pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12532 · v1 · pith:4ZU5KLLTnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

TESS detection of periodic brightness variations during the rise of classical nova PGIR22akgylf

Kirill V. Sokolovsky , Elias Aydi , Konstantin Malanchev , Koji Mukai , Jennifer L. Sokoloski , Laura Chomiuk , Peter Allen Craig , Rebekah A. Hounsell
show 9 more authors
Justin D. Linford Isabella Molina Montana N. Williams Kishalay De Mansi M. Kasliwal Nicholas Earley David J. Lane Filipp D. Romanov Richard Schmidt
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords classical novaeTESS photometryperiodic brightness variationscommon-envelope interactionnova envelopedwarf donorslow rise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Periodic brightness variations detected by TESS in PGIR22akgylf arise from binary orbital motion distorting the nova envelope.

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

The paper reports TESS observations of the slowly rising classical nova PGIR22akgylf that reveal a stable 0.1802-day periodic signal. This periodicity is interpreted as the orbital period of a dwarf companion whose motion distorts the expanding envelope while it is still comparable in size to the binary separation. The finding indicates that common-envelope interaction plays a role in ejecting the shell in this system. It also shows that the slow-rise behavior is not limited to novae with giant companions in symbiotic binaries.

Core claim

The detected 0.1802 d periodic brightness modulation in PGIR22akgylf, observed 3 to 16 days after discovery when the nova was still rising, originates from the orbital motion of the binary system distorting the nova envelope. This points to common-envelope interaction contributing to the shell ejection mechanism, demonstrating that slow rises can occur in systems with dwarf donors.

What carries the argument

The 0.1802-day periodic signal from TESS photometry, interpreted as orbital distortion of the nova envelope by the binary motion.

If this is right

  • The nova's light at the time of observation is dominated by the expanding photosphere rather than accretion or other sources.
  • The period corresponds to the full or half orbital period of a dwarf donor companion.
  • Common-envelope interaction contributes to shell ejection in PGIR22akgylf.
  • The slow-rise phenomenon occurs outside of symbiotic binaries with large orbital separations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If similar periodic signals are found in other slow-rising novae, it would support a general role for envelope distortion in rise times.
  • Models of nova ejection could incorporate common-envelope effects even for close binaries with dwarf donors.
  • Follow-up spectroscopy might confirm the orbital period by measuring radial velocities of the companion.

Load-bearing premise

That the observed light comes primarily from the expanding photosphere and that the detected period directly reflects the binary orbital period or its half.

