Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 79 references

Optical Spectroscopy and Temporal Evolution of the Nova V1405 Cas

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nova V1405 Cas likely erupted on a low-mass CO white dwarf, not an ONeMg type, because its ejecta neon stays near solar across seven modeled epochs.

desk verdict A serious, useful long-baseline study of V1405 Cas; the non-ONeMg conclusion is plausible and agrees with Tarasova, but it rests on a 1-D Cloudy model whose geometry limits the neon claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19138 v1 pith:FEDV6TDY submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.SR

Gesesew R. Habtie , Ramkrishna Das , Elias Aydi , Pavol A. Dubovsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords classicalnovaeV1405Casnova2021photoionizationmodelingwhitedwarfclassificationONeMgvsCOnebularandcoronalspectroscopyslowlightcurves
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

This paper tries to establish that Nova V1405 Cas erupted on a low-mass (~0.7 solar mass) CO white dwarf rather than an oxygen-neon-magnesium white dwarf. Over 1,051 days of optical spectra and photometry, the nova faded very slowly (t2 ~ 165 days), entered a coronal phase by day 371, and photoionization modeling of seven epochs gives near-solar neon, enhanced helium, and subsolar iron and calcium. If correct, the earlier ONeMg classification—based largely on neon lines and inferred aluminum—rests on diagnostics that are not unique, and V1405 Cas joins slow CO novae with high ejecta mass. A sympathetic reader should care because this changes how the nova population is classified and links slow decline to low-mass white dwarfs.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by photoionization modeling with the Cloudy code: a one-component, spherically symmetric shell with a blackbody central source, power-law density profile (alpha = -2), constant filling factor (0.1), and varying temperature, luminosity, density, and abundances. The ejecta radii are set by observed FWHM expansion velocities, and the model is fit to line fluxes normalized to H-beta. This machinery converts line ratios into abundances and ejecta mass; the near-solar neon it returns is the evidence against ONeMg. Supporting machinery: the t2/t3-M_WD relation that gives ~0.7 solar masses and the donor-star sequence giving a 0.43-solar-mass secondary.

What would settle it

Measure the neon abundance in the ultraviolet (e.g., [Ne III] 3869 separated from H-zeta, or near-IR [Ne II] 12.8 microns) at several epochs; if Ne/H is consistently above about 2-3 times solar while helium is enhanced and the ejecta mass stays high, the CO classification would be overturned. A second test: detect strong carbon lines in the UV; their absence would not rule out CO, but strong neon and low carbon would favor an ONeMg origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that no direct optical spectroscopic evidence requires an ONeMg white dwarf in V1405 Cas. In photoionization models of seven epochs from day 240 to 1051, the neon abundance stays between 0.6 and 1.5 times solar, helium is persistently enhanced (~2.4 times solar), iron and calcium are subsolar, and the mean ejecta mass (~1.1 x 10^-4 solar masses) is high for a low-mass white dwarf. The slow decline (t2 = 165 days), the ~0.7 solar mass inferred from the t3-mass relation, and the near-solar neon together point to a CO white dwarf; neon lines in CO novae can arise from 22Ne produced in helium burning, so neon alone is not a reliable ONeMg marker.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a one-dimensional, smooth, spherical photoionization shell with a blackbody central source returns unbiased abundances—especially near-solar neon—for an ejecta that shows narrow Si II features suggesting clumps and late-epoch hydrogen column densities below the interstellar floor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Earlier ONeMg classifications of V1405 Cas based on neon emission lines and aluminum enrichment lose their force; those diagnostics are not unique to ONeMg white dwarfs.
  • If the white dwarf is indeed ~0.7 solar masses and CO, the slow decline, long-lived P Cygni profiles, and high ejecta mass form a coherent picture of a very slow CO nova.
  • Neon in CO nova ejecta can be understood as 22Ne from helium burning in the progenitor, so future nova classifications need abundance measurements, not just line detections.
  • A definitive classification requires UV and near-IR observations of carbon and neon lines, which the optical data cannot provide.
  • V1405 Cas becomes a benchmark slow nova whose multi-epoch physical conditions (rising temperature and luminosity, falling density) can be compared with other slow novae like HR Del and V723 Cas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ejecta are genuinely clumpy, as the narrow Si II lines suggest, a smooth one-dimensional model could bias the fitted neon abundance; the paper's conclusion would then reduce to the weaker claim that neon lines alone cannot prove an ONeMg white dwarf.
  • The late-epoch model hydrogen column densities falling below the interstellar value—flagged by the authors as unphysical—suggest the geometry and ionization structure are not fully captured; this is the softest point on which an independent abundance check could focus.
  • A testable extension: obtain UV spectra (e.g., C III/C IV, N III], O III]) and near-IR neon lines to measure Ne/H independently of optical recombination lines and check whether the near-solar neon holds.
  • More broadly, if this classification holds, the population of 'neon novae' identified by optical neon lines alone may be overestimated; re-analysis of other slow novae with the same modeling could revise the CO/ONeMg ratio.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports optical photometry and spectroscopy of the classical nova V1405 Cas over ~1051 days after outburst. From the light curve the authors derive t2≈165 d and t3≈175 d, and use the t3–MWD relation plus an assumed donor sequence to estimate M_WD≈0.7 M_sun and M_sec≈0.43 M_sun. The spectroscopic evolution is traced from early Balmer/He I P Cygni profiles through the appearance of coronal lines around day 371. Seven epochs (days 240–1051) are modeled with one-component, spherically symmetric CLOUDY photoionization models with 8 free parameters per epoch, yielding a gradual increase in T_BB and L, densities declining from ~5×10^7 to ~2.6×10^5 cm^-3, near-solar to mildly enhanced neon, enhanced helium, and sub-solar Fe and Ca. The mean ejecta mass is quoted as ~1.1×10^-4 M_sun. On this basis the paper concludes that the white dwarf is unlikely to be of ONeMg type and questions earlier neon-based classifications.

