Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Bridging the Gap: OPTICAM Reveals the Hidden Spin of the WZ Sge Star GOTO 065054.49+593624.51

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 148-second pulse reveals a hidden white-dwarf spin in a WZ Sge star.

desk verdict A well-analyzed single-epoch periodicity that is likely real; the spin interpretation is plausible but unproven, and the magnetic field argument has a fixable inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11669 v2 pith:NTQURZDP submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

N. Castro Segura , Z. A. Irving , F. M. Vincentelli , D. Altamirano , Y. Tampo , C. Knigge , I. Pelisoli , D. L. Coppejans
show 9 more authors
N. Rawat A. Castro A. Sahu J. V. Hernández Santisteban M. Kimura M. Veresvarska R. Michel S. Scaringi M. Najera
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords cataclysmicvariablesWZSgestarsintermediatepolarswhitedwarfspinaccretiondiscsnovaeLomb-Scargleperiodogramtime-seriesphotometry
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 reports a periodic 148.2-second variation in the blue light of the WZ Sge-type dwarf nova GOTO 0650, detected with high confidence only during a short dip between the main superoutburst and its rebrightenings. The authors argue this is the spin period of the accreting white dwarf, a signal normally hidden because the outburst quenches the accretion column. If confirmed, GOTO 0650 becomes the second WZ Sge star with a candidate spin period and the first caught during an outburst, bridging the gap between slowly and rapidly rotating intermediate polars. The detection also constrains the white dwarf's magnetic field to roughly $10^{4}$ gauss, supporting the idea that even weak fields matter in these extreme mass-transfer binaries.

What carries the argument

The detection rests on Lomb-Scargle periodograms with a Vaughan (2005) noise model for confidence thresholds, bootstrap resampling for the frequency uncertainty and coherence (Q factor from a Lorentzian fit), and phase folding of the epoch-4 light curves. The physical argument is that a blue, coherent, ~148 s modulation appearing only when the disc fades between outburst phases matches the signature of magnetically channeled accretion onto a spinning white dwarf, as seen in intermediate polars.

What would settle it

A high-cadence observation of GOTO 0650 in quiescence that does not show a ~148 second modulation in g-band would weaken the spin interpretation, as would finding the periodicity in a band or epoch where the accretion geometry is unchanged but the disc is dominant. The authors explicitly say quiescent observations are required to test this hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using high-cadence g, r, i photometry with OPTICAM over five nights across a factor of ~100 in brightness, the authors find a statistically significant signal at 148.2 s (6.73 mHz) in the g-band of epoch 4, with a false alarm probability of 1.16e-6 and a Q factor of 3422, indicating a highly coherent oscillation. The signal has a peak-to-peak amplitude of about 10% in g-band, weakens toward redder bands, and is absent in comparison stars and local background, ruling out instrumental artifacts. The authors interpret it as the spin period of the accreting white dwarf, argue that dwarf nova oscillations, non-radial pulsations, and precessing inner disc QPOs are unlikely on timescale and temperature grounds, and estimate a magnetic field of order $10^{4}$ G. They explicitly state that quiescent observations are required to confirm the spin interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the 148-second pulse is the rotating accretion spot of the white dwarf rather than a disc oscillation, a stellar pulsation, or a precessing inner disc; the paper argues against these alternatives but has no direct proof of the spin link.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GOTO 0650 becomes the second WZ Sge-type star, after WZ Sge itself, with a candidate white-dwarf spin period, and the first detected while the system is still in outburst.
  • The 148 s period sits between the spin periods of CC Scl and V455 And, filling the gap between slow and fast rotating magnetic white dwarfs below the period gap.
  • The implied magnetic field of about 10^4 G strengthens the view that even weak magnetic fields shape the behaviour of WZ Sge stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spin interpretation is correct, the same modulation should reappear in quiescent observations with a stable phase; the authors explicitly call for this test.
  • The restriction of the signal to the dip between the main outburst and rebrightenings implies a dramatic change in accretion geometry across the outburst cycle; a testable prediction is that the modulation amplitude tracks the system's position in the cycle.
  • The g-band, dip-only detection suggests a practical recipe for hunting hidden spins in other WZ Sge stars: high-cadence multi-band monitoring during the faint dip phase rather than at outburst peak.
  • If confirmed, the combination of the spin period and the ~91 min superhump period would place GOTO 0650 in a regime where magnetic torques could measurably influence the disc's inner radius, which a future timing campaign could check.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents high-cadence OPTICAM photometry of the WZ Sge-type dwarf nova GOTO 065054.49+593624.51 during the decline and dip following its 2024 superoutburst. A coherent periodicity at P_omega ~ 148.2 s is detected in the g-band light curve of epoch 4 with a false alarm probability of 1.16e-6 and a trials-corrected global significance of 0.0016 per cent. The authors interpret the signal as the spin period of the accreting white dwarf, discuss alternative origins (DNOs, non-radial pulsations, QPOs), and use magnetospheric arguments to argue that the observed period is the fundamental spin period rather than its first harmonic. If confirmed, the system would bridge the gap between intermediate- and fast-rotating intermediate polars below the period gap.

