arxiv: 2603.18143 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

TESS light curves of two new magnetic cataclysmic variables: an asynchronous polar at the period minimum, and an eclipsing system with a large spin-to-orbit ratio

Colin Littlefield , Krystian Ilkiewicz , Paul A. Mason , Peter Garnavich , Simone Scaringi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords magnetic cataclysmic variablesasynchronous polarsTESS light curveswhite dwarf spinorbital periodsynchronizationaccretion

0 comments

The pith

Two new short-period magnetic cataclysmic variables show unusually high white dwarf spin-to-orbit ratios, supporting the idea that strong fields drive synchronization at small separations.

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

The paper identifies two new magnetic cataclysmic variables from TESS data. Gaia21akb is a candidate asynchronous polar near the period minimum with a probable 1.29-hour orbit and a spin-to-orbit ratio of 0.9879. ZTF18aazmehw is an eclipsing system with a 1.50-hour orbit and a ratio of 0.867 that lacks clear pole switching and may have a disk-like structure. These additions increase the known population of short-period asynchronous mCVs with large ratios. The trend lends support to models in which sufficiently strong white dwarf magnetic fields allow synchronization once orbital separations become small enough.

Core claim

The central claim is that the growing sample of short-period asynchronous mCVs with large spin-to-orbit ratios lends credence to theoretical predictions that asynchronously rotating mCVs with sufficiently strong white dwarf magnetic fields can achieve synchronization when their orbital separations have shrunk sufficiently. Gaia21akb would be the second-shortest orbital period polar known if its 1.29-hour period is confirmed, while ZTF18aazmehw shows no discernible pole switching despite its high ratio.

What carries the argument

The white dwarf spin-to-orbit period ratio in asynchronous polars, which reaches values close to unity at short orbital periods and signals the approach to magnetic synchronization.

If this is right

Gaia21akb would rank as the second-shortest orbital period among known polars.
ZTF18aazmehw may require models that allow disk-like accretion structures in high-ratio asynchronous systems.
The observed trend implies that magnetic synchronization becomes efficient once orbital periods drop below roughly 2 hours.
Continued surveys should uncover additional short-period asynchronous mCVs with comparable ratios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The period minimum appears to be a critical stage where synchronization can finalize in strongly magnetic systems.
ZTF18aazmehw hints that some high-ratio systems may bypass classic pole-switching behavior through altered accretion geometry.
Follow-up spectroscopy would be the most direct way to test whether the reported periods and classifications hold.

Load-bearing premise

The TESS light curve alone yields a reliable orbital period of 1.29 hours for Gaia21akb and both systems are correctly identified as asynchronous polars without multi-wavelength confirmation.