Significance. If the central conclusion holds, the paper provides a useful data point that the appearance of neon lines in a slow nova is not by itself diagnostic of an ONeMg white dwarf, and it adds a long, quasi-homogeneous spectroscopic sequence to the literature. The paper is transparent: it lists full parameter tables, reports χ²_red values, and includes explicit statements of model limitations (e.g., the low late-epoch NH and the Hζ/Hε blending with [Ne III]). These strengths make the dataset valuable even if some of the abundance claims need to be softened. The main significance—the non-ONeMg classification—is, however, only as strong as the photoionization-model constraints on neon, which the paper itself shows are fragile.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.3, Table 2] The abstract and §3.3.3 state that neon is 'broadly consistent with solar' and that there is 'no significant neon overabundance', but the fitted values are Ne/Ne_sun = 1.4±0.3 (day 981) and 1.5±0.2 (day 1051). The latter is ~2.5σ above solar, and the epoch-to-epoch variation from 0.6 to 1.5 is a factor ~2.5. The claim 'no statistically significant variations' is therefore not supported by the quoted uncertainties. The conclusion should be reworded to reflect a mild late-time enhancement that is formally significant at the last epoch, or the uncertainties need to be revisited.
  2. [Table 3, §3.3.3] The neon abundance is the load-bearing quantity for the non-ONeMg conclusion, but the model includes no unblended neon emission line. The table note states that Hζ and Hε may be blended with [Ne III] 3869 and 3968 Å and that the components 'cannot be reliably separated', so the presence of [Ne III] cannot be directly confirmed. The fitted Ne/H therefore rests almost entirely on these blended features and on the model's internal ionization balance. The authors should state this explicitly and provide a robustness test, e.g., fitting with [Ne III] excluded, or deriving an independent upper limit on Ne/H from the non-detection of [Ne III]/[Ne V] lines. Without such a test, the fitted Ne/H is not a secure basis for the paper's central claim.
  3. [§3.3.2, Table 2] The paper admits that the same one-dimensional CLOUDY model that yields the neon abundances produces late-epoch hydrogen column densities below the interstellar floor (NH ≈ 6.6×10^20 cm^-2 vs. ~3.6×10^21 cm^-2 from E(B–V)=0.53), calling this 'not physically expected' and attributing it to limitations of the 1-D geometry, density distribution, filling factor, and ionization structure. Those are precisely the degrees of freedom that control the ionization balance and hence the derived Ne/H. Since the highest neon values (1.4–1.5 solar) occur at the late epochs where the model is admitted to fail, the neon conclusion needs either a late-epoch reanalysis with a more physical geometry (e.g., two-component or clumpy density law) or a clearly stated upper-limit interpretation. This is a load-bearing issue, not a cosmetic one.
  4. [§3.3.4, Eq. (5)] The ejecta-mass argument is also weaker than presented. The CLOUDY masses range from 0.35×10^-4 to 3.27×10^-4 M_sun (a factor ~9 scatter), and the adopted mean 1.1×10^-4 M_sun is an average of a Cloudy mean of ~1.5×10^-4 and the He-method mean of ~0.66×10^-4. The statement that 'such a high mean ejected mass is usually expected from a low mass WD' gives this quantity more weight than the scatter and model sensitivity warrant. The mass estimate should be presented as order-of-magnitude only and should not be used as an independent discriminator for the ONeMg vs. CO question without a propagation of the systematic uncertainties in α, filling factor, and geometry.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains an unwanted space: 'T emporal' should be 'Temporal'.
