Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

V Sge: Supersoft Source or Exotic Hot Binary? I. An X-Shooter campaign in the high state

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New spectra identify V Sge as a low-mass white-dwarf supersoft source, one of the brightest known in the Galaxy.

desk verdict A substantial new dataset and a plausible SSS case, but the printed mass formula has a load-bearing algebra error that must be fixed before the mass limit can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22637 v1 pith:IIHFKVZL submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.SR

Pasi Hakala , Phil Charles , Pablo Rodríguez-Gil This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords VSgesupersoftX-raysourcecircumbinaryringDopplertomographywhitedwarfaccretioncataclysmicvariablesemission-linespectroscopyeclipsingbinary
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

V Sge is a 12.34-hour, partially eclipsing binary that has defied classification for decades despite outshining known cataclysmic variables. Using a four-month VLT/X-Shooter campaign, the paper argues that the stationary, double-peaked emission-line cores seen in all strong lines are a circumbinary ring around the binary. From the ring's orbital velocity and the broad-line motion of the accreting primary, the paper derives a total system mass below 2.1 solar masses and a primary mass below about 1.0 solar mass, implying the primary is a white dwarf. The paper then concludes that the supersoft X-ray source (SSS) interpretation accounts for the observed properties significantly better than the hot binary model, making V Sge one of the brightest known Galactic supersoft sources and a rare, short-lived system heading toward the double-degenerate channel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stationary double-peaked emission core seen in all strong lines, interpreted as a circumbinary ring analogous to SS433. Its measured ring velocity of about 155--160 km/s, together with the broad component's assumed primary velocity $K_1 = 200$--250 km/s, enters Eq. (1), $$M_{\rm total} = \frac{$V_c^{2}$\,F\,V_x\,P_x}{2\pi G\,(1+q)},$$ where $V_c$ is the ring velocity, $V_x$ the primary orbital velocity, $P_x$ the orbital period, and $F = 2.2$--$2.3$ the innermost stable circumbinary orbit radius in units of binary separation. Doppler tomography of eight strong lines shows the ring as a bright central circle, and a newly developed 'wing-folding' technique isolates the broad component's orbital motion from the complex line profiles. Hydrodynamic simulations with a small magnetic-propeller kick are used to show that matter escaping the binary can form such a ring at roughly 2--4 binary separations.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the primary's orbital velocity from photospheric absorption lines or from eclipsing features, or a resolved image of the circumbinary ring showing its radius is much larger than about 2.3 binary separations, would invalidate the derived masses; likewise, a future faint-state spectrum from a grating X-ray spectrometer that finds no very soft thermal component would falsify the supersoft-source classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the strongest emission lines in V Sge contain a narrow double-peaked component, the 'tram lines', that stays fixed at the systemic velocity with a peak separation of about 150--180 km/s and does not vary with orbital phase. Interpreting this component as emission from a circumbinary ring, and assuming the ring sits at the innermost stable orbit around the binary (F = 2.2--2.3), Eq. (1) yields a total system mass below 2.1 solar masses for any mass ratio $q < 1$, with the primary below about 1.0 solar mass and the donor in the 0.8--1.0 solar mass range. This conflicts with the traditional mass ratio $q \approx 3.8$ derived from Herbig et al. (1965), whose anti-phase O\,III components the paper does not reproduce. Combined with the broad emission wings tracing a primary velocity $K_1 = 200$--250 km/s and a re-analysis of ROSAT HRI pulse-height data (K-S probability $1.1\times10^{-6}$ that the faint- and bright-state events share the same distribution), the paper concludes that the super-soft X-ray source interpretation fits the high and low states, the complex line profiles, and the variable eclipse depths significantly better than the hot binary model.