What would settle it

A radial-velocity curve or photometric eclipse timing that confirms or refutes the 1.29-hour orbital period for Gaia21akb, or clear detection of pole switching in ZTF18aazmehw, would settle the classifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.18143 by Colin Littlefield, Krystian Ilkiewicz, Paul A. Mason, Peter Garnavich, Simone Scaringi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: ATLAS light curve of Gaia21akb, with the time of the TESS observations indicated in gray. For clarity, upper limits brighter than magnitude 18.0 are not shown. The data are consistent with the behavior of polars, which often alternate unpredictably between bright states and low-accretion states. tude undergoes cyclical changes on a ∼ 4-day timescale. A Lomb-Scargle power spectrum of that light curve ( [PI… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: TESS light curve of Gaia21akb from sectors 69-70. The data were flux-calibrated using simultaneous ATLAS c-band data as described in the text. The lower panel shows an enlargement of the short-period variability within the shaded region in the upper panel. Guided by these assumptions, we provisionally identify the 19.02 cycles d−1 signal as 2ω−Ω. This frequency, which results from pole switching, is expec… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: TESS power spectrum of Gaia21akb. The top row shows the full power spectrum, while the six panels in the bottom two rows show enlarged segments of the power spectrum with our proposed frequency identifications. While there is little doubt as to the identity of the beat frequency ω − Ω (middle row, left panel) and its second harmonic, the correct identifications of ω and Ω are comparatively uncertain for re… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Light curves of Gaia21akb, phased to our provisional frequency identifications. Top: Phase-averaged 1D profiles as observed by ATLAS between 2022-2024. The amplitude of variation is significantly higher at longer wavelengths. Bottom: 2D TESS light curves showing the evolution of the 2ω−Ω and ω profiles across the beat cycle. Our frequency identifications suggest that there are two accretion regions on oppo… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Phased 1D light curves of ZTF18aazmehw using public multiband photometry from ZTF (top row) and ATLAS (middle row). The bottom row shows 2D light curves from TESS Sectors 40, 51, and 81. All datasets show an eclipse when phased to the previously unidentified 16.0851 cycles d−1 signal, whose presence in the higher-angular-resolution ZTF and ATLAS data verifies that it is not caused by blending in the TESS d… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: TESS power spectrum of ZTF18aazmehw in sectors 40, 54, and 81. Ω and ω denote the binary orbital and WD spin frequencies, respectively. pared to many other well-observed mCVs with large Pspin/Porb, its power spectrum is startling in its simplicity: it contains just ω, Ω, and ω − Ω and their harmonics without the usual forest of obscure sidebands. For comparison, we consider three mCVs with large Pspin/Po… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Asynchronous mCVs, with Pspin/Porb sourced primarily from Koji Mukai’s online catalog. The new systems reported in this study are shown with colored stars for improved visibility. Above the period gap, asynchronous mCVs are heavily clustered below Pspin/Porb< 0.1, and there are no known mCVs with 0.25 ≲Pspin/Porb≲ 0.95. Conversely, this parameter space is well-populated in mCVs below the period gap, whe… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: Hα image of ZTF18aazmehw obtained by the MDW Survey. Right: Broadband r-band image of Gaia21akb, obtained with the LBC imager on the LBT. The extended source at the bottom of the frame is the galaxy IC 1491. In both panels, the position of the target is marked. Neither image shows any apparent evidence of a nova shell. contended that the short theoretical timescale for the dynamic synchronization of … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: TESS power spectra of Gaia19bxc and ZTF19aasmeay, two understudied systems classified as very-short-period polars in the VSX catalog. The TESS data for Gaia19bxc show the likely orbital frequency from Galiullin et al. (2025) and its next harmonic. Conversely, the TESS data for ZTF19aasmeay do not show the putative orbital frequency from the VSX (18.85 cycles d−1 ) and instead show a single frequency at 17.… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A recent development in the study of magnetic cataclysmic variable stars (mCVs) has been the identification of asynchronously spinning mCVs with orbital periods <2 h that have significantly higher white dwarf spin-to-orbital period ratios than their longer-period counterparts. We report the discovery of two additional mCVs in this class. The first, Gaia21akb, is a candidate asynchronous polar at the period minimum. While TESS photometry cannot, in isolation, lead to a conclusive identification of the orbital period, the probable orbital period of 1.29 h would be the second-shortest of any known polar and would result in a spin-to-orbit ratio of 0.9879. The second system in our study, ZTF18aazmehw, is an eclipsing mCV with a 1.50 h orbital period and a spin-to-orbit ratio of 0.867. Contrary to expectations for an asynchronous polar, ZTF18aazmehw does not show discernible evidence of pole switching and might possess a disk-like structure. The increasing number of short-period asynchronous mCVs with large spin-to-orbit ratios lends credence to theoretical predictions that asynchronously rotating mCVs with sufficiently strong white dwarf magnetic fields can achieve synchronization when their orbital separations have shrunk sufficiently.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Two new short-period mCVs with measured spin-to-orbit ratios, but the orbital period for one is only probable from TESS alone and the second deviates from standard async polar traits.