  2. [Table 3 note] The note refers to 'H ζ and H η' but the table rows are Hζ (3889) and Hε (3970). The second line should be Hε, not Hη.
  3. [Table 4] The column header 'He II 7065' is incorrect; 7065 Å is He I. Similarly, the text in §3.2.1 sometimes calls He I 7065 a triplet, which is consistent with He I, not He II.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The text reads 'AAA VSO'; the correct abbreviation is AAVSO (American Association of Variable Star Observers).
  5. [§3.3, Table 2] The table caption says abundances are 'expressed on a logarithmic scale relative to hydrogen', but the listed values (e.g., He/He_sun = 1.6–3.0) are clearly linear ratios. Please clarify the convention in the caption and the text.
  6. [§3.3] The sentence in the model description says the one-component model 'allowed us to generate almost all lines within a reasonably acceptable fitting range', but the companion statement that two-component models produced no new lines is only mentioned in passing. Given the admitted 1-D limitations, a brief description of the two-component test (parameter ranges, resulting χ²) would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-ONeMg conclusion is an interpretation of fitted abundances, not a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that photoionization modeling yields near-solar Ne/H and a relatively high ejecta mass, which together argue against an ONeMg white dwarf. This is an inference from model fits to observed spectra, not a derivation in which a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The neon abundance and ejecta mass are free outputs of the Cloudy fitting procedure; they are not imposed by the model's construction, and the earlier ONeMg classifications are explicitly challenged rather than assumed. The model is admittedly simple and the authors themselves flag in §3.3.2 that late-epoch column densities falling below the interstellar value are 'not physically expected' and attributable to 'limitations of the one-dimensional CLOUDY modeling.' That is a robustness caveat, not circularity: it weakens confidence in the fitted abundances but does not make the conclusion equivalent to the input. The self-citations in §3.3 are methodological references to prior uses of Cloudy and are not load-bearing; the key abundance comparison is to the independent result of T. N. Tarasova (2024), and the WD mass estimate relies on an external t3–MWD relation (M. Livio 1992). The conclusion is also carefully hedged ('unlikely', 'no direct spectroscopic evidence'), consistent with an evidentiary claim rather than a tautology. No equation is shown to reduce to its own input, and no fitted value is presented as an independent prediction. Overall, the paper's logic is underdetermined by model assumptions but not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative conclusions are reached by fitting a blackbody-plus-shell Cloudy model to line fluxes at 7 epochs: fitted TBB, L, nH and five abundances per epoch, with alpha = -2, beta = 0, ff = 0.1 and covering factor 0.85-0.9 imposed by hand. The interpretation chain to the WD-type conclusion adds empirical anchors (t3-MWD calibration, donor-sequence masses, Gaia distance, E(B-V) = 0.53) adopted from the literature. No new physical entities are invented. The load-bearing input is the assumption that a 1-D, smooth, photoionization-dominated spherical shell adequately represents heterogeneously structured ejecta — an assumption the paper itself partially concedes (late-epoch NH below the ISM floor).