Load-bearing premise

The mass limits and white-dwarf conclusion collapse if the broad emission wings do not trace the true orbital motion of the accreting primary, or if the double-peaked core is not a circumbinary ring sitting at the innermost stable orbit around the binary with F = 2.2--2.3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • V Sge should be added to the short list of known Galactic supersoft sources and observed promptly during its next faint state with current soft X-ray instruments to measure the SSS component directly.
  • The derived low primary mass means the canonical mass ratio of about 3.8 from Herbig et al. (1965) should be abandoned; future radial-velocity work should search for donor absorption at lower masses.
  • The chaotic flipping of the broad emission component between blue- and red-shifted states on timescales from days to years supports a warped, precessing inner accretion disc driven by Eddington-level irradiation.
  • If V Sge is an Eddington-limited white-dwarf accretor, its 3 kpc distance makes it a nearby laboratory for studying steady nuclear burning and the evolutionary path toward double-degenerate binaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same stationary 'tram lines' may be present in archival spectra of other luminous, high-state CV and supersoft candidates; measuring their ring velocity could provide a mass-limit diagnostic without needing a clean primary radial-velocity curve.
  • A falsifiable prediction follows from the SSS interpretation: a future faint-state X-ray spectrum should show a very soft, optically thick thermal component with a temperature of a few tens of eV and a luminosity above $10^{36}$ erg/s after correcting for the interstellar absorption column.
  • The circumbinary-ring identification could be tested by high-angular-resolution observations that resolve the ring and directly measure its radius relative to the binary separation, checking whether $F$ is really 2.2--2.3.
  • If the bimodal velocity shifts are caused by chaotic tilting of the inner disc, then the orientation of any polarimetric or disc-axis tracer should flip on the same days-to-years timescales as the spectral states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents an X-Shooter campaign on V Sge in its high state, yielding about 60 spectra over four months. It identifies several line-profile components: a stationary double-peaked narrow core in most emission lines, very broad wings that vary in systemic velocity on timescales of days to decades, and phase-dependent blue-shifted He I absorption. Doppler tomography reveals a central ring, which the authors interpret as a circumbinary ring. From the ring velocity and a measured broad-component K1 of 200-250 km/s, Eq. (1) is used to derive a total system mass below 2.1 Msun and a primary mass below about 1.0 Msun. The paper also re-extracts archival ROSAT HRI data and reports a K-S probability of 1.1e-6 that the faint-state and bright-state pulse-height distributions are the same. On this basis, it argues that the supersoft X-ray source model accounts for the observed properties significantly better than the hot-binary model and concludes that V Sge could be one of the brightest known Galactic supersoft sources.