read the letter

The paper reports TESS light curves for two previously unknown magnetic cataclysmic variables and gives their spin-to-orbit ratios as 0.9879 and 0.867. Gaia21akb is flagged as a candidate asynchronous polar near the period minimum with a probable 1.29 h orbit, while ZTF18aazmehw is eclipsing at 1.50 h. These add concrete numbers to the small set of short-period systems that show larger ratios than longer-period ones, which the authors link to synchronization models once orbits get small enough and fields are strong enough. That population context is the main addition. The work is direct photometry: they extract periods from the light curves and classify based on the observed behavior. No fancy modeling or circular derivations, just reported ratios and notes on what the curves show or do not show. The abstract is upfront that TESS data alone cannot confirm the orbital period for Gaia21akb, so calling it probable is accurate. For ZTF18aazmehw the lack of pole switching and possible disk-like structure are called out, which means the async polar label rests on the period ratio more than the full set of usual signatures. Those points are soft but not hidden. The period ratios themselves look like straightforward measurements with no obvious fitting circularity. This is useful for people who track mCV evolution and need more short-period examples to test synchronization ideas. A specialist in the subfield would get value from the new data points even if follow-up spectroscopy is still needed. It is observational discovery work that is grounded enough to warrant peer review rather than a desk reject, mainly so referees can check the period extraction details and whether the classifications hold with the deviations noted.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper reports the identification of two new magnetic cataclysmic variables from TESS light curves: Gaia21akb, proposed as an asynchronous polar near the period minimum with a probable orbital period of 1.29 hours yielding a spin-to-orbit ratio of 0.9879, and ZTF18aazmehw, an eclipsing system with 1.50 hour orbital period and spin-to-orbit ratio of 0.867. The authors suggest that the growing population of such short-period systems with high spin-to-orbit ratios supports theoretical models predicting synchronization in strongly magnetized white dwarfs at small orbital separations.

Significance. If the classifications and period determinations are robustly confirmed, this work would meaningfully expand the sample of short-period asynchronous polars, providing additional observational constraints on the synchronization process in mCVs at the period minimum. It demonstrates the value of high-cadence space-based photometry for detecting these rare systems and could motivate targeted follow-up observations.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] The orbital period for Gaia21akb is described as 'probable' with the explicit caveat that TESS photometry cannot conclusively identify it; this directly impacts the central claim of it being at the period minimum with spin-to-orbit ratio 0.9879, and the manuscript should provide the detailed periodogram analysis, error estimates, and any supporting multi-band data to substantiate this identification.
[Abstract] ZTF18aazmehw is classified as an asynchronous polar despite the noted absence of pole switching and possible disk-like structure, which are atypical for the class; the paper needs to address how these observations are reconciled with the asynchronous polar interpretation, perhaps through quantitative modeling of the light curve.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The spin-to-orbit ratio for ZTF18aazmehw is given as 0.867 without specifying the number of significant figures or uncertainty; consistency with the more precise value for Gaia21akb should be checked.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The orbital period for Gaia21akb is described as 'probable' with the explicit caveat that TESS photometry cannot conclusively identify it; this directly impacts the central claim of it being at the period minimum with spin-to-orbit ratio 0.9879, and the manuscript should provide the detailed periodogram analysis, error estimates, and any supporting multi-band data to substantiate this identification.

Authors: We agree that additional details on the period determination are needed to support the identification of the probable orbital period for Gaia21akb. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the relevant sections to include the full periodogram analysis (with figures or detailed descriptions of the detected peaks), quantitative error estimates on the periods, and any available supporting multi-band photometry from surveys such as ZTF or Gaia. This will allow readers to better evaluate the robustness of the 1.29 h orbital period and the resulting spin-to-orbit ratio of 0.9879 while retaining the explicit caveat regarding the limitations of TESS data alone. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] ZTF18aazmehw is classified as an asynchronous polar despite the noted absence of pole switching and possible disk-like structure, which are atypical for the class; the paper needs to address how these observations are reconciled with the asynchronous polar interpretation, perhaps through quantitative modeling of the light curve.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The classification of ZTF18aazmehw rests on the detection of a coherent spin signal distinct from the orbital period in the TESS light curve, combined with the eclipsing morphology. We acknowledge that the lack of pole switching and possible disk-like features are atypical. In the revision, we will expand the discussion section to explicitly reconcile these aspects through comparison with other short-period mCVs and a qualitative interpretation tied to the high spin-to-orbit ratio. However, quantitative light-curve modeling is beyond the scope of this discovery paper and would require additional data or dedicated simulations; we will therefore limit the revision to qualitative discussion and note quantitative modeling as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct photometric classifications support empirical trend without self-referential derivation

full rationale

The paper reports TESS photometry for Gaia21akb and ZTF18aazmehw, extracting orbital and spin periods directly from light-curve features to compute spin-to-orbit ratios. These are observational measurements, not derivations that reduce to fitted inputs by construction or self-citations. The central statement that the growing sample 'lends credence' to prior theoretical predictions is an empirical observation of a trend, not a load-bearing derivation or uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work. No equations, ansatzes, or self-definitional steps appear in the abstract or described chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on photometric classification of the systems as magnetic CVs and on the extraction of orbital and spin periods from TESS light curves.

free parameters (3)

