Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 264 references

A Random Forest trained on eROSITA X-ray and Gaia optical properties, plus spectroscopy, yields 156 cataclysmic variables from eRASS1 and outperforms other counterpart-selection methods.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 18:52 UTC pith:NWFF3YLD

load-bearing objection Solid eRASS1 CV haul: 156 spectroscopically confirmed systems plus a practical RF+Gaia selection recipe that beats several published cuts; subtypes stay preliminary but the identification result holds. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28066 v1 pith:NWFF3YLD submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.SR

Cataclysmic variables from SRG/eROSITA: new systems from eRASS1

A.D. Schwope , J. Brink , D.A.H. Buckley , V. A. C\'uneo , S. Friedrich , S. Hern\'andez-D\'iaz , K. Knauff , J. Kurpas
show 7 more authors
G. Lamer S.B. Potter K.G. Pradeep M.R. Schreiber B. Stelzer J. R. Thorstensen D. Tubin-Arenas
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords cataclysmic variableseROSITAeRASS1Random Forest classificationGaia counterpartsintermediate polarsGalactic Ridge X-ray Emissionoptical spectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Cataclysmic variables (CVs) are compact binaries with an accreting white dwarf. They are key to binary evolution, magnetic-field physics, and the Galactic Ridge X-ray Emission, but samples have been small and biased. This paper trains a Random Forest on combined eROSITA X-ray and Gaia optical properties to pick CV candidates from the first all-sky eROSITA survey, then confirms them with optical spectroscopy and supporting photometry. It reports 156 CVs spanning a wide range of distances, brightnesses, and X-ray luminosities, most identified as CVs for the first time, including magnetic systems and luminous intermediate-polar candidates. The authors argue this route builds cleaner, more complete CV samples than several published selection methods and sets up volume-limited work on evolution and the ridge emission.

Core claim

A Random Forest classifier that maps joint X-ray and Gaia properties into a CV likelihood, followed by secure spectroscopic identification, recovers 156 CVs from eRASS1—mostly new—across subtypes, periods from the CV minimum (~79 min) to almost a day, and X-ray luminosities up to log LX ~ 33.3. The same sample shows the method beats several literature counterpart and CV-selection recipes in completeness and purity for building large CV samples from eROSITA.

What carries the argument

The Random Forest CV classifier: trained on known CVs using X-ray flux, Gaia BP−RP, G magnitude, proper motion, distance, and variability, then used as a prior in Bayesian cross-matching to rank Gaia counterparts of eRASS1 point sources for spectroscopic follow-up.

Load-bearing premise

That subtype labels drawn from single-epoch spectra, line ratios, diagnostic diagrams, and incomplete photometry are solid enough to count magnetic systems and call the brightest objects strong intermediate-polar candidates for the ridge emission.

What would settle it

Dedicated time-resolved optical and X-ray follow-up of the luminous IP candidates and soft sources that fails to recover white-dwarf spin periods, magnetic signatures, or soft blackbody components would undermine the population and GRXE claims tied to those subtypes.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • eROSITA plus Gaia can support volume-limited CV samples out to a few hundred parsecs once spectroscopic follow-up is complete.
  • X-ray-luminous new systems enlarge the pool of intermediate-polar candidates thought to dominate the Galactic Ridge X-ray Emission.
  • The confirmed sample can retrain selection for deeper southern surveys and stacked eROSITA catalogs.
  • Eclipsing systems, cyclotron/Zeeman objects, and soft X-ray sources become concrete targets for field-strength and accretion-geometry studies.
  • Snapshot flux-limited CV catalogs must account for strong state changes when deriving space densities and luminosity functions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the RF-plus-spectroscopy pipeline scales cleanly to fainter stacked surveys, the historical gap between magnetic and non-magnetic orbital-period distributions can be tested with less selection bias than optical-only samples.
  • Contamination by AGN that Gaia distances misplace as Galactic objects remains a systematic floor that pure X-ray/optical color cuts will not remove without spectra.
  • The soft X-ray sources labeled magnetic but not yet uniquely typed are a high-leverage test of whether some high-state nova-likes can show boundary-layer soft excesses after all.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Random Forest selection of CV candidates from eRASS1 (combined eROSITA X-ray and Gaia properties), followed by low-resolution spectroscopic confirmation of 156 CVs (mostly new), plus supporting photometry and archival light curves. Periods are reported for 40 objects (79.2 min to ~22 h), seven eclipsing systems, five with cyclotron/Zeeman field constraints, and 14 soft X-ray sources interpreted as magnetic. Subtypes are assigned from line ratios, diagnostic diagrams, and variability; the sample is used to compare the selection method against Freund et al., Salvato et al., Rodriguez et al., and Gaia variability catalogs, arguing superiority for building comprehensive CV samples relevant to binary evolution and the GRXE.

