garcia-Berro, E., Loren-Aguilar, P., Aznar-Siguan, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/25

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1363

    Ginzburg, S., Fuller, J., Kawka, A., & Caiazzo, I. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1363

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    R., Tyler, L

    Goad, M. R., Tyler, L. G., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 1401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078436

    2007 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

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

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

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    C., & Loredo, T

    Gregory, P. C., & Loredo, T. J. 1992, ApJ, 398, 146, doi: 10.1086/171844

    1992 doi

  34. [43]

    M., & Lasota, J

    Hameury, J. M., & Lasota, J. P. 2017, A&A, 602, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730760

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Lasota, J

    Hameury, J. M., Lasota, J. P., & Shaw, A. W. 2022, A&A, 664, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243727

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

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

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

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    Hellier, C., & Buckley, D. A. H. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.3.766

    1993 doi

  38. [47]

    J., et al

    Hurley-Walker, N., Rea, N., McSweeney, S. J., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 487, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06202-5

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    J., Bahramian, A., et al

    Hurley-Walker, N., McSweeney, S. J., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15757

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    2017, ApJL, 836, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    Isern, J., García-Berro, E., Külebi, B., & Lorén-Aguilar, P. 2017, ApJL, 836, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    M., Tyson, J

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

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.13975

    Kato, T. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.13975. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13975

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

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

    2011 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Nordsieck, K

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Nordsieck, K. H., Burgh, E. B., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1634–1644,...

    2003 doi

  45. [54]

    A., van Roestel, J., et al

    Kupfer, T., Prince, T. A., van Roestel, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1344

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Garnavich, P., et al

    Littlefield, C., Mason, P. A., Garnavich, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf04

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  48. [57]

    R., Gänsicke, B

    Marsh, T. R., Gänsicke, B. T., Hümmerich, S., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 374, doi: 10.1038/nature18620

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    L., Burles, S., Thompson, I

    Marshall, J. L., Burles, S., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 701454, doi: 10.1117/12.789972

    2008 doi

  50. [59]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  52. [61]

    2017, PASP, 129, 062001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736

    Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    R., Hollands, M., et al

    Munday, J., Marsh, T. R., Hollands, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3385

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    F., & Szymkowiak, A

    Mushotzky, R. F., & Szymkowiak, A. E. 1988, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 229, Cooling Flows in Clusters and Galaxies, ed. A. C. Fabian, 53, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-2953-1_6 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, ...

    1988 doi

  55. [64]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562 Paczyński, B., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1983, ApJ, 268, 825, doi: 10.1086/161004

    1995 doi

  56. [65]

    F., Gänsicke, B

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

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    G., Gänsicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab284

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    1979, ApJ, 234, 978, doi: 10.1086/157582 —

    Patterson, J. 1979, ApJ, 234, 978, doi: 10.1086/157582 —. 1994, PASP, 106, 209, doi: 10.1086/133375

    1979 doi

  59. [68]

    Patterson, J., Branch, D., Chincarini, G., & Robinson, E. L. 1980, ApJL, 240, L133, doi: 10.1086/183339

    1980 doi

  60. [69]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab863d

    Patterson, J., de Miguel, E., Kemp, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab863d

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    R., Parsons, S

    Pelisoli, I., Marsh, T. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 516, 5052, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2391

    doi

  62. [71]

    R., Dhillon, V

    Pelisoli, I., Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 509, L31, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab116

    doi

  63. [72]

    R., Buckley, D

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

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3442 24 Rodriguez et al

    Pelisoli, I., Sahu, S., Lyutikov, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3442 24 Rodriguez et al

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

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

    2019 doi

  66. [75]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    L., & Mukai, K

    Pretorius, M. L., & Mukai, K. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2580, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu990

    2014 doi

  68. [77]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7b0

    Rappaport, S., Vanderburg, A., Schwab, J., & Nelson, L. 2021, ApJ, 913, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7b0

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    R., et al

    Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 806, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19923.x

    2012

  70. [79]

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

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

    2003 doi

  71. [80]

    Rodriguez, A. C. 2024, PASP, 136, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad357c

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Rodriguez, A. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Prince, T. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb6f

    2023 doi

  73. [82]

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

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16053

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  75. [84]

    J., Knigge, C., et al

    Scaringi, S., Groot, P. J., Knigge, C., et al. 2022, Nature, 604, 447, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04495-6

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

    1992, A&A, 264, 529

    Schaich, M., Wolf, D., Oestreicher, R., & Ruder, H. 1992, A&A, 264, 529

    1992

  77. [86]

    D., & Stockman, H

    Schmidt, G. D., & Stockman, H. S. 1991, ApJ, 371, 749, doi: 10.1086/169939

    1991 doi

  78. [87]

    R., Belloni, D., Gänsicke, B

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

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    R., Marsh, T

    Stanway, E. R., Marsh, T. R., Chote, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732380

    2018 doi

  80. [89]

    1997, A&A, 320, 136

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

    1997

  81. [90]

    F., Doroshenko, V., & Werner, K

    Suleimanov, V. F., Doroshenko, V., & Werner, K. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2952

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V., Babyshkin, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    Thorstensen, J. R. 2020, AJ, 160, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba7c7

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    A., Wickramasinghe, D

    Tout, C. A., Wickramasinghe, D. T., Liebert, J., Ferrario, L., & Pringle, J. E. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 897, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13291.x

    2008

  86. [95]

    Tyson, J. A. 2002, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4836, Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, ed. J. A. Tyson & S. Wolff, 10–20, doi: 10.1117/12.456772 van Roestel, J., Rodriguez, A. C., Szkody, P., et al...

    2002 doi arXiv

  87. [96]

    2016, gatspy: General tools for Astronomical Time Series in Python

    VanderPlas, J. 2016, gatspy: General tools for Astronomical Time Series in Python. http://ascl.net/1610.007

    2016

  88. [97]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

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

    1995

  89. [98]

    T., Bailey, J., Meggitt, S

    Wickramasinghe, D. T., Bailey, J., Meggitt, S. M. A., et al. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 28, doi: 10.1093/mnras/251.1.28

    1991 doi

  90. [99]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 A Link Between White Dw arf Pulsars and Polars 25 Figure 18

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 A Link Between White Dw arf Pulsars and Polars 25 Figure 18. P200/CHIMERA light curve from 13 Nov 2023. Ing band, the second peak of the spin phase (higher of the two peaks) steadily decreases over the...

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.