Significance. If the central claims hold, V Sge would be a landmark object: an extremely luminous, Eddington-limited white-dwarf accretor in a rare phase toward the double-degenerate channel. The paper's strengths are its unusually complete spectroscopic dataset (high S/N, wide wavelength coverage, uniform phase coverage), the publication of the spectra and a zoomable mean spectrum, the independent re-extraction of the ROSAT observations, and the compilation of a century of historical radial-velocity shifts for the broad component. The Doppler tomography and line-profile decomposition provide a useful phenomenological reference for future work. However, the mass limit rests on a formula that is printed incorrectly, and the supersoft-source conclusion depends on a qualitative checklist and on spectral interpretation of a single 1994 ROSAT observation. These issues are load-bearing and require correction and quantification before the main conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (1)] As printed, the equation is incorrect by a factor (1+q)^2. With q=M_X/M_2, the primary radial-velocity amplitude is K1 = (2πa/P) sin i /(1+q), so a = K1 P (1+q)/(2π sin i). Since V_c^2 = G M_tot/(F a), the correct relation is M_tot = V_c^2 F K1 P (1+q)/(2π G sin i) (equivalently M_tot = V_c^2 F V_x P (1+q)/(2πG) with V_x = K1/sin i). The manuscript places (1+q) in the denominator, which yields masses too small by a factor (1+q)^2. Using the authors' adopted values (V_c=190 km/s, K1=250 km/s, F=2.3, P=0.5142 d, q=1, i≈80°) gives M_tot≈2.2 Msun with the corrected formula but ≈0.55 Msun with the printed one. Because the <2.1 Msun mass limit in Section 5.2 and Figure 11 is the quantitative basis for concluding that the primary is a <1 Msun WD, this internal inconsistency is load-bearing; the equation must be corrected and the quoted limits re-verified.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Figure 11] The derived upper limits M_tot<2.1 Msun and M_X<1.0 Msun depend on two linked assumptions: (i) the broad-line wing modulation measured with the new wing-folding method reflects the true orbital K1 of the primary, and (ii) the circumbinary ring sits at the innermost stable orbit around the binary, F=2.2–2.3. The authors acknowledge this in the text but do not quantify the sensitivity. A short table or figure showing M_tot,max and M_X as functions of F (say 2.2, 2.3, 3.0, 4.0) and K1 (say 200, 225, 250 km/s) would show how robustly the hot-binary model (H65 masses totalling about 3.5 Msun) is excluded; without this, the claim that the mass limit rules out the hot-binary interpretation is not yet fully supported.
  3. [Section 4 and Section 5.5, Table 2] The K-S test on the ROSAT HRI PH distributions (p=1.1×10^-6) shows that the faint-state spectrum differs from the bright-state spectrum, but it does not by itself identify the soft component as a supersoft X-ray source; a change in absorption, a different spectral state of a non-SSS source, or residual background variations could also produce this difference. The paper should quote the number of source counts and show the PH distributions with uncertainties and the expected HRI response to an absorbed kT≈50–100 eV blackbody. Similarly, Table 2 is a qualitative checklist in which several entries carry question marks and some properties (e.g., 'Supersoft X-rays') are the very hypothesis being tested; the conclusion that the SSS model is 'significantly better' would be much strengthened by a weighted or explicitly argued comparison of the decisive discriminants.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1.1] The sentence describing the double-peaked core ('This component, which has previously appeared as mostly flat-topped (due to spectral resolution limitations), is clearly double peaked in all lines.') is grammatically incomplete; please rephrase.
  2. [Section 3.2] The Doppler tomograms were produced with γ=0, while the Hα fit in Section 5.2 gives a systemic velocity of 28.6±1.9 km/s; please state whether the measured ring velocities would change if this systemic velocity were used.
  3. [Section 4 and Figure 7] Please report the number of source events and background for the two ROSAT HRI observations, so the reader can judge the statistical weight behind the K-S probability of 1.1×10^-6.
  4. [Figure 11] The color map and white/red contours are difficult to read in print; a table of representative (i, q) mass values would help reproducibility.
  5. [References] The reference entry 'Greiner J., Teeseling A., 1998' should use the full surname 'van Teeseling' if that is the author's name as in the original publication.
  6. [Section 2 and Figure 5] Section 2 states 'approximately 60 good quality spectra', but the caption of Figure 5 refers to 61 spectra; please harmonize these numbers.
  7. [Table 2] The question marks in the checkmark columns should be defined (e.g., partial or uncertain agreement).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass limits and SSS classification rest on directly measured velocities, an external stability factor, and an external Keplerian relation, not on fitted predictions or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's principal quantitative step is the mass-limit argument in Section 5.2. The circumbinary-ring velocity (V_c ~155-159 km/s) is measured directly from Doppler-map ring radii and a seven-Gaussian fit to the mean H-alpha profile; the primary velocity (K1 = 200-250 km/s) is measured by the double-Gaussian and wing-folding methods described in Appendix B; the period comes from an external eclipse ephemeris; and the factor F = 2.2-2.3 is taken from Holman & Wiegert (1999). None of these inputs is fitted to the target conclusion that the total mass is below 2.1 solar masses with a primary below about 1.0 solar mass. The HYDISC ring-formation simulation is used only as a plausibility check: the magnetic 'kick' is adjusted according to an escape criterion, and the resulting ~200 km/s ring velocity is compared with, not used to calibrate, the observed ~155-160 km/s. The SSS classification is supported by the ROSAT HRI pulse-height distributions (K-S probability 1.1e-6), the independent mass limit, and the model comparison in Table 2; these are not derived from the SSS hypothesis itself. The only self-citation, Rodriguez-Gil et al. (2007) in the introduction, is illustrative and not load-bearing. I therefore find no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. One caveat noted for completeness: Eq. (1) as printed places (1+q) in the denominator, whereas a Keplerian derivation places it in the numerator; that algebraic inconsistency would affect the numerical masses, but it is an internal-correctness issue, not a circularity of the kind assessed here.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of fitted or chosen parameters (HYDISC kick, adopted inclination and mass-ratio ranges, K1 from wing fitting, and the seven-Gaussian Halpha decomposition) and on several domain assumptions that are stated but not independently verified, especially the location of the circumbinary ring and the interpretation of the ROSAT HRI difference. The paper is transparent about most of these, but they are load-bearing for the mass limits and the SSS classification.