Significance. This is a substantial observational contribution: a large, spectroscopically confirmed eROSITA CV haul with public diagnostic products, explicit contaminant reporting, and quantitative head-to-head checks against independent counterpart methods. The confirmation rate (~156/162) and the method comparison in §6.1 are the load-bearing results and will be useful for 4MOST/SDSS-V target selection and future volume-limited CV work. Periods, eclipses, and magnetic spectral features add immediate follow-up value. Strengths include external spectroscopic gold-standard confirmation (not RF self-labeling), tabulated match statistics, and open graphical products. Population and GRXE statements are appropriately scoped as exploratory given the flux cut and candidate subtypes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 2 / §5.1] Table 2 subtype totals do not add: NL 19 + DN 67 + MCV 63 + CV 6 + WD pulsar 1 = 156, yet the table footer lists Total 158 (and the <1 kpc column 79). The abstract and §5.1 also use 156. Please correct the arithmetic and any dependent percentages so the breakdown is internally consistent before publication.
  2. [§4.5, Table 2, §5–6] §4.5 and Table 2 assign many objects as IP/polar/DN/NL (often with 'cand'), and §5–6 then use those labels for sample fractions and for calling X-ray-luminous systems 'excellent' new IP/GRXE candidates (e.g. LX > 10^32 erg s^-1 cut). The identification-and-method claim is solid, but any quantitative subtype mix or GRXE implication should be more clearly limited to secure subsets (spin detections, soft HR1+HeII, eclipses) versus single-epoch line-ratio candidates. A short explicit statement of which population statements survive if all 'cand' labels are dropped would strengthen the discussion without new data.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract / §4.3] Abstract and elsewhere: 'securly' → 'securely'; also check 'J1515−-53' double hyphen and similar name typos in §4.3.
  2. [Abstract / §5.2] Abstract quotes log LX = 29.6–33.3 while §5.2 text gives 30.1–33.3; align the reported range with the table/catalog values.
  3. [Abstract / §4.3] §4.3 states 44 objects with stable periods and 40 orbital; abstract says 40 periods. Keep wording consistent (orbital vs all periodic signals).
  4. [Fig. 9] Fig. 9 and related panels use non-ASCII minus signs and fx=fopt-style labels in the text dump; ensure journal-ready axis labels (log(fX/fopt), GBP−GRP) in the production figures.
  5. [§2 / §6.1] §2: training used 642 known CVs and a preliminary c946 catalog; a one-sentence note on whether any of the 156 later entered the refined 4MOST training set (and how leakage was avoided for the superiority tests) would help reproducibility.
  6. [Table B.2] Table B.2 / online table: several Notes are terse (e.g. 'soft X', 'UG'); a key in the caption for subclass abbreviations would help non-CV specialists.
  7. [References] References include several 'subm.' / 2026 items; verify status and update or mark as in press as appropriate at acceptance.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: RF selection is validated by independent spectroscopy; mild self-use of the haul only for future 4MOST training.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract Results; Sect. 6.2 Summary and outlook]
    "The new method of selecting CVs from eRASS1 was found to be superior to other methods described in the literature and the new CVs were used to further refine the method. ... The sample generated in this work was used to further train the machine-learning algorithm to select targets for spectroscopic follow-up with 4MOST"

    The confirmed haul is fed back into the same class of RF selector for a future survey. That is a mild closed loop for subsequent target lists, but it is not load-bearing for the paper’s central claim (spectroscopic identification of 156 CVs and superiority checks against independent catalogs). Flagged only as minor self-use, not as a forced prediction.