Significance. The reported detection is statistically well supported: the analysis includes bootstrap frequency uncertainties, a Lorentzian fit with Q ~ 3422, comparison with background and reference stars, and simulations for confidence thresholds. The identification of a candidate spin period in a WZ Sge system during the dip phase is of genuine interest, as it directly probes magnetospheric accretion in the lowest-mass-transfer-rate CVs. The paper also gives a reasonable discussion of alternative interpretations. However, the spin-period identification is not unique: the observed period could be the first harmonic of a longer spin period, and the magnetic-field argument used to rule out this possibility contains an internal inconsistency (see Major Comment 1). The significance of the result therefore depends on resolving this ambiguity; as it stands, the conclusion is a plausible but not fully supported hypothesis.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4, magnetic-field estimates] The magnetic-field argument meant to break the spin/harmonic degeneracy is internally inconsistent. On one hand, the authors derive a lower limit of B ~ 2e4 G from requiring r_M >= R_WD at Mdot ~ 1e-10 Msun/yr and an upper limit of B <~ 4e4 G from the outburst state. On the other hand, the equilibrium estimates give B ~ 5e4 G for P_spin = 148.5 s and B ~ 1e5 G for P_spin = 297 s; both exceed the derived upper limit, and the concluding 'B ~ 1e4 G' falls below the stated lower limit. The additional argument that the 1e5 G case would require a super-Eddington mass accretion rate does not exclude the 5e4 G case, which is also outside the allowed range. Consequently, the harmonic ambiguity is not resolved by this reasoning, and the identification of 148.5 s as the fundamental spin period, and the associated 'bridge the gap' claim, remain unsupported by the magnetic-field argument as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'rebrigthenings' should be 'rebrightenings'.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph 2] The sentence 'We are not able to recover any signal from the LSP but, despite this, the g-band lightcurve from that same epoch exhibits short-term flares qualitatively similar to those observed in epoch 4' lacks a clear referent; it should specify that the LSP refers to epoch 5.
  3. [Section 4] The notation 'for P_omega = 1 and 2xP_spin' is ambiguous and should be rewritten to clarify the two cases, e.g., 'for P_spin = P_omega and P_spin = 2P_omega'.
  4. [Section 4] The phrase 'The same is not true for Epoch 2' is confusing; the authors should clarify that the disc is closer to a stationary configuration in Epoch 2 than in Epoch 3, which enables the upper-limit argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 148.2 s periodicity is measured directly from the light curve, and the spin interpretation is an explicitly hypotheses-driven inference rather than a construction from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central detection of P_omega = 148.2 s is obtained directly from the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the epoch-4 g-band light curve, with confidence levels set by white-noise simulations and the signal checked against reference stars and background. The period is not produced by a model fitted to the data, and no equation in the paper defines the detected period in terms of the spin hypothesis or vice versa. The spin-period interpretation is an astrophysical inference supported by timescale, color, and comparison arguments, and the authors explicitly state that quiescent observations are required to test it. The magnetic-field estimates are used only to argue that the detected period is the fundamental rather than a harmonic; these estimates are acknowledged as highly uncertain and do not feed back into the period measurement. Self-citations, including the OPTICAM instrument papers, the Tampo (2024) superhump report, and Veresvarska et al. (2024), are contextual and are not load-bearing for the central periodicity claim. The internal inconsistency in the B-field limits noted by a skeptical reader is a scientific/correctness concern about the harmonic ambiguity, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The detection itself requires no free parameters: the period is measured from the light curve. The magnetic field estimates in Section 4 depend on assumed mass accretion rates, a typical white dwarf mass, and magnetospheric scaling relations, but these do not affect the central periodicity claim.