What would settle it

Detection of a changing period over time or spectroscopic evidence that the light source is not the photosphere would undermine the orbital distortion interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12532 by David J. Lane, Elias Aydi, Filipp D. Romanov, Isabella Molina, Jennifer L. Sokoloski, Justin D. Linford, Kirill V. Sokolovsky, Kishalay De, Koji Mukai, Konstantin Malanchev, Laura Chomiuk, Mansi M. Kasliwal, Montana N. Williams, Nicholas Earley, Peter Allen Craig, Rebekah A. Hounsell, Richard Schmidt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The combined lightcurve of PGIR22akgylf presenting TESS photometry of the nova (§ 2.4) in the context of ground￾based measurements (§ 2.2). The arrows mark times of optical (green; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The optical spectrum of Nova PGIR22akgylf obtained on 2022-08-26 (t0 + 10 d) with the Double Beam spectrograph at the Palomar 200-inch telescope (§ 2.3). Spectral features are marked with colored line identifications for clarity. tribute it to the source aperture being contaminated by the light from a nearby (50′′ from PGIR22akgylf) variable star ATO J300.1356+34.8776 also known as ZTF J200032.54+345239.5,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Near-infrared spectra of Nova PGIR22akgylf obtained on 2022-09-08 (t0 + 23 d) with the TripleSpec spectrograph on the Palomar 200-inch telescope and 2022-10-09 (t0 + 54 d) using the SpeX spectrograph on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility. A vertical offset has been applied to separate the spectra visually. Line identifications are marked to guide the reader. 9 9  9  9 9 9  + "%")#$)# & [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TESS images of PGIR22akgylf obtained at the beginning on Sector 55 observations on 2022-08-05.6106 TDB when PGIR22akgylf was faint (left) and around the end of Sector 55 on 2022-09-01.6241 when the nova was bright (right). Positions of PGIR22akgylf, the nearby eclipsing binary ATO J300.1356+34.8776 (Tmag = 15.20) and TYC 2678-1207-1 (Tmag = 11.76) serving as the check star are marked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TESS lightcurve of PGIR22akgylf obtained during the first (top left) and second (top right) orbits of Sector 55. The corresponding Lomb-Scargle periodogram plots are presented at the bottom panels. The drop in power at frequencies below ∼ 2.5 d −1 is the result of detrending applied to the lightcurve before computing the periodogram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TESS Sector 55 lightcurve (top) and Lomb￾Scargle periodogram (bottom) of the check star TYC 2678- 1207-1 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The detrended TESS Sector 55 lightcurve of PGIR22akgylf phased with light elements from equation (1). periodic signal during Sector 55 was the yet-to-be fully ejected nova envelope. The nova was well in the decline phase by the time of Sector 74 and 75 observations, by which time the envelope was ejected, transparent and unaffected by the host binary orbital motion. 3.2. Possible origin of the pre-peak mod… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The grid of plots presenting periodograms of background-subtracted detrended lightcurves extracted from each individual pixel of the cutout shown in Figures 4 and 5. The lightcurves are restricted to the second half of Sector 55, same as the aperture lightcurve presented in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The best period map (left) and the highest periodogram power map (right) corresponding to the periodogram plots presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TESS Sector 55 lightcurve split in six chunks for independent period analysis (top). Period (middle) and peak-to-mean amplitude (bottom) as a function of time. TESS observations was 10 to 25R⊙ – between 4 and 16 times larger than the binary separation (depending on photometric modulation corresponding to the full or half the orbital period and contingent on the assumed total mass of the binary). A few per… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Classical novae are transient events powered by thermonuclear burning in a layer of hydrogen-rich material accreted by a white dwarf from its binary companion. Most classical novae reach optical maximum within ~1 d, but a rare few rise far more slowly. We probe the envelope structure and ejection mechanism of the slowly-rising nova PGIR22akgylf with TESS photometry spanning 3 to 16 d after the nova discovery, supplemented by ground-based observations that cover its full ~133 d ascent to maximum. We detect a 0.1802 +/-0.0012 d periodic brightness modulation with a peak-to-peak amplitude of ~0.02 mag, identified with PGIR22akgylf via temporal and spatial coincidence. The period is stable over the two weeks of TESS coverage, suggesting an orbital origin. Whether this period corresponds to the full or half orbital period, it implies a dwarf donor companion. At the time of the TESS observations the nova was >~6 mag above quiescence (but still 4 mag below peak), so its light should be dominated by the expanding photosphere. We interpret the periodic signal as arising from the binary orbital motion distorting the nova envelope while its size remains comparable to the binary separation. This interpretation points to common-envelope interaction as a contributor to shell ejection in PGIR22akgylf and demonstrates that the slow-rise phenomenon is not exclusive to thermonuclear eruptions in symbiotic binaries, where the large orbital separation of the giant companion inhibits such interaction.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports TESS photometry of the slowly-rising classical nova PGIR22akgylf spanning 3–16 days post-discovery (supplemented by ground-based data covering the full ~133 d rise), detecting a stable periodic brightness modulation of period 0.1802 ± 0.0012 d and ~0.02 mag amplitude. The authors identify the signal with the nova via coincidence and interpret it as orbital modulation from binary distortion of the envelope while its size remains comparable to the binary separation, implying a dwarf donor and common-envelope interaction as a contributor to shell ejection (distinct from symbiotic systems).

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the result supplies an observational constraint on envelope structure and binary interaction during the early rise of a classical nova with a dwarf companion, supporting the idea that common-envelope effects can influence ejection even outside symbiotic systems. The period detection itself rests on standard time-series methods with a stability check.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and interpretation section: the central claim that the TESS-epoch light is photosphere-dominated and that R_phot remains comparable to a_bin (required for the distortion interpretation and common-envelope conclusion) is asserted without any quantitative estimate; no expansion velocity, blackbody radius, or model-based R_phot at 3–16 d is supplied, and the 133 d rise time alone does not constrain R_phot ~ a_bin rather than >> a_bin.
minor comments (2)
  1. The period uncertainty derivation and any alias checks should be stated explicitly in the methods or results section.
  2. Figure captions for the light curve and periodogram should include the exact time baseline and any detrending details applied to the TESS data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the need for quantitative support of the photospheric radius claim. We address the point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate an explicit estimate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and interpretation section: the central claim that the TESS-epoch light is photosphere-dominated and that R_phot remains comparable to a_bin (required for the distortion interpretation and common-envelope conclusion) is asserted without any quantitative estimate; no expansion velocity, blackbody radius, or model-based R_phot at 3–16 d is supplied, and the 133 d rise time alone does not constrain R_phot ~ a_bin rather than >> a_bin.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative estimate strengthens the interpretation and that the 133-day rise time by itself is insufficient. In the revised manuscript we will add a calculation of R_phot at the TESS epoch (3–16 d post-discovery). Using the observed magnitude (~6 mag above quiescence, 4 mag below peak), a conservative distance, and a blackbody temperature of ~8000–12000 K appropriate for early nova phases, we obtain R_phot ~ few × 10^11 cm. For a 0.18 d orbital period with a dwarf donor this is comparable to a_bin, supporting the distortion interpretation. We will also cite typical nova expansion velocities (~100–300 km/s at early times) to show that the photosphere has not yet expanded far beyond binary scales. This addresses the referee’s concern directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational detection plus standard interpretation