full rationale

This is an observational identification paper, not a first-principles derivation. The load-bearing chain is: (1) train an RF on a compiled list of known CVs with eROSITA/Gaia features; (2) rank eRASS1 counterparts; (3) confirm candidates with new low-resolution spectra and photometry; (4) compare recovery against independent catalogs (Freund, Salvato, Rodriguez, Eyer Gaia variables, Gentile Fusillo WDs). Step (3) is external empirical confirmation, not a tautology of the training labels. Step (4) uses other groups’ published selections. Subtype tags are explicitly preliminary and candidate-tagged; they are not presented as forced predictions from fitted parameters. The only mild loop is that the newly confirmed sample is said to further train selection for 4MOST—an outlook, not a premise of the 156-CV haul or the superiority statistics. Self-citations (e.g. Schwope et al. 2024b diagnostic diagrams, completeness radii) supply context and tools but do not uniquely force the identification claim. Score 1 for that non-load-bearing feedback mention only.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard survey cross-matching and CV taxonomy plus empirical ML training and flux/quality cuts, not on new physical entities. Load-bearing choices are the training sample of known CVs, the RF feature set, the fx>1e-13 cut, NWAY/Gaia counterpart association, Bailer-Jones distances for luminosities, and heuristic subtype rules from lines and diagrams.

free parameters (3)
  • eRASS1 flux cut fx(0.5-2 keV) > 1e-13 erg cm^-2 s^-1 = 1e-13 erg cm^-2 s^-1
    Hand-imposed exploratory threshold that defines the parent sample and drives the bright-end bias discussed in Sect. 5.
  • RF CV likelihood threshold / follow-up prior (PCV and NWAY match cuts) = PCV prior; match likelihood >~50%
    Classifier output and ~50% match likelihood used to choose ~200 spectroscopic targets from hundreds of candidates; exact operating point is operational rather than derived.
  • Subtype decision boundaries (e.g. EW(HeII)/EW(Hβ), LX>1e32 IP cut, HR1 soft/hard split) = e.g. EW(HeII)/EW(Hβ)>0.2; LX>1e32; HR1=0.3
    Empirical cuts from SDSS comparison samples and diagnostic diagrams used to assign IP/polar/DN/NL labels that enter Table 2 and GRXE-candidate discussion.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometry/photometry and Bailer-Jones r_geo distances are adequate to place counterparts in CMD, luminosity, and variability diagrams.
    Used throughout target selection and Fig. 9 luminosity-distance and absolute-magnitude estimates.
  • domain assumption Broad Balmer/He emission-line spectra plus continuum shape reliably identify CVs against stars and AGN at the resolution of EFOSC2/OSMOS/etc.
    Sect. 4.1 identification criterion; standard in the field but still an empirical classifier.
  • ad hoc to paper A Random Forest trained on 642 known CVs with X-ray+Gaia features generalizes to new eRASS1 sources sufficiently for efficient candidate ranking.
    Core selection engine in Sect. 2; performance is validated post hoc by spectroscopy, not proved a priori.
  • domain assumption Hardness ratio HR1<0.3 indicates an extra soft blackbody-like component and supports a magnetic classification.
    Sect. 5.2; applied to 14 soft sources all pre-classified as MCV candidates.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 32176 in / 3158 out tokens · 54122 ms · 2026-07-31T18:52:37.202092+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

