Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Two decades of optical variability of Small Magellanic Cloud high-mass X-ray binaries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Two photometric metrics organize 111 SMC high-mass X-ray binaries into five super-orbital variability types, with Types 1–3 reflecting a red Be-star disk growing and depleting.

desk verdict A data-rich, transparent taxonomy of SMC HMXB super-orbital variability that is genuinely useful despite a detrending-sensitivity blind spot in the Type 3/4/5 boundaries. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13147 v1 pith:TJC66NHG submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Helena Treiber , Georgios Vasilopoulos , Charles Bailyn , Frank Haberl , Andrzej Udalski This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords SmallMagellanicCloudhigh-massX-raybinariesBestarsopticalvariabilityOGLEsuper-orbitaldecretiondisk
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 argues that twenty years of OGLE photometry of 111 high-mass X-ray binaries in the Small Magellanic Cloud can be organized by two numbers: a 'base number' measuring whether a light curve returns to a faint or a bright floor, and a 'stochastic variability metric' measuring how much short-term scatter remains after removing long-term trends. These two numbers define five super-orbital variability types. The paper claims that Types 1–3 are stages of a single physical picture, a red Be-star disk growing and depleting, with Type 1 sources showing a bare-star baseline with flares, Type 2 sources showing a maximal disk with dips, and Type 3 sources intermediate. Type 4 sources appear to be slower Type 2 systems, while Type 5 sources largely lack coherent variability and may include interlopers. If correct, optical light curves alone can classify disk state and connect it to colors, orbital periods, and X-ray behavior across the SMC BeXRB population.

What carries the argument

The taxonomy rests on two metrics computed from OGLE I-band light curves. The base number, $(\text{Max}\,I - \text{Median}\,I) - (\text{Median}\,I - \text{Min}\,I)$, uses the third-brightest and third-faintest points to measure whether a light curve returns to a consistent faint level (negative; flares) or a consistent bright level (positive; dips). The stochastic variability metric is the ratio of the standard deviation of the detrended light curve (spline-detrended with wotan's rspline, window 200, break tolerance 50) to that of the original data, measuring how much short-term variability remains after removing super-orbital signal. Cuts in this two-dimensional plane at base-number $-0.55$ and $0.15$ and stochastic-metric $0.40$ and $0.75$ define Types 1–5.

What would settle it

Recompute the stochastic variability metric for all 111 sources with a range of spline windows and break tolerances (e.g., windows from 100 to 400 days, tolerances from 20 to 200) and count how many sources cross the 0.40 or 0.75 cutoffs; if a substantial fraction move between Types 4 and 5, the taxonomy's boundary is an artifact of detrending. Alternatively, take a Type 1 source during a flare and a Type 2 source during a dip, obtain contemporaneous spectroscopy (H-alpha or V/R line profiles), and check whether the observed disk state matches the predicted growing-versus-depleting phase; a mismatch would refute the disk-growth interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the base number and stochastic variability metric define a meaningful five-type taxonomy of super-orbital optical variability for SMC HMXBs, and that Types 1–3 can generally be interpreted as a relatively red Be decretion disk growing and depleting. Type 1 light curves have a faint blue baseline consistent with a nearly bare B star, with intermittent flares corresponding to disk growth events. Type 2 light curves return to a bright red level that represents the source's maximal disk, with dips corresponding to partial depletion. Type 3 sources show coherent variability without reaching either extreme. The paper further claims that Type 4 sources are longer-timescale versions of Type 2 that may show depletion events in future data, and that Type 5 sources, especially a faint blue cluster, may largely be interlopers rather than BeXRBs.