Orbital period of Gaia21akb = 1.29 h
Fitted from TESS photometry and described as probable rather than definitive.
Spin-to-orbit ratio of Gaia21akb = 0.9879
Computed directly from the adopted spin and orbital periods.
Orbital period of ZTF18aazmehw = 1.50 h
Measured from eclipses in the light curve.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Light-curve morphology indicates magnetic accretion onto a white dwarf in a cataclysmic variable
Standard classification assumption in mCV studies invoked to interpret the observed variability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5564 in / 1466 out tokens · 42653 ms · 2026-05-15T08:07:59.465996+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The increasing number of short-period asynchronous mCVs with large spin-to-orbit ratios lends credence to theoretical predictions that asynchronously rotating mCVs with sufficiently strong white dwarf magnetic fields can achieve synchronization when their orbital separations have shrunk sufficiently.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Pspin/Porb = 0.9879 ... 0.867 ... orbital periods 1.29 h and 1.50 h

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

2022, ApJ, 938, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87ab

Mowlavi, N. 2022, ApJ, 938, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87ab

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac87ab 2022
[2]

A., Mittelman, D

Aftab, N., Zhang, X. A., Mittelman, D. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7c48

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7c48 2024
[3]

A., Walker, S., et al

Aftab, N., Zhang, X. A., Walker, S., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae17b4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae17b4 2026
[4]

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

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021
[5]

C., Kulkarni, S

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

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019
[6]

1984, ApJ, 285, 252, doi: 10.1086/162499

Chanmugam, G., & Ray, A. 1984, ApJ, 285, 252, doi: 10.1086/162499

work page doi:10.1086/162499 1984
[7]

2022, MNRAS, 516, 3144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2482 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

Duffy, C., Ramsay, G., Wu, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2482 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2482 2022
[8]

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

Galiullin, I., Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adff82

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adff82 2025
[9]

D., & Staubert, R

Geckeler, R. D., & Staubert, R. 1997, A&A, 325, 1070

work page 1997
[10]

2008, A&A, 482, 349, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078402

Giallongo, E., Ragazzoni, R., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 349, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078402

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078402 2008
[11]

2023, ApJ, 955, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf21b

Greiveldinger, A., Garnavich, P., Littlefield, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf21b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf21b 2023
[12]

B., et al

Hakala, P., Ramsay, G., Potter, S. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz992

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz992 2019
[13]

Halpern, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 934, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d50 —. 2024, ApJ, 963, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad24ed

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d50 2022
[14]

B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406 I lkiewicz, K., Scaringi, S., Veresvarska, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad243c

work page doi:10.1086/676406 2014
[15]

2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.05284, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.05284 —

Kato, T. 2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.05284, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.05284 —. 2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.04603

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.05284
[16]

R., & Wynn, G

King, A. R., & Wynn, G. A. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 203, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02974.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02974.x 1999
[17]

I., Suslikov, M

Kolbin, A. I., Suslikov, M. V., Kochkina, V. Y., et al. 2023, Astronomy Letters, 49, 475, doi: 10.1134/S1063773723080029

work page doi:10.1134/s1063773723080029 2023
[18]

2019a, ApJ, 881, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a17 —

Littlefield, C., Garnavich, P., Mukai, K., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 881, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a17 —. 2019b, ApJ, 881, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a17

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a17
[19]

2015, MNRAS, 449, 3107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv462

Littlefield, C., Mukai, K., Mumme, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv462

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv462 2015
[20]

W., Garnavich, P., et al

Littlefield, C., Hoard, D. W., Garnavich, P., et al. 2023a, AJ, 165, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1a5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca1a5
[21]

A., Garnavich, P., et al

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaf04 2041
[22]

A., Andronov, I

Mason, P. A., Andronov, I. L., Kolesnikov, S. V., Pavlenko, E. P., & Shakovskoy, M. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 85, Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables, ed. D. A. H. Buckley & B. Warner, 496

work page 1995
[23]

A., Liebert, J., & Schmidt, G

Mason, P. A., Liebert, J., & Schmidt, G. D. 1989, ApJ, 346, 941, doi: 10.1086/168074

work page doi:10.1086/168074 1989
[24]

A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al

Mason, P. A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 511, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01185.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01185.x 1998
[25]

A., & Santana, J

Mason, P. A., & Santana, J. B. 2015, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects - III (Golden2015), 16, doi: 10.22323/1.255.0016

work page doi:10.22323/1.255.0016 2015
[26]