(abridged) Aims. We aim to generate large samples of CVs selected from the SRG/eROSITA surveys to address fundamental questions about binary evolution, the role of magnetic fields in CV evolution and their contribution to the Galactic Ridge X-ray Emission (GRXE). Methods. We have trained a Random Forest (RF) classifier based on combined X-ray and optical properties to select CV candidates from the first eROSITA X-ray all-sky survey (eRASS1). Follow-up spectroscopy to securly identify the objects was performed on a subset of the selected candidates using telescopes at the Northern and the Southern hemisphere. Newly identified CVs were further analyzed to determine their likely subtype with the help of dedicated follow-up photometry, spectroscopy and archival resources. Results. We have identified 156 CVs of almost all subtypes covering a wide range of distances (between 170 pc and several kpc), absolute magnitudes (G= 4.5-12) and X-ray luminosities (log LX (0.2-2.3 keV)= 29.6-33.3 erg/s). For most objects, the nature as a CV is reported here for the first time. For 40 objects periods were determined, which were regarded as their likely orbital periods. These range from 79.2 min, at the CV minimum period, to almost 22 hours. Seven objects were found to be eclipsing, a lower limit to the actual number due to the current lack of dedicated follow-up observations. A further five objects show cyclotron or Zeeman features, that allowed to determine their field strengths. A soft component was found in 14 CVs, all were regarded being magnetic. The sample comprises X-ray luminous objects, excellent candidates for being new Intermediate Polars, that are thought to be main contributors to the GRXE. The new method of selecting CVs from eRASS1 was found to be superior to other methods described in the literature ...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28066 by A.D. Schwope, B. Stelzer, D.A.H. Buckley, D. Tubin-Arenas, G. Lamer, J. Brink, J. Kurpas, J. R. Thorstensen, K.G. Pradeep, K. Knauff, M.R. Schreiber, S.B. Potter, S. Friedrich, S. Hern\'andez-D\'iaz, V. A. C\'uneo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Discovery spectrum of J0356−44, a dwarf nova (DN) at 170pc distance. The spectrum was obtained with EFOSC2 at the NTT. Vertical lines indicate main emission lines (H-Balmer lines with red, HeI with blue, and HeII with magenta color). The atmospheric A- and B- absorption bands at 6860 Å and 7600 Å are also indicated. Shown with red color is a scaled M4 dwarf star template spectrum from Kesseli et al. (2017)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Identification spectrum obtained with the MDM 2.4m (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Line diagnostics in CVs presented by Inight et al. (2025). The left panel shows equivalent width ratios of HeII, Balmer Hβ and Hα, the right panel shows the Hβ luminosity as a function of the flux ratio of the two main Balmer lines. were acquired using the Mookodi instrument in imaging mode, as well as with the SHOC instrument (Coppejans et al. 2013) on the SAAO 1.0 m telescope. Both instruments provide a … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-folded ATLAS light curve of J0715+08 be presented elsewhere, but part of it was used here and two of the diagnostics are therefore shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TESS (sector 12) light curve of J1716−36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SAAO light curve of J0755−17, unveiling the 33 min spin period of the IP candidate served (J0426−25, J0503−24, J0503+20, J0509−03, J0531−01, J0559+11, J0610+31, J0715+08, J0726−10, J1113−17). An at￾tempt to determine the period for the eleventh object, J0729+09, remained unsuccessful although a relatively large number of 24 spectra were obtained. The periods found range from 1.6 h (J0503+20, DN) to 10.04 h… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Discovery spectrum of J1754−44, dominated by cyclotron harmonic emission from a magnetized plasma with B = 47 MG, obtained with EFOSC2 at the NTT. The inset shows the region around the Hα line. at 3σ, but better compatible with the revised minimum period of 79.6 ± 0.2 min given by McAllister et al. (2019). To summarize, the photometric and spectroscopic follow￾up of our new CVs revealed stable periodic sig… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagnostic diagrams showing the location of all new CVs compared to unrelated objects or candidate CVs. The CCD is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Gaia collaboration has generated and published with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: X-ray variability of new CVs. Non-classified CVs are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗

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

264 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 60, 6

    Avakyan , A., Zainab , A., Doroshenko , V., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 60, 6

    2025

  2. [2]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

    2021

  3. [3]

    2024, , 684, A190

    Balman , S ., Khamitov , I., Kolbin , A., et al. 2024, , 684, A190

    2024

  4. [4]

    & Schreiber , M

    Belloni , D. & Schreiber , M. R. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129

    2023

  5. [5]

    V., Zharikov , S

    Bobakov , A. V., Zharikov , S. V., Karpova , A. V., et al. 2025, , 541, 3468

    2025

  6. [6]

    Brink , J. & et al. 2026, , subm

    2026

  7. [7]

    2022, , 661, A1

    Brunner , H., Liu , T., Lamer , G., et al. 2022, , 661, A1

    2022

  8. [8]

    2019, The Messenger, 175, 30

    Chiappini , C., Minchev , I., Starkenburg , E., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 30

    2019

  9. [9]

    Coppejans , R., Gulbis , A. A. S., Kotze , M. M., et al. 2013, , 125, 976

    2013

  10. [10]

    2022, , 662, A40

    Culpan , R., Geier , S., Reindl , N., et al. 2022, , 662, A40

    2022

  11. [11]

    A., Schwope , A

    C \'u neo , V. A., Schwope , A. D., Kurpas , J., et al. 2026, , 705, A71

    2026

  12. [12]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  13. [13]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Delrez , L., Gillon , M., Queloz , D., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10700, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VII, ed. H. K. Marshall & J. Spyromilio , 107001I

    2018

  14. [14]

    J., Djorgovski , S

    Drake , A. J., Djorgovski , S. G., Mahabal , A., et al. 2009, , 696, 870

    2009

  15. [15]

    A., Piascik , A

    Erasmus , N., Steele , I. A., Piascik , A. S., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 025005

    2024

  16. [16]

    2023, , 674, A13

    Eyer , L., Audard , M., Holl , B., et al. 2023, , 674, A13

    2023

  17. [17]

    2024, , 684, A121

    Freund , S., Czesla , S., Predehl , P., et al. 2024, , 684, A121

    2024

  18. [18]