free parameters (5)
  • HYDISC propeller kick = not stated (adjusted to minimum needed for escape)
    Introduced in Section 5.2 to expel matter from the binary in the HYDISC simulation; the authors tune it to be as small as possible while still producing a circumbinary ring, then compare the predicted ring velocity (~200 km/s) with the observed ~155-160 km/s without re-fitting.
  • Inclination range = 65-80 degrees
    Adopted in Section 5.2 for the mass grid, based on partial eclipse geometry; not fitted but assumed.
  • Mass ratio range = q = 0.1 to 1.0
    Adopted in Section 5.2 to compute mass limits; broader than H65's q ~ 3.8, reflecting the paper's critique of H65.
  • Primary radial velocity amplitude = Vx sin i = 250 km/s; K1 = 200-250 km/s
    Measured from wing-folding and double-Gaussian diagnostic diagrams, used as the primary's K1 in Eq. (1).
  • Seven-Gaussian Halpha model = ring velocity 159 +/- 5 km/s, gamma 28.6 +/- 1.9 km/s
    A multi-component fit to the mean Halpha profile, one of the two estimates of the circumbinary ring velocity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Doppler tomography can be applied to V Sge despite likely vertical structure in the emission regions.
    The paper itself expresses reservations in Section 3.2 about violations of the flat-disk assumption but proceeds; if vertical velocities are significant, the Doppler maps may be biased.
  • domain assumption The circumbinary ring is located at the innermost stable orbit around the binary, F=2.2-2.3.
    Section 5.2 uses this to convert Vc and Vx into total mass via Eq. (1); the paper admits if F >> 2.3 the mass limits fail.
  • domain assumption The very broad emission-line wings trace the orbital motion of the WD primary.
    Section 3.1.2 and Appendix B: the wing-folding method assumes the broad component follows the primary; no absorption lines directly confirm this.
  • domain assumption The system is in a thermally unstable, self-accelerating state of mass transfer (SSS-like), so a normal CV donor is excluded.
    Section 5.2 states this because the luminosity is 2 dex higher than any CV; this assumption frames the entire interpretation.
  • domain assumption The soft X-ray difference between ROSAT HRI PH distributions is caused by an SSS component.
    Section 4 re-extracts ROSAT events; K-S test p=1.1e-6 shows different PH distributions, but HRI has no spectral resolution, so the physical cause of soft channels is not uniquely identified.
invented entities (2)
  • Circumbinary ring (or disc) around V Sge
    purpose: Explains the stationary double-peaked 'tram line' emission cores and provides the basis for the mass limit via Eq. (1).
    The only evidence is the line profile itself and the HYDISC simulations; no independent detection (e.g. imaging or eclipse signature) is presented, though the interpretation is analogous to SS433's circumbinary disc.
  • Chaotically warped/tilted inner accretion disc
    purpose: Explains the long-term (decades) shifts and rapid (<1 week) flips of the broad-line systemic velocity.
    Invoked in Section 5.3 based on Wijers & Pringle (1999) simulations; the bimodal velocity distribution is modeled as precession or warping, but no direct measurement of the disc tilt exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of V Sge: Supersoft Source or Exotic Hot Binary? I. An X-Shooter campaign in the high state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIHFKVZL

@misc{pith2026250722637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: V Sge: Supersoft Source or Exotic Hot Binary? I. An X-Shooter campaign in the high state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIHFKVZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22637}
}
read the original abstract