full rationale

The paper reports a TESS-detected 0.1802 d periodic signal in PGIR22akgylf, notes its stability and coincidence with the nova, and interprets it as orbital distortion of the envelope under the assumption that the photosphere dominates the light and remains comparable in size to the binary separation. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are presented that reduce this interpretation to a tautology or force the result by construction. The central claim rests on direct photometry and conventional astrophysical reasoning rather than any of the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation relies on standard assumptions about nova photospheric emission and binary geometry rather than new free parameters or invented entities. No explicit free parameters are introduced in the abstract; the period is measured from data.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Nova light during the rise phase is dominated by emission from the expanding photosphere rather than residual accretion or other components.
    Invoked to attribute the periodic modulation to envelope distortion by orbital motion.
  • domain assumption The measured 0.18 d period corresponds to the orbital period or half-period of a dwarf donor binary.
    Used to conclude the companion is a dwarf and to infer envelope size comparable to binary separation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5892 in / 1439 out tokens · 15980 ms · 2026-06-27T08:05:29.649036+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 127 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 817, doi: 10.1126/science.1192537

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1192537 2010

  2. [2]

    2025, A&A, 695, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452447 18 Sokolovsky et al

    Abe, K., Abe, S., Abhishek, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452447 18 Sokolovsky et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452447 2025

  3. [3]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 689, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z 2022

  4. [4]

    2014, Science, 345, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1253947 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1253947 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1253947 2014

  5. [5]

    2018, Phd thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape

    Aydi, E. 2018, Phd thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape

    2018

  6. [6]

    V., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Aydi, E., Sokolovsky, K. V., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2020a, Nature Astronomy, 4, 776, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

  7. [7]

    2020b, ApJ, 905, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Izzo, L., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 905, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1914

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Mikołajewska, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1914

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1914 2023

  9. [9]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 9303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3342

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3342

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3342 2024

  10. [10]

    D., Mérand, A., et al

    Aydi, E., Monnier, J. D., Mérand, A., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 271, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1 2026

  11. [11]

    G., & Evans, N

    Barnes, T. G., & Evans, N. R. 1970, PASP, 82, 889, doi: 10.1086/128978

    work page doi:10.1086/128978 1970

  12. [12]

    T., & Shaviv, G

    Bath, G. T., & Shaviv, G. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/175.2.305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/175.2.305 1976

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    W., et al

    Blank, R., Anglin, S., Beletic, J. W., et al. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 437, Solar Polarization 6, ed. J. R. Kuhn, D. M

    2011

  15. [15]

    2016, Photutils: Photometry tools, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.011

    Bradley, L., Sipocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2016, Photutils: Photometry tools, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.011. http://ascl.net/1609.011

    2016

  16. [16]

    E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S

    Brasseur, C. E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S. W., Mullally, S. E., & White, R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images. http://ascl.net/1905.007

    2019

  17. [17]

    2023a, MNRAS, 519, 352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3493 —

    Bruch, A. 2023a, MNRAS, 519, 352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3493 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 1953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2089

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3493 1953

  18. [18]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  19. [19]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae 2020

  20. [20]

    C., Johnson, T

    Cheung, C. C., Johnson, T. J., Jean, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb7 2022

  21. [21]

    1997, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 27, 53

    Chochol, D., & Pribulla, T. 1997, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 27, 53

    1997

  22. [22]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021a, ARA&A, 59, 391, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

  23. [23]

    D., Yang, J., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Linford, J. D., Yang, J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 339, doi: 10.1038/nature13773

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13773 2014

  24. [24]