    G \"a nsicke , B. T. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 330, The Astrophysics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. J. M. Hameury & J. P. Lasota , 3

    2005

  19. [19]

    P., Tremblay , P

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P. E., Cukanovaite , E., et al. 2021, , 508, 3877

    2021

  20. [20]

    P., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2019, , 482, 4570

    2019

  21. [21]

    2025, , 0000, A00

    Hernandez , S., Stelzer , B., Munoz-Giraldo , D., & Schwope , A. 2025, , 0000, A00

    2025

  22. [22]

    Hernandez-Diaz , S. & et al. 2026, , subm

    2026

  23. [23]

    2026, , 282, 26

    Hou , W., Lin , J.-M., Luo , A.-L., et al. 2026, , 282, 26

    2026

  24. [24]

    T., Breedt , E., et al

    Inight , K., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Breedt , E., et al. 2023 a , , 524, 4867

    2023

  25. [25]

    T., Breedt , E., et al

    Inight , K., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Breedt , E., et al. 2021, , 504, 2420

    2021

  26. [26]

    T., Schwope , A., et al

    Inight , K., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Schwope , A., et al. 2023 b , , 525, 3597

    2023

  27. [27]

    T., Schwope , A., et al

    Inight , K., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Schwope , A., et al. 2025, , 536, 1057

    2025

  28. [28]

    Y., West , A

    Kesseli , A. Y., West , A. A., Veyette , M., et al. 2017, , 230, 16

    2017

  29. [29]

    2011, , 194, 28

    Knigge , C., Baraffe , I., & Patterson , J. 2011, , 194, 28

    2011

  30. [30]

    I., Karpova , A

    Kolbin , A. I., Karpova , A. V., Suslikov , M. V., et al. 2024, Astronomy Letters, 50, 351

    2024

  31. [31]

    A., Rix , H.-W., Aerts , C., et al

    Kollmeier , J. A., Rix , H.-W., Aerts , C., et al. 2026, , 171, 52

    2026

  32. [32]

    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

    2018

  33. [33]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447

    1976

  34. [34]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003

    2019

  35. [35]

    P., Parsons , S

    McAllister , M., Littlefair , S. P., Parsons , S. G., et al. 2019, , 486, 5535

    2019

  36. [36]

    2024, , 682, A34

    Merloni , A., Lamer , G., Liu , T., et al. 2024, , 682, A34

    2024

  37. [37]

    2023, , 674, A16

    Mowlavi , N., Holl , B., Lecoeur-Ta \" bi , I., et al. 2023, , 674, A16

    2023

  38. [38]

    2024, , 687, A305

    Mu \ n oz-Giraldo , D., Stelzer , B., & Schwope , A. 2024, , 687, A305

    2024

  39. [39]

    2026, , 707, A62

    Mu \ n oz-Giraldo , D., Stelzer , B., Schwope , A., et al. 2026, , 707, A62

    2026

  40. [40]

    Ok , S., Schwope , A., Buckley , D. A. H., & Brink , J. 2024, , 686, A175

    2024

  41. [41]

    F., G \"a nsicke , B

    Pala , A. F., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Breedt , E., et al. 2020, , 494, 3799

    2020

  42. [42]

    R., Buckley , D

    Pelisoli , I., Marsh , T. R., Buckley , D. A. H., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 931

    2023

  43. [43]

    2021, , 647, A1

    Predehl , P., Andritschke , R., Arefiev , V., et al. 2021, , 647, A1

    2021

  44. [44]

    Ramos-Ceja , J. & et al. 2026, , subm

    2026

  45. [45]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  46. [46]

    & Kolb , U

    Ritter , H. & Kolb , U. 2003, , 404, 301

    2003

  47. [47]

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

    Rodriguez , A. C., El-Badry , K., Suleimanov , V., et al. 2025, , 137, 014201

    2025

  48. [48]

    2018, , 473, 4937

    Salvato , M., Buchner , J., Budav \'a ri , T., et al. 2018, , 473, 4937

    2018

  49. [49]

    2025, , 704, A344

    Salvato , M., Wolf , J., Dwelly , T., et al. 2025, , 704, A344

    2025

  50. [50]

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

    1982

  51. [51]

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

    Schreiber , M. R., Belloni , D., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Parsons , S. G., & Zorotovic , M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 648

    2021

  52. [52]

    R., Belloni , D., & Schwope , A

    Schreiber , M. R., Belloni , D., & Schwope , A. D. 2024, , 682, L7

    2024

  53. [53]