V Sge is a peculiar, highly luminous long-period (12.34h) binary star that can display a super-soft X-ray emitting component when in the faint phase of its V~ 10-13mag variability range. Apparently undergoing Eddington-limited accretion from its more massive secondary, it is in a very rare, short-lived evolutionary phase towards the double degenerate channel. Its complex and highly variable optical emission features, from Balmer and Heii to high-ionisation lines, including strong fluorescence features, have been challenging to interpret, especially given the absence of any absorption lines associated with photospheric features from either stellar component. With the detailed properties of V Sge, especially the donor, still controversial, we undertook a VLT/X-Shooter campaign over three months in 2023, obtaining high S/N, high resolution spectra that revealed multiple components in both high- and low-ionisation lines. This allows us to track V Sge's principal emitting regions via Doppler tomography, obtaining new insights into high accretion-rate dynamics. In particular, we identify a stationary, double-peaked emission core which we interpret as a circumbinary ring, analogous to SS433. This enables us to derive limits on the system masses. Furthermore, we find very broad emission-line wings whose mean velocity can vary over hundreds of kilometres per second on timescales of decades, yet ``flip'' between states in <1 week. We show that the super-soft X-ray source interpretation is able to account for these and other observational attributes significantly better than the hot binary model, concluding that V Sge could be one of the brightest known Galactic super-soft sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-Shooter mean spectrum of V Sge in the high state on linear (upper) and logarithmic (lower) flux scales. The observed fluxes were corrected for interstellar reddening using 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) = 0.11. An online interactive version of the top panel plot is available.1 et al. 1991; Rodríguez-Gil et al. 2007). Strong emission lines of He ii λ4686 and the Balmer series, along with additional very high excitation lines (e.g. O vi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trailed spectrograms showing the He ii λ4686 (upper) and O vi λ5290 (lower) emission lines. The spectra have been phase-binned into 20 orbital phase intervals and repeated once for display purposes. The dark horizontal stripes are bins containing no data. Note the systematic blueshift of the He ii broad line component. typical SSSs, CAL83 and RX J0513.9–6951, that the very soft X-ray component was visible only when … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trailed spectrogram showing the region around He ii λ3203. The spectra are phase-binned as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial velocity curves of the He ii λ5411 emission lines (blue dots) derived from the double-Gaussian and wing-folding methods (Appendix B). The best-fit sinusoid is shown in red. The radial velocity values for the individual spectra are plotted twice for clarity. 3.1 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The individual spectra around He i λ4471 in velocity space, ordered by spectrum number. The 61 spectra span an interval of ≈ 4 months, with time running from bottom to top. Spectra exhibiting strong blue-shifted He i absorption have been marked with their respective or…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Selected Doppler tomograms of various emission lines. For each line, we present the Doppler tomogram (top) and the corresponding trailed spectrogram (bottom). In the tomograms, the axes represent velocity coordinates 𝑉𝑥 and 𝑉𝑦 in km s−1 . In the trailed spectrograms, t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Soft X-ray pulse-height spectra of the ROSAT observations of V Sge with the HRI detector in the faint state of May 1994 (red) and the bright state of Oct 1994 (blue). PHA channel is proportional to X-ray energy, covering a range of ≈0.1−2.4 keV. velocity origin. This r…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Trailed spectrograms of the O iii λ3133 and λ3444 emission lines, previously used by H65 for determining the mass ratio of the system. The rightmost spectrogram shows the combined spectrogram of the O iii λ3133 and λ3444 emission lines, earlier used for lines in veloci…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mean Hα line profile together with the best fitting model (red), consisting of seven Gaussian profiles used to estimate the circumbinary ring velocity. & Wiegert 1999). Then, we can use the equation (with 𝑞 = 𝑀X/𝑀2; 𝑀X = 𝑀1): 𝑀total = 𝑉 2 c 𝐹𝑉𝑥𝑃𝑥 2𝜋𝐺 (1 + 𝑞) , (1) …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Possible system masses based on the measured circumbinary disc and primary star velocities as a function of 𝑞 and 𝑖. The total masses are shown with the colour map and white contours. The resulting primary masses (𝑀X) are over-plotted with red contours, and the donor …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Historical velocity shifts since 1940 (time 0) of the centre of the broad emission line component (from Elvey & Babcock 1943; Herbig et al. 1965; Koch et al. 1986; Robertson et al. 1997; Gies et al. 1998, and this work). See also Iijima et al. (2024) for more recent, h…

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. eRASSU J043115.8-711730: The first pulsating symbiotic super-soft X-ray source in the Magellanic Bridge

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

    J0431-71 is a new super-soft X-ray symbiotic binary in the Magellanic Bridge whose ~524-day optical pulsation appears to drive variable accretion onto a white dwarf.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abril J., Schmidtobreick L., Ederoclite A., L \'o pez-Sanjuan C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492L..40A 492, L40

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz181 2020

  2. [2]

    M., Bowler M

    Blundell K. M., Bowler M. G., Schmidtobreick L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678L..47B 678, L47

    work page doi:10.1086/588027 2008

  3. [3]

    P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...76D 111, 76

    Diaz M. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...76D 111, 76

    work page doi:10.1086/316289 1999

  4. [4]

    T., Babcock H

    Elvey C. T., Babcock H. W., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1943ApJ....97..412E 97, 412

    work page doi:10.1086/144530 1943

  5. [5]

    Eracleous M., Halpern J., Patterson J., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...382..290E 382, 290

    work page doi:10.1086/170716 1991

  6. [6]

    M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C

    Freudling W., Romaniello M., Bramich D. M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C. E., Moehler S., Neeser M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..96F 559, A96

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 2013

  7. [7]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  8. [8]

    R., Shafter A

    Gies D. R., Shafter A. W., Wiggs M. S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.2566G 115, 2566

    work page doi:10.1086/300384 1998

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Greiner J., Teeseling A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9809192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...339L..21G 339, L21

    1998 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hachisu I., Kato M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598..527H 598, 527

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Preston G

    Herbig G. H., Preston G. W., Smak J., Paczynski B., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...141..617H 141, 617

    1965 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Wallerstein G., Willson L