free parameters (2)
  • Mass accretion rate during epoch 4 = ~1e-10 Msun/yr
    Adopted by scaling the main outburst rate of ~1e-8 Msun/yr down by two orders of magnitude based on luminosity; used only for the magnetic field estimate in Section 4, not for the periodicity detection.
  • White dwarf mass = 0.8 Msun
    Assumed typical CV white dwarf mass (Zorotovic et al. 2011; Pala et al. 2017) to translate magnetospheric radius into a magnetic field lower limit; not fitted to the data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GOTO 0650 is a WZ Sge-type dwarf nova with the reported outburst classification
    The identification comes from the outburst amplitude, superhump period, and earlier ATels cited in Section 1; the spin interpretation depends on this classification.
  • domain assumption Accretion luminosity scales linearly with mass accretion rate (L ∝ Mdot)
    Invoked in Section 4 to scale the mass accretion rate from outburst to the dip epoch for the magnetic field estimate.
  • domain assumption Ghosh and Lamb magnetospheric radius and co-rotation relations apply
    Used in Section 4 to convert the assumed spin period and mass accretion rate into a magnetic field strength; this is a standard but model-dependent relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging the Gap: OPTICAM Reveals the Hidden Spin of the WZ Sge Star GOTO 065054.49+593624.51." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTQURZDP

@misc{pith2026250111669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging the Gap: OPTICAM Reveals the Hidden Spin of the WZ Sge Star GOTO 065054.49+593624.51},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTQURZDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11669}
}
abstract

WZ Sge stars are highly evolved accreting white dwarf systems (AWDs) exhibiting remarkably large amplitude outbursts (a.k.a. super-outbursts), typically followed by short rebrightenings/echo outbursts. These systems have some of the lowest mass transfer rates among AWDs, making even low magnetic fields dynamically important. Such magnetic fields are often invoked to explain the phenomenology observed in these systems, such as their X-ray luminosity and long periods of quiescence (30+ years). However, the detection of these is very elusive given the quenching of the accretion columns during outburst and the low luminosity of these systems during quiescence. Here we present high-cadence multi-band observations with {\it OPTICAM} of the recent outburst of the recently discovered WZ Sge star GOTO065054.49+593624.51, during the end of the main outburst and the dip in-between rebrightenings, covering 2 orders of magnitude in brightness. Our observations reveal the presence of a statistically significant signal with $P_{\omega}\simeq148$ seconds in the bluer ($g$) band which is detected only during the dip between the main outburst and the rebrigthenings. We interpret this signal as the spin period of the AWD. If confirmed, GOTO 0650 would bridge the gap between intermediate- and fast-rotating intermediate polars (IPs) below the period gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outburst evolution of GOTO 0650 as reported by the AAVSO (circles) and ZTF (diamonds for psf- and stars for forced-photometry). The different colours indicate the magnitude in different bands. The coloured horizontal bands encompass the ±1𝜎 error around the weighted mean of the quiescent photometry obtained with forced photometry on ZTF during 9-25 days before the onset of the superoutburst, the precise values are 𝑔… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relative light curves of all three cameras for epochs 1 − 3 (left panels), along with their respective periodograms (right panels). The vertical shaded region in the power spectra indicates the frequency at which we detect a statistically significant signal in epoch 4. MNRAS 000, 1–7 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Epoch 4 light curves folded on a period of 148.6 s (cor￾responding to 6.7 mHz), the black line represents the median values for the phase binned folded light curve, the zero phase is arbitrary but common across bands. Right: Epoch 4 LSPs. In the LSPs, the dotted …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: LSP of GOTO 0650’s raw flux from Epoch 4 in the 𝑔-band; bottom: LSP of the corresponding local background. The data from Epoch 4 was obtained 2-3 days after the decline from the main outburst; therefore, the disc and magnetic torques would have been far from equil…