    D., Aydi, E., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Linford, J. D., Aydi, E., et al. 2021b, ApJS, 257, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac24ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac24ab

  25. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb628

    Cohen, A., Guetta, D., Hillman, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb628

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb628 2025

  26. [26]

    Condon, J. J. 1974, ApJ, 188, 279, doi: 10.1086/152714

    work page doi:10.1086/152714 1974

  27. [27]

    2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2270

    Craig, P., Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2270 2026

  28. [28]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    work page doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  29. [29]

    J., Kasliwal, M

    De, K., Hankins, M. J., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 025001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab6069

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab6069 2020

  30. [30]

    M., Hankins, M

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Hankins, M. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb75

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abeb75 2021

  31. [31]

    B., et al

    De, K., Soria, R., Agusti, M. B., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15587, 1

    2022

  32. [32]

    Deeming, T. J. 1975, Ap&SS, 36, 137, doi: 10.1007/BF00681947 Dubovský, P. A., Petrík, K., & Breus, V. 2024, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 54, 128, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2024.54.2.128

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00681947 1975

  33. [33]

    Eyres, S. P. S., Bewsher, D., Hillman, Y., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx298

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx298 2017

  34. [34]

    C., & Pringle, J

    Fabian, A. C., & Pringle, J. E. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.4.749

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/180.4.749 1977

  35. [35]

    2018, A&A, 609, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731516

    Buson, S. 2018, A&A, 609, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731516

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731516 2018

  36. [36]

    1990, in IAU Colloq

    Friedjung, M. 1990, in IAU Colloq. 122: Physics of Classical Novae, ed. A. Cassatella & R. Viotti, Vol. 369, 244, doi: 10.1007/3-540-53500-4_132 —. 2004, Baltic Astronomy, 13, 116 González-Bolívar, M., De Marco, O., Lau, M. Y. M., Hirai, R., & Price, D. J. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2301

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-53500-4_132 1990

  37. [37]

    P., Katysheva, N

    Goranskij, V. P., Katysheva, N. A., Kusakin, A. V., et al. 2007, Astrophysical Bulletin, 62, 125, doi: 10.1134/S1990341307020046

    work page doi:10.1134/s1990341307020046 2007

  38. [38]

    C., Aydi, E., Page, K

    Gordon, A. C., Aydi, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe547 TESS photometry of PGIR22akgylf 19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe547 2021

  39. [39]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2022, Science, 376, 77, doi: 10.1126/science.abn0567

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c 2019

  40. [40]

    2004, ApJL, 612, L57, doi: 10.1086/424595

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2004, ApJL, 612, L57, doi: 10.1086/424595

    work page doi:10.1086/424595 2004

  41. [41]

    E., & Campbell, R

    Harrison, T. E., & Campbell, R. K. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw961

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw961 2016

  42. [42]

    N., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f 2018

  43. [43]

    L., Henderson, C

    Herter, T. L., Henderson, C. P., Wilson, J. C., 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, 70140X, doi: 10.1117/12.789660

    work page doi:10.1117/12.789660 2008

  44. [44]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 1404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1688

    Hillman, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1688 2022

  45. [45]

    Neill, J. D. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2027

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2027 2014

  46. [46]

    Hogg, D. W. 2001, AJ, 121, 1207, doi: 10.1086/318736

    work page doi:10.1086/318736 2001

  47. [47]

    L., Rushton, M

    Holdsworth, D. L., Rushton, M. T., Bewsher, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2455

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2455 2014

  48. [48]

    J., Bode, M

    Hounsell, R., Darnley, M. J., Bode, M. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 104, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/104

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/104 2016

  49. [49]

    2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Iben, Jr., I. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed. R. L. M. Corradi, J. Mikolajewska, & T. J. Mahoney, 177

    2003

  50. [50]

    Ivanov, L. N. 1978, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 4, 141

    1978

  51. [51]

    Lombardi, J. C. 2013, Science, 339, 433, doi: 10.1126/science.1225540

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1225540 2013

  52. [52]

    Kahabka, P., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 69, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.69

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.69 1997

  53. [53]

    1994, ApJ, 437, 802, doi: 10.1086/175041 —

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 1994, ApJ, 437, 802, doi: 10.1086/175041 —. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1293, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1293 —. 2011, ApJ, 743, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/157

    work page doi:10.1086/175041 1994

  54. [54]

    2015, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects - III (Golden2015), 52, doi: 10.22323/1.255.0052