Load-bearing premise

The classification depends on the spline detrending used to remove super-orbital signal: if that detrending absorbs real coherent variability, sources would be misclassified across the Type 4/5 cutoffs, weakening the claimed links to spin and orbital periods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Type 1 sources, with their bare-star baselines and near-identical ~1000-day flare spacings, can be used as a clean sample to study disk growth events in isolation.
  • Type 2 bright red baselines mark each system's maximal disk; comparing H-alpha equivalent widths across Type 2 sources would directly test the truncation model.
  • No SMC BeXRB shows a persistent super-orbital periodicity; quasi-periodic behavior is locally stable but changes over the ~8000-day baseline, so correlations between orbital and super-orbital periods should be treated with caution.
  • Confident orbital periodicities are found in 25% of Type 2 and 41% of Type 3 sources but in none of the Type 1 sources, consistent with the idea that an extended disk is needed to produce an orbital signal.
  • The faint blue cluster of Type 5 sources, if confirmed as interlopers, would revise the SMC HMXB census.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-metric plane could be computed for isolated Be stars in the SMC and LMC; comparing their distribution to the HMXB distribution would isolate the compact object's effect on the disk.
  • Because the metrics are survey-agnostic, OGLE, TESS, ASAS-SN, and Rubin data could be placed on the same plane, offering a data-driven way to track type transitions as light curves lengthen.
  • The claim that Type 4 sources become Type 2 after depletion events predicts a specific temporal sequence within individual light curves; a systematic search for such transitions in the existing OGLE data would test it.
  • If Type 5 sources are mostly interlopers, then the remaining Type 5 BeXRBs may represent a distinct class of persistently stable disks, potentially probing the long end of the disk-growth timescale distribution.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. Using OGLE II-IV I- and V-band light curves of 111 SMC HMXBs, the paper defines a five-type taxonomy of super-orbital optical variability based on two metrics: the 'base number' (difference between median brightness and the third-brightest/third-faintest points) and a 'stochastic variability metric' (ratio of spline-detrended to original standard deviation, computed with wotan rspline at window=200 and break_tolerance=50). Types 1-3 are interpreted as Be-disk growth/depletion states (faint blue base with flares; bright red maximum with dips; intermediate), while Types 4-5 are low-coherence states, with Type 5 possibly containing non-BeXRB interlopers. The paper also performs Lomb-Scargle period searches, reports 33 confident orbital-period candidates, validates the optical search against 24 X-ray orbital periods (75% same or harmonic), discusses CMD loops, and connects types to spin periods, colors, and H-alpha emission.

Significance. The paper's value is in presenting a large, homogeneous, publicly available dataset and a transparent attempt to systematize super-orbital variability of SMC HMXBs. The periodicity validation against X-ray periods and the use of external disk models (de Wit et al. 2006; Haubois et al. 2012) are strengths, as is the explicit acknowledgment that the taxonomy is a heuristic tool. If the taxonomy and its physical interpretation survive robustness checks, it would provide a useful population-level framework for connecting optical light-curve morphology to Be-disk state, orbital architecture, and NS spin. At present the central classification rests on reported but untested analysis choices, so the quantitative type-dependent correlations should be treated as provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3, Table 1] Table 1 defines Types 1-3 as having a stochastic variability metric <0.35 and Type 4 as >0.40 and <0.75, leaving the interval 0.35-0.40 formally undefined. This conflicts with Table B.3, which lists sources with metrics of 0.36 (Source 5), 0.37 (Source 35), and 0.40 (Source 77) as Type 4. Please state the intended boundary and ensure Table 1, Fig. 1, and Table B.3 are mutually consistent; the discrepancy matters because sources in this interval sit exactly at the Type 3/4 transition.
  2. [Sect. 3, Sect. 5, Table 1] The stochastic variability metric, which sets the Type 3/4 and Type 4/5 boundaries, is explicitly sensitive to the spline-detrending choice (wotan rspline, window=200, break_tolerance=50; Sect. 5), but no sensitivity analysis is reported. A shorter window would absorb more real super-orbital signal and lower the metric, while a stiffer spline would leave coherent signal in the residuals and raise it. Several sources lie near the cutoffs (e.g., Source 44: metric 0.77; Source 5: 0.36; Source 77: 0.40; Source 58/SXP 756 has a 393-day modulation near the 200-day window). Please quantify how the type distribution, the confident-period fractions quoted in Sect. 7.3, and the Type 4/5 spin-period statistics in Sect. 7.4 change for plausible alternative values (e.g., window 100, 300, 400 days; break_tolerance 20, 100).
  3. [Sect. 5.5 (and Sect. 5.2)] The super-orbital periodicity search is described only as 'we checked for super-orbital periodicities,' but all period searches in Sect. 5 are otherwise performed on data detrended with a 200-day spline. If the same detrended light curves are used for the >200-day search, the spline would suppress exactly the signal being sought, making the conclusion that there are 'no true super-orbital periodicities' an artifact of the detrending. Please state explicitly whether original or detrended light curves were used for Sect. 5.5 and, if detrended, repeat the search on the original data (or with a very stiff spline), and report any peaks above the FAL.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 2] For the 21 sources with manual OGLE-IV calibration (median set to the prior median), please state how many lie within 0.1 in base number or 0.05 in stochastic metric of the nearest type boundary, since the median adjustment directly enters the base number definition.
  2. [Sect. 5.2] The confidence criteria (range/error >9, at least one-third of rolling periodogram peaks within 5%, mean phase change ≤2 bins) are described as chosen by visual inspection; reporting the distributions of these three metrics and the number of sources passing each cut would make the 'confident' list more reproducible.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Savitzy-Golay' should be 'Savitzky-Golay'.
  4. [Sect. 7.4] The mean spin-period comparison between Type 2 (166 s) and Type 4 (743 s) is driven by a long-period tail; please report sample sizes and a significance test (e.g., two-sample KS test) before using it as evidence that Type 4 systems are longer-timescale versions of Type 2.
  5. [Sect. 3] In the transition analysis, please state the number of Type 1-3 sources used for the 84%/54% statistics and whether the 1000-day segments are independent, so the reader can assess the uncertainty on those fractions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the taxonomy is an observational classification interpreted with external disk models and independent X-ray/periodic data.