    Hoard D. W., Wallerstein G., Willson L. A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108...81H 108, 81

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Wiegert P

    Holman M. J., Wiegert P. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117..621H 117, 621

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    Iijima T., Naito H., Narusawa S.-y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psae066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASJ...76.1002I 76, 1002

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Kahabka P., 1997, in Makino F., Mitsuda K., eds, X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy of Cosmic Hot Plasmas. p. 435

    1997

  8. [16]

    Kato T., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/56.sp1.S133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASJ...56S.133K 56, S133

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/261.1.144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.261..144K 261, 144

    King A. R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/261.1.144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.261..144K 261, 144

    1993 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Corcoran M

    Koch R. H., Corcoran M. F., Holenstein B. D., McCluskey G. E. J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..618K 306, 618

    1986 doi

  11. [20]

    R., Horne K., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/235.1.269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.235..269M 235, 269

    Marsh T. R., Horne K., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/235.1.269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.235..269M 235, 269

    1988 doi

  12. [21]

    Meyer-Hofmeister E., Schandl S., Meyer F., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...321..245M 321, 245

    1997

  13. [22]

    Patterson J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..380P 110, 380

    1998 doi

  14. [23]

    N., Podsiadlowski P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05886.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.337..431P 337, 431

    Phillips S. N., Podsiadlowski P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05886.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.337..431P 337, 431

    2002

  15. [24]

    W., Honeycutt R

    Robertson J. W., Honeycutt R. K., Pier J. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....113..787R 113, 787

    1997 doi

  16. [25]

    Rodr \' guez-Gil P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11743.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377.1747R 377, 1747

    2007

  17. [26]

    P., Young P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...238..946S 238, 946

    Schneider D. P., Young P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...238..946S 238, 946

    1980 doi

  18. [27]

    W., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...267..222S 267, 222

    Shafter A. W., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...267..222S 267, 222

    1983 doi

  19. [29]

    Smak J., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.32023/0001-5237/72.1.2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AcA....72...21S 72, 21

    doi

  20. [30]

    I., Belczynski K., Zola S., 2001, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AcA....51..117S 51, 117

    Smak J. I., Belczynski K., Zola S., 2001, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AcA....51..117S 51, 117

    2001

  21. [31]

    A., Livio M., Charles P

    Southwell K. A., Livio M., Charles P. A., O'Donoghue D., Sutherland W. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470.1065S 470, 1065

    1996 doi

  22. [32]

    C., 1998, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998astro.ph..6141S pp astro--ph/9806141

    Spruit H. C., 1998, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998astro.ph..6141S pp astro--ph/9806141

    1998 doi arXiv

  23. [33]

    E., Diaz M

    Steiner J. E., Diaz M. P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..276S 110, 276

    1998 doi

  24. [34]

    Storn R., Price K., 1997, @doi [Journal of Global Optimization] 10.1023/A:1008202821328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JGOpt..11..341S 11, 341

    1997 doi

  25. [35]

    R., Ringwald F

    Thorstensen J. R., Ringwald F. A., Wade R. A., Schmidt G. D., Norsworthy J. E., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....102..272T 102, 272

    1991 doi

  26. [36]

    Vernet J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A.105V 536, A105

    2011 doi

  27. [37]

    Wijers R. A. M. J., Pringle J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02720.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..207W 308, 207

    1999

  28. [39]

    H., Lockley J

    Wood J. H., Lockley J. J., 2000b, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03276.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.313..789W 313, 789

    2000

  29. [40]

    A., King A

    Wynn G. A., King A. R., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/275.1.9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.275....9W 275, 9

    1995 doi

  30. [41]

    Zang L., Qian S., Zhu L., Liu L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..553Z 511, 553

    2022 doi

  31. [42]

    Zemko P., Orio M., Mukai K., Shugarov S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..869Z 445, 869

    2014 doi

  32. [43]

    S imon V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...406..613S 406, 613

    2003 doi

  33. [44]

    A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..139...75S 139, 75

    S imon V., Mattei J. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..139...75S 139, 75

    1999 doi

  34. [45]

    van den Heuvel E. P. J., Bhattacharya D., Nomoto K., Rappaport S. A., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...262...97V 262, 97

    1992

  35. [46]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, AJ, 156, 58

    2018

  36. [47]

    C., Bochanski J

    Becker A. C., Bochanski J. J., Hawley S. L., Ivezi \'c Z ., Kowalski A. F., Sesar B., West A. A., 2011, ApJ, 731, 17