free parameters (14)
  • Blackbody temperature TBB = 0.316 -> 1.549 x 10^5 K across 7 epochs (Table 2)
    Fitted to reproduce line ratios; drives the 'temperature evolution' claim in the abstract.
  • Bolometric luminosity L = 0.631 -> 3.981 x 10^38 erg/s (Table 2)
    Fitted per epoch; final value ~4 x 10^38 erg/s exceeds Eddington for a 0.7 M_sun WD, not discussed.
  • Hydrogen density nH = 50.12 -> 0.263 x 10^6 cm^-3 (Table 2)
    Fitted; enters the ejecta-mass formula (Eq. 5) that supports the low-mass WD argument.
  • Helium abundance He/He_sun = 1.6-3.0 (Table 2)
    Fitted; interpreted as persistent He enrichment from WD-core mixing.
  • Nitrogen abundance N/N_sun = 0.9-1.5 (Table 2)
    Fitted; near-solar within uncertainties.
  • Iron abundance Fe/Fe_sun = 0.14-0.6 (Table 2)
    Fitted; subsolar in every epoch, interpreted as dust depletion or low initial abundance.
  • Neon abundance Ne/Ne_sun = 0.6-1.5 (Table 2; last two epochs 1.4-1.5)
    Fitted; the crux of the non-ONeMg conclusion. The last two epochs are only mildly supersolar within 1-2 sigma.
  • Calcium abundance Ca/Ca_sun = 0.2-1.0 (Table 2)
    Fitted; subsolar median, feeding the dust/low-abundance interpretation.
  • Filling factor ff = 0.1 (fixed)
    Chosen by hand from Ederoclite et al. 2006 / Shore 2008; sets the mass scale in Eq. 5.
  • Density power-law index alpha = -2 (fixed)
    Chosen by hand; §3.3 justification ('constant mass per unit volume' with linear velocity law) is internally inconsistent — a steady wind with v proportional to r gives rho proportional to r^-3.
  • Covering factor = 0.85-0.90
    Near-constant tuned value; multiplies the ejecta mass.
  • t3-MWD calibration constant C = 51.3 (adopted from V1500 Cyg, Livio 1992)
    Empirical calibration constant carrying the M_WD ~ 0.7 M_sun claim; adopted without uncertainty despite known scatter in the t3-MWD relation.
  • Reddening E(B-V) = 0.53 mag (adopted from Munari & Valisa 2022)
    Chosen by hand from the literature; every dereddened flux, line ratio, and fitted abundance scales with this value.
  • Distance d = 1.73 kpc (adopted from Taguchi et al. 2023, Gaia)
    External measurement adopted without independent check; sets the luminosity scale of the fits.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The central WD ionizing source radiates as a blackbody with temperature TBB and bolometric luminosity L.
    §3.3: 'the surface of the central WD emits ionizing blackbody radiation'; a real WD atmosphere differs, which can bias fitted T and abundances.
  • ad hoc to paper The ejecta is a single spherical shell with density rho proportional to r^-2, constant filling factor 0.1, and covering factor below 1.
    §3.3, Eq. 3. The paper itself concedes the 1-D model limitation in §3.3.2 (unphysical late-epoch NH below the ISM floor).
  • domain assumption Photoionization, not shocks or collisional ionization, dominates the modeled epochs (day >= 240).
    §3.3: modeling begins at day 240 because 'photoionization may not have been the dominant process in the early days'; late epochs are assumed photoionization-dominated although gamma-ray and radio detections imply shocks exist.
  • domain assumption The empirical t3-MWD relation of Livio (1992), calibrated with constant C = 51.3, applies to V1405 Cas.
    §3.1.1: yields M_WD ~ 0.7 M_sun; the relation has large intrinsic scatter and is the sole basis for the WD-mass value.
  • domain assumption The Warner/Knigge donor-sequence relations apply at P_orb = 4.52 h for the secondary star.
    §3.1.1: gives M_sec ~ 0.43 M_sun and R_sec ~ 0.48 R_sun; these are semi-empirical sequences for cataclysmic variables.
  • standard math Case B recombination at Te = 10^4 K describes the observed Balmer decrement during the nebular phase.
    §3.2.1: used to interpret H-alpha/H-beta, H-gamma/H-beta and H-delta/H-beta ratios; deviations are attributed to mild optical depth.
  • domain assumption Elements not in the fitted set (O, C, Si, etc.) are at solar abundances (Grevesse et al. 2010).
    §3.3: only He, N, Fe, Ne, Ca are varied; the 'ejecta composed of He, N, Fe, Ne, Ca' statement in the abstract is partly an artifact of this choice.
  • domain assumption CO white dwarfs contain enough 22Ne to produce mild neon enrichment without an ONeMg core.
    §3.3.3: via 14N(a,g)18F(e+v)18O(a,g)22Ne (Guo et al. 2022); this carries part of the burden of interpreting solar-to-mild Ne as CO-compatible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Spectroscopy and Temporal Evolution of the Nova V1405 Cas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEDV6TDY