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. phoptic -- a Python package for reducing astronomical images

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    phoptic provides a single open-source Python pipeline that reduces images from OPTICAM, ULTRACAM, HiPERCAM, and MEXMAN into photometric light curves.

  2. GOTO065054+593624: a 8.5 mag amplitude dwarf nova identified in real time via Kilonova Seekers

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    GOTO0650 is a WZ Sge-type dwarf nova with an 8.5 magnitude outburst, ten echo outbursts, and properties consistent with a candidate period bouncer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    thebibliography @urlcharsother \@makeother \ & \# \^ \_ \ @doi @urlcharsother \@ifnextchar [ @doi@ @doi@[] @doi@[#1]#2 \@tempa #1 \@tempa\@empty http://dx.doi.org/#2 doi:#2 http://dx.doi.org/#2 #1 @eprint#1#2 @eprint@#1:#2::\@nil @eprint@arXiv#1 http://arxiv.org/abs/#1 arXiv:#1 @eprint@dblp#1 http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bibtex/#1.xml dblp:#1 @eprint@#1:#...

  3. [3]

    Araujo-Betancor S., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...430..629A 430, 629

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041736 2005

  4. [4]

    C., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

  5. [5]

    C., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131f8003B 131, 068003

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131f8003B 131, 068003

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

  6. [6]

    Belloni T., Psaltis D., van der Klis M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572..392B 572, 392

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  7. [7]

    Bhattacharya S., Bhattacharyya S., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16866....1B 16866, 1

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    T., Marsh T

    Bloemen S., Steeghs D., De Smedt K., Vos J., G \"a nsicke B. T., Marsh T. R., Rodriguez-Gil P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3433B 429, 3433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts622 2013

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Bradley L., et al., 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12585239 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Campana S., Stella L., Mereghetti S., de Martino D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...610A..46C 610, A46

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Castro Segura N., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1951C 501, 1951

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Castro A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2019.55.02.20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RMxAA..55..363C 55, 363

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Castro A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2024.102262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NewA..11202262C 112, 102262

    2024

  6. [14]

    C., 1993, @doi [Baltic Astronomy] 10.1515/astro-1993-3-410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993BaltA...2..407C 2, 407

    Clemens J. C., 1993, @doi [Baltic Astronomy] 10.1515/astro-1993-3-410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993BaltA...2..407C 2, 407

    1993 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al., 2024, in Marshall H

    Dyer M. J., et al., 2024, in Marshall H. K., Spyromilio J., Usuda T., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13094, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes X. p. 130941X ( @eprint arXiv 2407.17176 ), @doi 10.1117/12.3018305

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Eracleous M., Horne K., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..427E 471, 427

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.5385G 511, 5385

    Georganti M., Knigge C., Castro Segura N., Long K. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.5385G 511, 5385

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    1979 doi

  11. [19]

    M., 2020, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2019.10.022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AdSpR..66.1004H 66, 1004

    Hameury J. M., 2020, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2019.10.022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AdSpR..66.1004H 66, 1004

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    J., VanderPlas J

    Ivezi \'c Z ., Connolly A. J., VanderPlas J. T., Gray A., 2014, Statistics, Data Mining, and Machine Learning in Astronomy: A Practical Python Guide for the Analysis of Survey Data , @doi 10.1515/9781400848911

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Kato T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASJ...67..108K 67, 108

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Killestein T., et al., 2024a, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16842....1K 16842, 1

  15. [23]

    Killestein T., et al., 2024b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16858....1K 16858, 1

  16. [24]

    L., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250111524K p

    Killestein T. L., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250111524K p. arXiv:2501.11524