    2011

  37. [48]

    R., Pala A

    Belloni D., Schreiber M. R., Pala A. F., G \"a nsicke B. T., Zorotovic M., Rodrigues C. V., 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5717

    2020

  38. [49]

    Bernardini F., de Martino D., Mukai K., Falanga M., Andruchow I., Bonnet-Bidaud J.-M., Masetti N., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2822

    2013

  39. [50]

    T., Girven J., Drake A

    Breedt E., G \"a nsicke B. T., Girven J., Drake A. J., Copperwheat C. M., Parsons S. G., Marsh T. R., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1437. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20965.x

    2012

  40. [51]

    R., Marsh T

    Burleigh M. R., Marsh T. R., G \"a nsicke B. T., Goad M. R., Dhillon V. S., Littlefair S. P., Wells M., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1416

    2006

  41. [52]

    Cropper M., 1990, SSRv, 54, 195

    1990

  42. [53]

    J., et al., 2014, ApJS, 213, 9

    Drake, A. J., et al., 2014, ApJS, 213, 9

    2014

  43. [54]

    Eisenhardt P. R. M., Marocco F., Fowler J. W., Meisner A. M., Kirkpatrick J. D., Garcia N., Jarrett T. H., et al., 2020, ApJS, 247, 69. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a

    2020 doi

  44. [55]

    R., Hoard D

    Farihi J., Burleigh M. R., Hoard D. W., 2008, ApJ, 674, 421

    2008

  45. [56]

    T., 2015, SSRv, 191, 111

    Ferrario L., de Martino D., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2015, SSRv, 191, 111

    2015

  46. [57]

    P., Tremblay P.-E., Cukanovaite E., Vorontseva A., Lallement R., Hollands M., G \"a nsicke B

    Gentile Fusillo N. P., Tremblay P.-E., Cukanovaite E., Vorontseva A., Lallement R., Hollands M., G \"a nsicke B. T., et al., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3877. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2672

    2021 doi

  47. [58]

    A., Vanderbosch Z

    Guidry J. A., Vanderbosch Z. P., Hermes J. J., Barlow B. N., Lopez I. D., Boudreaux T. M., Corcoran K. A., et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 125

    2021

  48. [59]

    J., 1995, A&A, 296, 164

    Hakala P. J., 1995, A&A, 296, 164

    1995

  49. [60]

    B., Beardmore A., Buckley D

    Hakala P., Ramsay G., Potter S. B., Beardmore A., Buckley D. A. H., Wynn G., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2549

    2019

  50. [61]

    D., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 145

    Heerlein C., Horne K., Schwope A. D., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 145

    1999

  51. [62]

    B., Bergeron P., 2006, AJ, 132, 1221

    Holberg J. B., Bergeron P., 2006, AJ, 132, 1221. doi:10.1086/505938

    2006 doi

  52. [63]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    Isern J., Garc \' a-Berro E., K \"u lebi B., Lor \'e n-Aguilar P., 2017, ApJL, 836, L28. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    2017 doi

  53. [64]

    C., Singh K

    Joshi A., Pandey J. C., Singh K. P., Agrawal P. C., 2016, ApJ, 830, 56

    2016

  54. [65]

    D., Cushing M

    Kirkpatrick J. D., Cushing M. C., Gelino C. R., Griffith R. L., Skrutskie M. F., Marsh K. A., Wright E. L., et al., 2011, ApJS, 197, 19. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19

    2011 doi

  55. [66]

    Krushinsky V., Benni P., Burdanov A., Antokhin I., Antokhina E., Jehin E., Barkaoui K., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5208

    2020

  56. [67]

    K., Wu K

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

    1994

  57. [68]

    Nebot Gómez-Morán A., et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A43

    2011

  58. [69]

    Paczy \'n ski B., 1967, AcA, 17, 287

    1967

  59. [70]

    G., Marsh T

    Parsons S. G., Marsh T. R., G \"a nsicke B. T., Schreiber M. R., Bours M. C. P., Dhillon V. S., Littlefair S. P., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 241

    2013

  60. [71]

    G., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2194

    Parsons S. G., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2194

    2015

  61. [72]

    G., G \"a nsicke B

    Parsons S. G., G \"a nsicke B. T., Schreiber M. R., Marsh T. R., Ashley R. P., Breedt E., Littlefair S. P., et al., 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4305

    2021

  62. [73]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17881.x

    Patterson J., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2695. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17881.x