full rationale

This paper is an observational taxonomy study; no derivation reduces to its own inputs. The two classifying metrics (base number and stochastic variability metric) are measured statistics of the OGLE light curves, and the five-type taxonomy is a cut-based classification, not a prediction fitted to the same target. The physical interpretation of Types 1-3 as red Be-disk growth/depletion is supported by color-magnitude behavior, external disk models (de Wit et al. 2006; Haubois et al. 2012), and external X-ray/EW/spin data, not by parameters fitted to the taxonomy. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the stochastic variability metric is sensitive to the detrending approach (Sect. 3) and that type cutoffs are somewhat arbitrary (Sect. 3; Sect. 5.2); these are robustness caveats, not circularity. The only self-citations (Treiber et al. 2021 for LXP 69.5 comparison; Treiber et al. 2024 for Source #84 periodicity) are supporting and non-load-bearing; the latter periodicity is independently re-derived in Table B.3. The exploratory reclassification of Type 1-3 quiescent segments using the same Fig. 1 definitions is explicitly framed as a consistency check (Sect. 3), not as evidence that the taxonomy is derived from itself. No uniqueness theorems or ansatz smuggled via self-citation appear. Score 1 reflects one minor self-reference, not circularity.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Its main constructs are classification categories and thresholds, which are hand-set free parameters rather than fitted physical quantities. The physical interpretation leans on external Be disk models and the assumption that the optical counterpart associations are correct.