@misc{pith2026260719138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Spectroscopy and Temporal Evolution of the Nova V1405 Cas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEDV6TDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19138}
}
abstract

This paper presents the findings from our study of nova V1405~Cas over the first 1051 days after the outburst. The study includes an analysis of the photometric light curve evolution, along with a detailed spectroscopic evolution. Photometric analysis shows that the nova is a very slow nova, with a decline timescale of $t_2 \approx 165$ days. The mass of the white dwarf is calculated as \( M_{\rm WD} \sim 0.7\~M_{\odot} \). The secondary star is a low-mass main-sequence star, with a mass of \( M_{\rm sec} \approx 0.43\~M_{\odot} \). Spectral observations show initial dominance by Balmer emission lines accompanied by prominent P Cygni profiles during the first +339 days. These features disappeared in later epochs, being replaced by high-ionization coronal lines, indicating that the nova had transitioned to the coronal phases by day +371. To investigate the physical conditions of the ejecta and the central source, we conducted photoionization modeling using \textsc{cloudy}. Our model reveals a gradual increase in the temperature and luminosity of the system, and suggests that the ejecta were primarily composed of He, N, Fe, Ne, and Ca, with noticeable temporal variations in their relative abundances. The estimated mean ejected mass is approximately $1.10~\times~10^{-4}\~M_{\odot}$, which is relatively high and suggests a low-mass white dwarf. Our optical spectroscopic and photometric analyses, combined with detailed photoionization modeling, indicate that the white dwarf in Nova V1405 Cas is unlikely to be of the ONeMg type.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. BVRI Light curves of Nova Cas 2021 generated using optical data obtained from AAVSO. Offsets are applied to the R, B, and I bands for the sake of clarity. K. Taguchi et al. (2023), who suggested a WD mass potentially below 1.1M⊙. In most cases, such low masses are typically associated with CO WDs. Based on post-outburst optical light curves obtained by TESS, P. Barrett & J. Prendergast (2025); B. E. Schaefer (2021) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reddening-corrected and flux-calibrated spectra of V1405 Cas obtained at twenty-one epochs, with the corresponding days indicated on the right. For clarity, most spectra have been vertically offset as shown in the figure. The vertical axis represents the flux on a logarithmic scale, while the horizontal axis denotes the wavelength in Å. Notably, prominent helium and iron lines appeared in the spectra around day 92. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gr-8 spectra of V1405 Cas span from 6600 to 9000 Å. The dates following the outburst are indicated in grey on the left side within the box. Each emission line is offset and labeled in grey at the center. The vertical scale is logarithmic to enhance the visibility of fainter features. The term ’atm’ denotes atmospheric absorption observed around 6876 Å. population and therefore responds differently to the evolving ph… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Line profiles of Hα, Hβ, Hγ, He II 4686 Å, [Fe VII] 5721 Å, and [Fe VII] 6086 Å. In the Hα panel, the symbols ”∗” and ”⋄” mark the central velocities of the P Cygni absorption minima at ∼ −1441 km s−1 (day +2) and −2221 km s−1 (day +284), respectively. In the Hβ panel,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of the most prominent emission lines—Hα, Hβ, Hγ, Hσ, He I 5876, 6678, 7065 Å, and He II 4686 Å. The upper panel shows the flux evolution of the aforementioned lines over the first 1050 days. Most of the line fluxes gradually increased until day 92, f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the Balmer line ratios relative to Hβ. The horizontal lines represent the expected Case B values at an electron temperature of 10,000 K: Hα/Hβ = 2.85, Hγ/Hβ = 0.47, and Hδ/Hβ = 0.26, listed from top to bottom (D. G. Hummer & P. J. Storey 1987; D. E. Osterb…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The best-fitting cloudy synthetic spectra (red solid lines) are overplotted on the observed spectra (black dashed lines) of V1405 Cas, obtained on day 240 (2021 November 13.39 UT), day 339 (2022 Feb 19.42 UT), day 432 (2022 May 24.22 UT), day 626 (2022 December 3.66 UT…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/30

    Arai, A., Kawakita, H., Shinnaka, Y., & Tajitsu, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/30

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/30 2016

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb 2020

  4. [4]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3342 2024

  5. [5]

    D., Mérand, A., et al

    Aydi, E., Monnier, J. D., Mérand, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1 2025

  6. [6]

    Banerjee, C. E. W. D. P. K., & Evans, A. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14665, 1