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kimura M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...47K 70, 47

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Kimura M., Osaki Y., Kato T., Mineshige S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASJ..tmp..156K

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    I., Steeghs D., Long K

    Knigge C., Hynes R. I., Steeghs D., Long K. S., Araujo-Betancor S., Marsh T. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580L.151K 580, L151

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    Knigge C., Baraffe I., Patterson J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...28K 194, 28

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    Lasota J.-P., 2016, Black Hole Accretion Discs . p. 1, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_1

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    R., I kiewicz K., Mason P

    Littlefield C., Scaringi S., Garnavich P., Szkody P., Kennedy M. R., I kiewicz K., Mason P. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac062b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...49L 162, 49

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Lovelace R

    Long M., Romanova M. M., Lovelace R. V. E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634.1214L 634, 1214

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Han Z., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778L..32M 778, L32

    Ma X., Chen X., Chen H.-l., Denissenkov P. A., Han Z., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778L..32M 778, L32

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    McCully C., et al., 2018, astropy/astroscrappy: v1.0.5 Zenodo Release , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1482019

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Naylor T., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01314.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.296..339N 296, 339

    1998

  28. [37]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531L..82P 531, L82

    Paice J. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531L..82P 531, L82

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2855P 466, 2855

    Pala A. F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2855P 466, 2855

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Patterson J., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...241..235P 241, 235

    1980 doi

  31. [40]

    Patterson J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17881.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.2695P 411, 2695

    2011

  32. [41]

    Patterson J., Richman H., Kemp J., Mukai K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..403P 110, 403

    1998 doi

  33. [42]

    Patterson J., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/447771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASP..117.1204P 117, 1204

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    Pavlenko E., et al., 2019, @doi [Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso] 10.48550/arXiv.1907.00623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019CoSka..49..204P 49, 204

    2019 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    L., Nather R

    Robinson E. L., Nather R. E., Patterson J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...219..168R 219, 168

    1978 doi

  36. [45]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  37. [46]

    F., Wood J

    Skidmore W., Welsh W. F., Wood J. H., Catal \'a n M. S., Horne K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03003.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310..750S 310, 750

    1999

  38. [47]

    Smak J., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AcA....43..101S 43, 101

    1993

  39. [48]

    Smak J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.0902.2880 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AcA....59..121S 59, 121

    2009 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    T., Marsh T

    Southworth J., G \"a nsicke B. T., Marsh T. R., de Martino D., Hakala P., Littlefair S., Rodr \' guez-Gil P., Szkody P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373..687S 373, 687

    2006

  41. [50]

    Steeghs D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2405S 511, 2405

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    Szkody P., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.759686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...8..184S 8, 184

    2021

  43. [52]

    Tampo Y., 2024, GOTO065054.49+593624.51: type-E rebrightening WZ Sge star?, http://ooruri.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/vsnet-alert@ooruri.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/thread/TWMZC3AKMJHBRPUBNRLYHGTKDCJKITDQ/

    2024

  44. [53]

    Toloza O., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3929T 459, 3929

    2016 doi

  45. [55]

    T., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...16V 236, 16

    VanderPlas J. T., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...16V 236, 16

    doi

  46. [56]

    Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..391V 431, 391

    2005 doi

  47. [57]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    Vaughan S., Edelson R., Warwick R. S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    2003

  48. [58]

    Veresvarska M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.3087V 534, 3087

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    Warner B., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/227.1.23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.227...23W 227, 23

    1987 doi

  50. [60]

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

    1995

  51. [61]

    A., Warner B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05415.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..411W 333, 411

    Woudt P. A., Warner B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05415.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..411W 333, 411

    2002

  52. [62]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22010.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.1004W 427, 1004

    Woudt P. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22010.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.1004W 427, 1004

    2012

  53. [63]

    R., G \"a nsicke B

    Zorotovic M., Schreiber M. R., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A..42Z 536, A42

    2011 doi

  54. [64]

    G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    van Dokkum P. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    2001 doi

Pith tools

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