free parameters (4)
  • Base number taxonomy cutoffs = -0.55 and 0.15 mag
    Chosen by eye to separate flaring, dipping, and intermediate light-curve morphologies in Table 1; no independent optimization or uncertainty is quoted.
  • Stochastic variability metric cutoffs = 0.35, 0.40, and 0.75
    Chosen to assign sources to Types 1 through 5 in Fig. 1; there is an unmotivated gap between 0.35 and 0.40, and the metric itself depends on detrending parameters.
  • Spline detrending parameters = wotan rspline window=200, break_tolerance=50
    The stochastic variability metric is explicitly sensitive to detrending; the paper uses one parameter set for the whole sample without a robustness scan.
  • Period confidence cutoffs = FAL 0.001; range/error ratio >9; rolling peaks >=1/3 within 5%; phase stability <2 bins
    Hand-set thresholds based on visual inspection of phase-folded light curves, with four sources manually added to the confident category and one removed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All SMC sources are assumed to lie at a fixed distance of about 62 kpc.
    Color-magnitude comparisons and absolute brightness statements treat the SMC as a single distance; the authors note that recent radial-velocity work suggests a ~5 kpc line-of-sight spread (Murray et al. 2024), but the analysis does not account for it.
  • domain assumption Optical variability is dominated by the flux of the Be star plus its decretion disk, with the disk redder than the star.
    The physical interpretation of Types 1 through 3 in Sect. 7.1 relies on this model, including the assumption that edge-on obscuration is rare.
  • domain assumption The OGLE optical counterparts from Haberl and Sturm (2016) are the correct stellar counterparts of the X-ray sources.
    The sample definition and the Type 5 discussion depend on these associations; the paper acknowledges that many Type 5 sources may be interlopers rather than genuine HMXBs.
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle false alarm levels remain meaningful for red, correlated optical variability.
    The period search uses standard FAL thresholds, but the light curves contain slow super-orbital variations and red noise; no injection-recovery or red-noise calibration is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two decades of optical variability of Small Magellanic Cloud high-mass X-ray binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJC66NHG

@misc{pith2026250113147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two decades of optical variability of Small Magellanic Cloud high-mass X-ray binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJC66NHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13147}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analysis of the long-term optical/IR behavior of 111 high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) in the Small Magellanic Cloud based on data from the OGLE collaboration. Most systems exhibit variability on a range of time scales. This variability regulates the mass transfer to the compact object, while the compact object can, in turn, affect the donor star's behavior. To better understand this complex interaction and the resulting X-ray properties in these systems, we define a new taxonomy for the observed super-orbital variability. This taxonomy connects to the color changes, orbital periods, and X-ray behavior of the sources. In most cases, these properties can be explained by differences between the flux of the disk around the Be star and the flux from the star itself. We also refine and present new potential orbital periods and sub-orbital variability in the sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13147 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Base number (i.e., (Max I − Median I) − (Median I − Min I)) ver￾sus the ratio between the standard deviation of the detrended and orig￾inal I mag light curves for all sources. The gray dotted lines define the separations between the super-orbital types. The color and shape cod￾ing is consistent in all plots. Types 1-5 are represented by pink stars, black circles, maroon triangles, gray crosses, and green hexagons, r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two example light curves for each of the five source types. The type number increases with each column from left to right. 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Median V Iint mag 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 M e dia n Iint m a g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color-magnitude diagram for all sources with types distin￾guished as they are in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative color-magnitude behavior for one source of each super-orbital type, with the type number increasing from left to right. I￾and V-band light curves are each plotted with the corresponding (interpolated) I versus V−I plot below. Arrows trace the time evolut…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of looping behavior for Type 1 and 2 sources. Top: Two peaks of a representative Type 1 light curve (Source #103), with the corresponding color-magnitude behavior shown on the right. The larger green points highlight the correspondence between the two plots at…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of the utility of spline detrending for periodicity searches. The top row includes I magnitude light curves for Source #2 (SXP 2.16), with the middle column using Savitzy-Golay detrending, and the right using spline detrending with wotan (Hippke et al. 20…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corbet diagram with markers indicating super-orbital type. Left: Spin period versus orbital period as proposed using X-ray data. Right: Spin period versus best optical period for the 24 sources with both measured spins and confident periodicities (Sect. 5.2). We exclud…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Neutron star spin period versus I-band standard deviation with sources marked by type. While sources with low optical variability have a range of spin periods, the most variable sources are only found with lower spin periods. remaining systems in our sample are also X-…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: I-band light curve for Source #7 (SXP 6.85). Three epochs with approximately stable super-orbital periodicities are shown; the third periodicity seems to fail with the most recent peaks but it is difficult to tell the next value without more data. Bright X-ray outburs…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Light curves and CMDs of Sources 58, 61, and 107 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Light curve and evolving phase-folded profile of Source #84. We divided the light curve such that the first five pieces include approx￾imately 300 points. The gray curve is the spline used for detrending the light curve. The phase-folded profiles use the original data…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Maximum EW(Hα) versus the best optical period for the confi￾dent sources with EW measurements cataloged in HS16 or for SXP 182 and SXP 342B in Gaudin et al. (2024b) and Maitra et al. (2023). ishment back to the maximum. That is, we suggest that these dipping light cur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Alves, D

    Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D. R., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 678

    2001

  2. [2]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1080

    Antoniou, V ., Hatzidimitriou, D., Zezas, A., & Reig, P. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1080

    2009

  3. [3]

    J., Coe, M

    Bird, A. J., Coe, M. J., McBride, V . A., & Udalski, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3663

    2012

  4. [4]

    M., Bird, A

    Boon, C. M., Bird, A. J., Coe, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1149

    2017

  5. [5]

    O., Coe, M

    Brown, R. O., Coe, M. J., Ho, W. C. G., & Okazaki, A. T. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3078

    2019

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 661, A20

    Carpano, S., Haberl, F., Maitra, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A20

    2022

  7. [7]

    2017, A&A, 602, A81 Article number, page 16 H

    Carpano, S., Haberl, F., & Sturm, R. 2017, A&A, 602, A81 Article number, page 16 H. Treiber et al.: Optical variability of SMC HMXBs

    2017

  8. [8]

    J., Bird, A

    Coe, M. J., Bird, A. J., Hill, A. B., et al. 2014, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 5766, 1

    2014

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    J., Edge, W

    Coe, M. J., Edge, W. R. T., Galache, J. L., & McBride, V . A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 502

    2005

  2. [10]

    J., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., Gaudin, T. M., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16321, 1

    2023

  3. [11]

    Coe, M. J. & Kirk, J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 969

    2015

  4. [12]

    J., Schurch, M., Corbet, R

    Coe, M. J., Schurch, M., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 724

    2008

  5. [13]

    J., Schurch, M., McBride, V

    Coe, M. J., Schurch, M., McBride, V . A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2191

    2009

  6. [14]

    J., Udalski, A., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Udalski, A., Kennea, J. A., & Evans, P. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4417

    2021

  7. [15]

    Corbet, R. H. D. 1984, A&A, 141, 91

    1984

  8. [16]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Markwardt, C. B., Marshall, F. E., et al. 2003, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 163, 1

    2003

  9. [17]

    & Ostriker, J

    Davidson, K. & Ostriker, J. P. 1973, ApJ, 179, 585 de Wit, W. J., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Marquette, J. B., & Beaulieu, J. P. 2006, A&A, 456, 1027

    1973

  10. [18]

    L., Corbet, R

    Galache, J. L., Corbet, R. H. D., Coe, M. J., et al. 2008, ApJS, 177, 189

    2008

  11. [19]

    M., Coe, M

    Gaudin, T. M., Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01388

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gies, D. R. 2019, IAU Symposium, 346, 489

    2019

  13. [21]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 13

    2020

  14. [22]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 12219, 1

    Guillot, S., Vasilopoulos, G., Pasham, D., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 12219, 1

    2018

  15. [23]

    V ., Kniazev, A

    Gvaramadze, V . V ., Kniazev, A. Y ., & Oskinova, L. M. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L6

    2019

  16. [24]

    2023, A&A, 671, A90

    Haberl, F., Maitra, C., Kaltenbrunner, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A90

    2023

  17. [25]

    & Sturm, R

    Haberl, F. & Sturm, R. 2016, A&A, 586, A81

    2016

  18. [26]

    1982, in Be Stars, ed

    Harmanec, P., Horn, J., & Koubsky, P. 1982, in Be Stars, ed. M. Jaschek & H. G

    1982

  19. [27]

    C., Rivinius, T., Okazaki, A

    Haubois, X., Carciofi, A. C., Rivinius, T., Okazaki, A. T., & Bjorkman, J. E. 2012, ApJ, 756, 156

    2012

  20. [28]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 143

    2019

  21. [29]

    1982, in Be Stars, ed

    Hirata, R. 1982, in Be Stars, ed. M. Jaschek & H. G. Groth, V ol. 98, 41–43

    1982

  22. [30]

    Hubert, A. M. & Floquet, M. 1998, A&A, 335, 565 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    1998

  23. [31]