    2011

  63. [74]

    B., Hakala P

    Potter S. B., Hakala P. J., Cropper M., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1261

    1998

  64. [75]

    L., Torres D

    Rea N., Coti Zelati F., Esposito P., D'Avanzo P., de Martino D., Israel G. L., Torres D. F., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2902

    2017

  65. [76]

    Rousseau T., Fischer A., Beuermann K., Woelk U., 1996, A&A, 310, 526

    1996

  66. [77]

    D., Harris H

    Schmidt G. D., Harris H. C., Liebert J., Eisenstein D. J., Anderson S. F., Brinkmann J., Hall P. B., et al., 2003, ApJ, 595, 1101. doi:10.1086/377476

    2003 doi

  67. [78]

    D., Szkody P., Vanlandingham K

    Schmidt G. D., Szkody P., Vanlandingham K. M., Anderson S. F., Barentine J. C., Brewington H. J., Hall P. B., et al., 2005, ApJ, 630, 1037. doi:10.1086/431969

    2005 doi

  68. [79]

    D., Szkody P., Silvestri N

    Schmidt G. D., Szkody P., Silvestri N. M., Cushing M. C., Liebert J., Smith P. S., 2005, ApJL, 630, L173. doi:10.1086/491702

    2005 doi

  69. [80]

    D., Szkody P., Henden A., Anderson S

    Schmidt G. D., Szkody P., Henden A., Anderson S. F., Lamb D. Q., Margon B., Schneider D. P., 2007, ApJ, 654, 521. doi:10.1086/509613

    2007 doi

  70. [81]

    R., Belloni D., G \"a nsicke B

    Schreiber M. R., Belloni D., G \"a nsicke B. T., Parsons S. G., Zorotovic M., 2021, NatAs, 5, 648. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8

    2021 doi

  71. [82]

    D., Staude A., Rau, A., Hasinger G., Urrutia T., Motch, C., 2007, A&A, 473(2), 511

    Schwarz R., Schwope A. D., Staude A., Rau, A., Hasinger G., Urrutia T., Motch, C., 2007, A&A, 473(2), 511. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077684

    2007 doi

  72. [83]

    D., Brunner H., Hambaryan V., Schwarz R., 2002, ASPC, 261, 102

    Schwope A. D., Brunner H., Hambaryan V., Schwarz R., 2002, ASPC, 261, 102

    2002

  73. [84]

    D., Nebot Gomez-Moran A., Schreiber M

    Schwope A. D., Nebot Gomez-Moran A., Schreiber M. R., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2009, A&A, 500, 867. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911699

    2009 doi

  74. [85]

    L., Wynn G

    Stelzer B., de Martino D., Casewell S. L., Wynn G. A., Roy M., 2017, A&A, 598, L6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630038

    2017 doi

  75. [86]

    & Price K., 1997, Journal of Global Optimization, 11, 4, 341

    Storn R. & Price K., 1997, Journal of Global Optimization, 11, 4, 341

    1997

  76. [87]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128

    Tremblay P.-E., Bergeron P., Gianninas A., 2011, ApJ, 730, 128. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128

    2011 doi

  77. [88]

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

    1981

  78. [89]

    T., Meggitt S

    Wickramasinghe D. T., Meggitt S. M. A., 1985, MNRAS, 214, 605

    1985

  79. [90]

    T., Ferrario L., 2000, PASP, 112, 873

    Wickramasinghe D. T., Ferrario L., 2000, PASP, 112, 873

    2000

  80. [91]

    doi:10.1038/281048a0

    Williams G., Johns M., Price C., Hiltner A., Boley F., Maker S., Mook D., 1979, Natur, 281, 48. doi:10.1038/281048a0

    1979 doi

  81. [92]

    Woelk U., Beuermann K., 1992, A&A, 256, 498

    1992

  82. [93]

    Woelk U., Beuermann K., 1993, A&A, 280, 169

    1993

  83. [94]

    E., M \"u ller H.-R., Redfield S., Konow F., Vannier H., Linsky J

    Wood B. E., M \"u ller H.-R., Redfield S., Konow F., Vannier H., Linsky J. L., Youngblood A., et al., 2021, ApJ, 915, 37

    2021

  84. [95]

    L., Eisenhardt P

    Wright E. L., Eisenhardt P. R. M., Mainzer A. K., Ressler M. E., Cutri R. M., Jarrett T., Kirkpatrick J. D., et al., 2010, AJ, 140, 1868. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.