A., Morales, J

Mason, P. A., Morales, J. F., Littlefield, C., et al. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1123, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.03.038

work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020.03.038 2020
[27]

A., Littlefield, C., Monroy, L

Mason, P. A., Littlefield, C., Monroy, L. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91cf

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91cf 2022
[28]

2017, PASP, 129, 044204, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a8

Myers, G., Patterson, J., de Miguel, E., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 044204, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a8

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a8 2017
[29]

2016, MNRAS, 458, 1833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw424 14

Pagnotta, A., & Zurek, D. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw424 14

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw424 2016
[30]

1994, PASP, 106, 209, doi: 10.1086/133375

Patterson, J. 1994, PASP, 106, 209, doi: 10.1086/133375

work page doi:10.1086/133375 1994
[31]

P., Mason, P

Pavlenko, E. P., Mason, P. A., Sosnovskij, A. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1494

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1494 2018
[32]

C., Joshi, A., Scaringi, S., & Yadava, U

Rawat, N., Pandey, J. C., Joshi, A., Scaringi, S., & Yadava, U. 2022, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2723

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2723 2022
[33]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015
[34]

I., & Dhillon, V

Sahman, D. I., & Dhillon, V. S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3668

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3668 2022
[35]

I., Dhillon, V

Sahman, D. I., Dhillon, V. S., Knigge, C., & Marsh, T. R. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2863, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1150

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1150 2015
[36]

I., Dhillon, V

Sahman, D. I., Dhillon, V. S., Littlefair, S. P., & Hallinan, G. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty950

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty950 2018
[37]

D., & Stockman, H

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

work page doi:10.1086/169939 1991
[38]

D., Staude, A., et al

Schwarz, R., Schwope, A. D., Staude, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 473, 511, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077684

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077684 2007
[39]

D., Staude, A., & Remillard, R

Schwarz, R., Schwope, A. D., Staude, A., & Remillard, R. A. 2005, A&A, 444, 213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053711

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053711 2005
[40]

Remillard, R. A. 1992, ApJ, 389, 704, doi: 10.1086/171243

work page doi:10.1086/171243 1992
[41]

D., Szkody, P., Hoard, D

Silber, A. D., Szkody, P., Hoard, D. W., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 25, doi: 10.1093/mnras/290.1.25

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/290.1.25 1997
[42]

2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Speziali, R., Di Paola, A., Giallongo, E., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70144T, doi: 10.1117/12.790132

work page doi:10.1117/12.790132 2008
[43]

S., Schmidt, G

Stockman, H. S., Schmidt, G. D., & Lamb, D. Q. 1988, ApJ, 332, 282, doi: 10.1086/166652

work page doi:10.1086/166652 1988
[44]

A., et al

Szkody, P., van Roestel, J., Mason, P. A., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2fcd

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad2fcd 2024
[45]

F., Kong, A

Takata, J., Wang, X. F., Kong, A. K. H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8100

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8100 2022
[46]

L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 2018
[47]

2017, A&A, 608, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731323

Tovmassian, G., Gonz´ alez-Buitrago, D., Thorstensen, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731323

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731323 2017
[48]

2020, ApJ, 892, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7759

Wang, Q., Qian, S., Han, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7759

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7759 2020
[49]

1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

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

work page 1995
[50]

L., Henden, A

Watson, C. L., Henden, A. A., & Price, A. 2006, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, 25, 47

work page 2006
[51]

R., Knigge, C., Drew, J

Witham, A. R., Knigge, C., Drew, J. E., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1277, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12774.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12774.x 2008
[52]

A., & King, A

Wynn, G. A., & King, A. R. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 83, doi: 10.1093/mnras/255.1.83

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/255.1.83 1992
[53]

B., Raymond, J

Zucker, D. B., Raymond, J. C., Silber, A., et al. 1995, ApJ, 449, 310, doi: 10.1086/176056 15 20 40 cycles d 1 10 3 10 2 power Gaia19bxc 22.3 22.4 20 40 cycles d 1 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 ZTF19aasmeay 17.8 17.9 Figure 9.TESS power spectra of Gaia19bxc and ZTF19aasmeay, two understudied systems classified as very-short-period polars in the VSX catalog. The TES...

work page doi:10.1086/176056 1995