    2021

  7. [7]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Barrett, P., & Prendergast, J. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 210.05

    2025

  8. [8]

    A., Skillman, E

    Benjamin, R. A., Skillman, E. D., & Smits, D. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 307, doi: 10.1086/306923

    doi:10.1086/306923 1999

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Evans, A

    Bode, M. F., & Evans, A. 2008, Classical Novae, 2nd edn., Cambridge Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511536168

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    C., & Jean, P

    Buson, S., Cheung, C. C., & Jean, P. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14658, 1 20 Habtie & et al

    2021

  3. [11]

    Cassatella, A., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Rossi, C., Altamore, A., & González-Riestra, R. 2004, A&A, 420, 571, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034102

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    D., & Shen, K

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

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    A., & Ulrich, R

    Drake, S. A., & Ulrich, R. K. 1980, ApJS, 42, 351, doi: 10.1086/190654

    1980 doi

  6. [14]

    2006, A&A, 459, 875, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065741

    Ederoclite, A., Mason, E., Della Valle, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 875, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065741

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Howk, J

    Friedman, S. D., Howk, J. C., Chayer, P., et al. 2002, ApJS, 140, 37, doi: 10.1086/339132

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Truran, J

    Gehrz, R. D., Truran, J. W., Williams, R. E., & Starrfield, S. 1998, PASP, 110, 3, doi: 10.1086/316107

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Livne, E., & Truran, J

    Glasner, A. S., Livne, E., & Truran, J. W. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.6777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1111.6777

    2011 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14620, 1

    Gong, Y.-H., & Li, K.-L. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14620, 1

    2021

  11. [19]

    J., & Scott, P

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 179, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0288-z

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Ferland, G. J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 246, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2975, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1506

    Guo, Y., Wu, C., & Wang, B. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2975, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1506

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, A&A, 660, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142163 Güver, T., & Özel, F

    Guo, Y., Wu, C., & Wang, B. 2022, A&A, 660, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142163 Güver, T., & Özel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    2022

  15. [23]

    R., & Das, R

    Habtie, G. R., & Das, R. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.03234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.03234

    doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    R., & Das, R

    Habtie, G. R., & Das, R. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf119

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Dubovsky, P. A. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 1405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3295

    doi

  18. [26]

    Dubovsky, P. A. 2024b, MNRAS, 529, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae617

    doi

  19. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 816, 26, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/26

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2016, ApJ, 816, 26, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/26

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Woodward, C

    Helton, L. A., Woodward, C. E., Walter, F. M., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1347, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1347

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Solar and Galactic Composition

    Holweger, H. 2001, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 598, Joint SOHO/ACE workshop “Solar and Galactic Composition”, ed. R. F. Wimmer-Schweingruber (AIP), 23–30, doi: 10.1063/1.1433974

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    G., & Storey, P

    Hummer, D. G., & Storey, P. J. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/224.3.801

    1987 doi

  23. [31]

    1998, A&A, 338, 1006 José, J., & Hernanz, M

    Iijima, T., Rosino, L., & della Valle, M. 1998, A&A, 338, 1006 José, J., & Hernanz, M. 1998, ApJ, 494, 680, doi: 10.1086/305244

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0904.2228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0904.2228

    Kato, T., Nakajima, K., Maehara, H., & Kiyota, S. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0904.2228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0904.2228

    2009 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

    Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J. 2011, ApJS, 194, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1672

    Leung, S.-C., & Siegert, T. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1672

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    1992, ApJ, 393, 516, doi: 10.1086/171524

    Livio, M. 1992, ApJ, 393, 516, doi: 10.1086/171524

    1992 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14471, 1

    Isogai, K. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14471, 1

    2021

  29. [37]

    G., & Shirley, Y

    Mangum, J. G., & Shirley, Y. L. 2015, PASP, 127, 266, doi: 10.1086/680323 Martí, J., Luque-Escamilla, P. L., & Peri, C. S. 2024, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, 40, 13

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2014, A&A, 569, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424274

    Mason, E., & Munari, U. 2014, A&A, 569, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424274

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    1990, ApJ, 358, 344, doi: 10.1086/168991

    Massey, P., & Gronwall, C. 1990, ApJ, 358, 344, doi: 10.1086/168991

    1990 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15796, 1

    Munari, U., & Valisa, P. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15796, 1

    2022

  33. [41]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14614, 1

    Munari, U., Valisa, P., & Dallaporta, S. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14614, 1