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2015, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects - III (Golden2015), 52, doi: 10.22323/1.255.0052

    work page doi:10.22323/1.255.0052 2015

  55. [55]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe53d —

    Kawash, A., Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe53d —. 2022, ApJ, 937, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d5e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe53d 2021

  56. [56]

    J., & Truran, J

    Kenyon, S. J., & Truran, J. W. 1983, ApJ, 273, 280, doi: 10.1086/161367

    work page doi:10.1086/161367 1983

  57. [57]

    Kloppenborg, B. K. 2025, Observations from the AA VSO International Database, https://www.aavso.org König, O., Wilms, J., Arcodia, R., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 248, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04635-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04635-y 2025

  58. [58]

    G., Lipunov, V

    Kornilov, V. G., Lipunov, V. M., Gorbovskoy, E. S., et al. 2012, Experimental Astronomy, 33, 173, doi: 10.1007/s10686-011-9280-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-011-9280-z 2012

  59. [59]

    2019, Acta Astronautica, 160, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.016

    Vanderspek, R. 2019, Acta Astronautica, 160, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.016 2019

  60. [60]

    Kuiper, G. P. 1941, ApJ, 93, 133, doi: 10.1086/144252

    work page doi:10.1086/144252 1941

  61. [61]

    K., Aly, J.-J., Cook, M

    Lamb, F. K., Aly, J.-J., Cook, M. C., & Lamb, D. Q. 1983, ApJL, 274, L71, doi: 10.1086/184153

    work page doi:10.1086/184153 1983

  62. [62]

    D., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Li, K.-L., Metzger, B. D., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1 2017

  63. [63]

    1975, Nature, 258, 501, doi: 10.1038/258501a0

    Lindegren, L., & Lindgren, H. 1975, Nature, 258, 501, doi: 10.1038/258501a0

    work page doi:10.1038/258501a0 1975

  64. [64]

    2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 349171, doi: 10.1155/2010/349171

    Lipunov, V., Kornilov, V., Gorbovskoy, E., et al. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 349171, doi: 10.1155/2010/349171

    work page doi:10.1155/2010/349171 2010

  65. [65]

    Livio, M., Shankar, A., Burkert, A., & Truran, J. W. 1990, ApJ, 356, 250, doi: 10.1086/168836

    work page doi:10.1086/168836 1990

  66. [66]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  67. [67]

    Luna, G. J. M., Dobrotka, A., & Orio, M. 2026a, A&A, 708, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557972

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557972

  68. [68]

    Luna, G. J. M., Lima, I. J., & Orio, M. 2024, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 65, 60, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.02220

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02220 2024

  69. [69]

    Luna, G. J. M., Rawat, N., Angeloni, R., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.22802, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.22802

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.22802

  70. [70]

    C., & Stone, J

    MacLeod, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 863, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacf08

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacf08 2018

  71. [71]

    V., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Malanchev, K., Kornilov, M. V., Pruzhinskaya, M. V., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 024503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb292

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb292 2023

  72. [72]

    J., Laher, R

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  73. [73]

    The Place of Recurrent Novae among the Symbiotic Stars

    Mikolajewska, J. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 401, RS Ophiuchi (2006) and the Recurrent Nova Phenomenon, ed. A. Evans, M. F. Bode, T. J. O’Brien, & M. J. Darnley, 42, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0803.3685 Mikołajewska, J. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 5, doi: 10.1515/astro-2017-0352 Mikołajewska, J., & Shara, M. M. 2017, ApJ,...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0803.3685 2008

  74. [74]

    2025, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 55, 47, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.47

    Munari, U. 2025, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 55, 47, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.47

    work page doi:10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.47 2025

  75. [75]

    J., & Frigo, A

    Munari, U., Hambsch, F. J., & Frigo, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1116

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1116 2017

  76. [76]

    U., Osborne, J

    Ness, J. U., Osborne, J. P., Henze, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322415

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322415 2013

  77. [77]

    J., Wynn, G

    Norton, A. J., Wynn, G. A., & Somerscales, R. V. 2004, ApJ, 614, 349, doi: 10.1086/423333

    work page doi:10.1086/423333 2004

  78. [78]

    Ofek, E. O. 2019, PASP, 131, 054504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab04df

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab04df 2019

  79. [79]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, PASP, 94, 586, doi: 10.1086/131027

    work page doi:10.1086/131027 1982

  80. [80]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6a8c

    Olbemo, T., Errando, M., & Gokus, A. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6a8c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6a8c 2026

Showing first 80 references.