    K., Guillot, S., Ng, M., et al

    Jaisawal, G. K., Guillot, S., Ng, M., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16636, 1

    2024

  24. [32]

    A., Burrows, D

    Kennea, J. A., Burrows, D. N., Coe, M. J., et al. 2015, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 8091, 1

    2015

  25. [33]

    A., Coe, M

    Kennea, J. A., Coe, M. J., Evans, P. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L41

    2020

  26. [34]

    A., Coe, M

    Kennea, J. A., Coe, M. J., Gaudin, T., & Evans, P. A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16633, 1

    2024

  27. [35]

    Z., Soszy´nski, I., et al

    Kourniotis, M., Bonanos, A. Z., Soszy´nski, I., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A125

    2014

  28. [36]

    A., Evans, P

    Krimm, H. A., Evans, P. A., Kennea, J. A., & Corbet, R. H. D. 2014, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 5772, 1

    2014

  29. [37]

    D., Whelan, D

    Labadie-Bartz, J., Chojnowski, S. D., Whelan, D. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 53

    2018

  30. [38]

    V ., et al

    Labadie-Bartz, J., Pepper, J., McSwain, M. V ., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 252

    2017

  31. [39]

    F., Hornschemeier, A

    Lazzarini, M., Williams, B. F., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 2

    2019

  32. [40]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  33. [41]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 15886, 1

    Maitra, C., Haberl, F., Kaltenbrunner, D., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 15886, 1

    2023

  34. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21371

    Marino, A., Yang, H., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21371

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Martin, R. G. 2023, MNRAS, 523, L75

    2023

  36. [44]

    G., Pringle, J

    Martin, R. G., Pringle, J. E., Tout, C. A., & Lubow, S. H. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2827

    2011

  37. [45]

    C., Degioia-Eastwood, K., & Garmany, C

    Massey, P., Lang, C. C., Degioia-Eastwood, K., & Garmany, C. D. 1995, ApJ, 438, 188

    1995

  38. [46]

    A., Coe, M

    McBride, V . A., Coe, M. J., Negueruela, I., Schurch, M. P. E., & McGowan, K. E. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1198

    2008

  39. [47]

    E., Coe, M

    McGowan, K. E., Coe, M. J., Schurch, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 759

    2007

  40. [48]

    E., Coe, M

    McGowan, K. E., Coe, M. J., Schurch, M. P. E., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 821

    2008

  41. [49]

    E., Pietrzy ´nski, G., Gieren, W., & Szewczyk, O

    Mennickent, R. E., Pietrzy ´nski, G., Gieren, W., & Szewczyk, O. 2002, A&A, 393, 887

    2002

  42. [50]

    A., Mushtukov, A

    Mereminskiy, I. A., Mushtukov, A. A., Lutovinov, A. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A33

    2022

  43. [51]

    P., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., & Anderson, J. 2009, A&A, 497, 755

    2009

  44. [52]

    M., Coe, M

    Monageng, I. M., Coe, M. J., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3615

    2020

  45. [53]

    E., Hasselquist, S., Peek, J

    Murray, C. E., Hasselquist, S., Peek, J. E. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 120

    2024

  46. [54]

    & Okazaki, A

    Negueruela, I. & Okazaki, A. T. 2001, A&A, 369, 108

    2001

  47. [55]

    T., Fabregat, J., et al

    Negueruela, I., Okazaki, A. T., Fabregat, J., et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 117

    2001

  48. [56]

    2023, A&A, 677, A134

    Neumann, M., Avakyan, A., Doroshenko, V ., & Santangelo, A. 2023, A&A, 677, A134

    2023

  49. [57]

    Okazaki, A. T. 1991, PASJ, 43, 75

    1991

  50. [58]

    T., Bate, M

    Okazaki, A. T., Bate, M. R., Ogilvie, G. I., & Pringle, J. E. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 967

    2002

  51. [59]

    Okazaki, A. T. & Kato, S. 1985, PASJ, 37, 683

    1985

  52. [60]

    Okazaki, A. T. & Negueruela, I. 2001, A&A, 377, 161

    2001

  53. [61]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 364 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al

    Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Spruit, H. 2002, ApJ, 574, 364 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200

    2002

  54. [62]

    S., Bjorkman, J

    Quirrenbach, A., Bjorkman, K. S., Bjorkman, J. E., et al. 1997, ApJ, 479, 477

    1997

  55. [63]

    F., Charles, P

    Rajoelimanana, A. F., Charles, P. A., & Udalski, A. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1600

    2011

  56. [64]

    & Fabregat, J

    Reig, P. & Fabregat, J. 2022, A&A, 667, A18

    2022

  57. [65]

    Reig, P., Fabregat, J., & Coe, M. J. 1997, A&A, 322, 193

    1997

  58. [66]

    & Roche, P

    Reig, P. & Roche, P. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 100

    1999

  59. [67]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G...

    2014

  60. [68]

    2003, A&A, 411, 229

    Rivinius, T., Baade, D., & Štefl, S. 2003, A&A, 411, 229

    2003

  61. [69]

    2001, A&A, 369, 1058

    Rivinius, T., Baade, D., Štefl, S., et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 1058

    2001

  62. [70]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 69

    2013

  63. [71]

    J., & Schmidtke, P

    Sarraj, I., Sanders, R. J., & Schmidtke, P. C. 2012, Information Bulletin on Vari- able Stars, 6030, 1

    2012

  64. [72]

    & Golay, M

    Savitzky, A. & Golay, M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627

    1964

  65. [73]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  66. [74]

    C., Cowley, A

    Schmidtke, P. C., Cowley, A. P., & Udalski, A. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 252

    2013

  67. [75]

    C., Cowley, A

    Schmidtke, P. C., Cowley, A. P., & Udalski, A. 2015, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 7498, 1

    2015

  68. [76]

    C., Cowley, A

    Schmidtke, P. C., Cowley, A. P., & Udalski, A. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 164

    2022

  69. [77]

    1972, ApJ, 178, L71

    Schreier, E., Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., & Tananbaum, H. 1972, ApJ, 178, L71

    1972

  70. [78]

    Schurch, M. P. E., Coe, M. J., Galache, J. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 361

    2009

  71. [79]

    Z., et al

    Shappee, B., Prieto, J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2014, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 223, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #223, 236.03

    2014

  72. [80]

    E., Guillot, S., Vasilopoulos, G., et al

    Strohmayer, T. E., Guillot, S., Vasilopoulos, G., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12222, 1

    2018

  73. [81]

    D., & Udalski, A

    Treiber, H., Haberl, F., Vasilopoulos, G., Bailyn, C. D., & Udalski, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16638, 1

    2024

  74. [82]

    D., et al

    Treiber, H., Vasilopoulos, G., Bailyn, C. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 6187

    2021

  75. [83]

    1992, Acta Astron., 42, 253

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., & Mateo, M. 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 253

    1992

  76. [84]

    K., Soszynski, I., & Poleski, R

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M. K., Soszynski, I., & Poleski, R. 2008, Acta Astron., 58, 69

    2008

  77. [85]

    K., & Szyma´nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´nski, M. K., & Szyma´nski, G. 2015, Acta Astron., 65, 1

    2015

  78. [86]

    K., Maitra, C., et al

    Vasilopoulos, G., Jaisawal, G. K., Maitra, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A194

    2022

  79. [87]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4354

    Vasilopoulos, G., Zezas, A., Antoniou, V ., & Haberl, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4354

    2017

  80. [88]

    A., Fabregat, J., & Coburn, W

    Wilson, C. A., Fabregat, J., & Coburn, W. 2005, ApJ, 620, L99

    2005

  81. [89]

    N., Chen, W., Pan, X., et al

    Yang, H. N., Chen, W., Pan, X., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16631, 1

    2024

  82. [90]

    confident

    Zamanov, R. K., Reig, P., Martí, J., et al. 2001, A&A, 367, 884 Article number, page 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. arxiv Appendix A: Light curve and color-magnitude gallery Appendix B: Long data tables Article number, page 18 H. Treiber et al.: Optical variability of SMC HMXBs...

    2016

Pith tools

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