    Schwope , A., Buckley , D. A. H., Kawka , A., et al. 2022 a , , 661, A42

    2022

  54. [54]

    Schwope , A., Buckley , D. A. H., Malyali , A., et al. 2022 b , , 661, A43

    2022

  55. [55]

    2024 a , , 686, A110

    Schwope , A., Kurpas , J., Baecke , P., et al. 2024 a , , 686, A110

    2024

  56. [56]

    R., Standke , A., et al

    Schwope , A., Marsh , T. R., Standke , A., et al. 2023, , 674, L9

    2023

  57. [57]

    Schwope , A. D. & Beuermann , K. 1990, , 238, 173

    1990

  58. [58]

    D., Beuermann , K., Jordan , S., & Thomas , H.-C

    Schwope , A. D., Beuermann , K., Jordan , S., & Thomas , H.-C. 1993, , 278, 487

    1993

  59. [59]

    D., Brunner , H., Buckley , D., et al

    Schwope , A. D., Brunner , H., Buckley , D., et al. 2002 a , , 396, 895

    2002

  60. [60]

    D., Brunner , H., Hambaryan , V., & Schwarz , R

    Schwope , A. D., Brunner , H., Hambaryan , V., & Schwarz , R. 2002 b , in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 261, The Physics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. B. T. G \"a nsicke , K. Beuermann , & K. Reinsch , 102

    2002

  61. [61]

    D., Knauff , K., Kurpas , J., et al

    Schwope , A. D., Knauff , K., Kurpas , J., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A243

    2024

  62. [62]

    D., Mackebrandt , F., Thinius , B

    Schwope , A. D., Mackebrandt , F., Thinius , B. D., et al. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 115

    2015

  63. [63]

    F., Doroshenko , V., & Werner , K

    Suleimanov , V. F., Doroshenko , V., & Werner , K. 2022, , 511, 4937

    2022

  64. [64]

    2021, , 656, A132

    Sunyaev , R., Arefiev , V., Babyshkin , V., et al. 2021, , 656, A132

    2021

  65. [65]

    2021, , 162, 94

    Szkody , P., Olde Loohuis , C., Koplitz , B., et al. 2021, , 162, 94

    2021

  66. [66]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A. N., et al. 2018, , 130, 064505

    2018

  67. [67]

    A., Jordan , S., et al

    Vincent , O., Barstow , M. A., Jordan , S., et al. 2024, , 682, A5

    2024

  68. [68]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars (Cambridge Astroph

    Warner , B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars (Cambridge Astroph. Series, Vol. 28)

    1995

  69. [69]

    M., Marshall , F

    Worrall , D. M., Marshall , F. E., Boldt , E. A., & Swank , J. H. 1982, , 255, 111

    1982

  70. [70]

    , keywords =

    Least-Squares Frequency Analysis of Unequally Spaced Data. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/BF00648343 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1007/bf00648343

  71. [71]

    Studies in astronomical time series analysis. II. Statistical aspects of spectral analysis of unevenly spaced data. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/160554 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1086/160554

  72. [72]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    The origin and evolution of magnetic white dwarfs in close binary stars. Nature Astronomy , keywords =. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8 , archivePrefix =. 2104.14607 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [75]

    , keywords =

    BHM-SPIDERS Survey in SDSS-V: from X-ray targets to the DR20 spectroscopic samples. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0000-0000/000000000 , archivePrefix =. 2607.00000 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  74. [76]

    , keywords =

    The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Complete Release of MaNGA, MaStar, and APOGEE-2 Data. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , archivePrefix =. 2112.02026 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  75. [77]

    , keywords =

    Disentangling cataclysmic variables in Gaia's HR diagram. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz181 , archivePrefix =. 1912.01531 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  76. [78]

    , keywords =

    A Census of Symbiotic Stars in the 2MASS, WISE, and Gaia Surveys. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf88c , archivePrefix =. 1902.01451 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  77. [79]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    The Eighteenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Targeting and First Spectra from SDSS-V. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.07688 , archivePrefix =. 2301.07688 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.07688

  78. [80]

    , keywords =

    Photo-astrometric distances, extinctions, and astrophysical parameters for Gaia EDR3 stars brighter than G = 18.5. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142369 , archivePrefix =. 2111.01860 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [81]

    , keywords =

    Two new intermediate polars with a soft X-ray component. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810402 , archivePrefix =. 0808.1499 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [82]

    Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , year = 1996, editor =

    XSPEC: The First Ten Years. Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , year = 1996, editor =

    1996

Showing first 80 references.