    2021

  34. [42]

    P., Dobrotka, A., et al

    Ness, J.-U., Osborne, J. P., Dobrotka, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/70

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    1975, MNRAS, 171, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/171.2.395

    Netzer, H. 1975, MNRAS, 171, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/171.2.395

    1975 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Ness, J.-U., et al

    Orio, M., Drake, J. J., Ness, J.-U., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c4d

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei ((university science books,

    1989

  38. [46]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  39. [47]

    L., & Shore, S

    Page, K. L., & Shore, S. N. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16876, 1

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wagner, R. M. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15111, 1 V1405 Cas 21

    2021

  41. [49]

    2022a, ApJ, 925, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36dc

    Pandey, R., Das, R., Shaw, G., & Mondal, S. 2022a, ApJ, 925, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36dc

    doi

  42. [50]

    R., Bandyopadhyay, R., et al

    Pandey, R., Habtie, G. R., Bandyopadhyay, R., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2079

    doi

  43. [51]

    2009, ApJL, 701, L119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L119

    Pejcha, O. 2009, ApJL, 701, L119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L119

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Starrfield, S

    Perron, I., Woodward, C., Wagner, R. M., & Starrfield, S. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2023

  45. [53]

    Rawlings, J. M. C. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/232.3.507

    1988 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Subasavage, J

    Rudy, R. J., Subasavage, J. P., & Mauerhan, J. C. 2023b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 277, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1684 Santamaría, E., Toalá, J. A., Guerrero, M. A.,

    doi

  47. [55]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1139

    Ramos-Larios, G., & Sabin, L. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1139

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 150, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac0d5b

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Shore, S

    Schwarz, G. J., Shore, S. N., Starrfield, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 103, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03960.x

    2001

  50. [58]

    Shore, S. N. 2008, Optical and ultraviolet evolution, 2nd edn., Cambridge Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), 194–231, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511536168.011

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    Riestra-Gonzalez, R., & Ake, T. B. 1993, AJ, 106, 2408, doi: 10.1086/116812

    1993 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14731, 1

    Sokolovsky, K., Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14731, 1

    2021

  53. [61]

    Starrfield, S., Iliadis, C., & Hix, W. R. 2016, PASP, 128, 051001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/963/051001

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    W., Wiescher, M

    Starrfield, S., Truran, J. W., Wiescher, M. C., & Sparks, W. M. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 502, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01312.x

    1998

  55. [63]

    J., Schaefer, B

    Strope, R. J., Schaefer, B. E., & Henden, A. A. 2010, AJ, 140, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/34

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14472, 1

    Taguchi, K., Maehara, H., Isogai, K., et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14472, 1

    2021

  57. [65]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0133

    Taguchi, K., Maeda, K., Maehara, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0133

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2285

    Takeda, L., Diaz, M., Campbell, R., & Lyke, J. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2285

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.159

    Tanaka, J., Nogami, D., Fujii, M., Ayani, K., & Kato, T. 2011, PASJ, 63, 159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.159

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    Tarasova, T. N. 2024, Astronomy Letters, 50, 317, doi: 10.1134/S1063773724700208

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 217

    Teyssier, F. 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 217

    2019

  62. [70]

    2024, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 54, 107, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2024.54.2.107

    Teyssier, F., & Sims, F. 2024, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 54, 107, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2024.54.2.107

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  64. [72]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.04656, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.04656

    Vagnozzi, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.04656, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.04656

    2023 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586491

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586491

    1995 doi

  66. [74]

    A., & Clayton, G

    Whitney, B. A., & Clayton, G. C. 1989, AJ, 98, 297, doi: 10.1086/115146

    1989 doi

  67. [75]

    Williams, R. E. 1992, AJ, 104, 725, doi: 10.1086/116268

    1992 doi

  68. [76]

    E., Hamuy, M., Phillips, M

    Williams, R. E., Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., et al. 1991, ApJ, 376, 721, doi: 10.1086/170319

    1991 doi

  69. [77]

    E., Evans, A., & Banerjee, D

    Woodward, C. E., Evans, A., & Banerjee, D. P. K. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15540, 1

    2022

  70. [78]

    E., Wagner, R

    Woodward, C. E., Wagner, R. M., IIyin, I., & Starrfield, S. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16089, 1

    2023

  71. [79]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398, doi: 10.1086/428435

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.