Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Gaia 19cwm -- an eclipsing dwarf nova of WZ Sge type with a magnetic white dwarf

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gaia 19cwm is an eclipsing WZ Sge dwarf nova whose stable 6.45-minute period marks a magnetic, rotating white dwarf.

desk verdict A careful single-object study that probably identifies Gaia 19cwm as a WZ Sge-type dwarf nova with a magnetic white dwarf, but the spin-period interpretation rests on a weak stability argument and a numeric inconsistency in the paper itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07447 v2 pith:R2AG5QDN submitted 2025-02-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

A.I. Kolbin , T.A. Fatkhullin , E.P. Pavlenko , M.V. Suslikov , V.Yu. Kochkina , N.V. Borisov , A.S. Vinokurov , A.A. Sosnovskij
show 1 more author
S.S. Panarin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords cataclysmicvariablesdwarfnovaeWZSgetypestarsintermediatepolarsmagneticwhitedwarfseclipsingbinariesDopplertomographyGaia19cwm
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

The paper makes the case that Gaia 19cwm is a rare eclipsing dwarf nova of WZ Sge type with a magnetic white dwarf. It identifies a $\approx 6.45$-minute photometric period, stable for about four years, as the rotation period of the white dwarf, which would make the system an intermediate polar. The 86.32-minute eclipses give the orbital period and, through eclipse geometry, the white-dwarf mass, donor mass, and inclination, while the spectral energy distribution yields a cool ($\approx 13000$ K) white dwarf and the X-ray luminosity places it in the low-luminosity intermediate-polar group. If the spin interpretation is right, this object becomes a rare geometric laboratory for magnetic accretion at very low mass-transfer rates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the stable 6.4477728-minute photometric period and the argument that only a rotating white dwarf can keep such a period phase-stable for four years, whereas non-radial pulsations would evolve as the star cools. Around this period, the folded light curve is double-peaked, which the paper reads as two-pole magnetic accretion. The second machinery is the eclipse geometry: trapezoidal fits to the white-dwarf and hot-spot eclipses, combined with the restricted three-body trajectory of the accretion stream, fix the mass ratio $q = 0.11 \pm 0.02$, inclination $i = 83.8 \pm 1.1^\circ$, and disk radius $R_D/A \approx 0.59$; the ingress/egress duration then yields the white-dwarf mass through the Nauenberg mass-radius relation.

What would settle it

A long, high-cadence X-ray observation of Gaia 19cwm in quiescence should reveal a coherent 6.45-minute modulation if the period is white-dwarf rotation; a null detection, or a measured drift or splitting of the optical period over a several-year baseline, would falsify the intermediate-polar classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Gaia 19cwm is an eclipsing WZ Sge type dwarf nova with a magnetized white dwarf. The photometric period $P_s = 6.4477728 \pm 0.0000006$ min remains coherent across roughly four years of ZTF and ground-based data, and the paper argues that this stability rules out non-radial white-dwarf pulsations, whose periods would drift as the white dwarf cools; the double-peaked folded light curve then indicates two-pole accretion onto a rotating magnetic white dwarf. Supporting this classification, the system shows the spectral signature of a DA white dwarf at $T_{\rm eff} \approx 13000$ K, Doppler tomography reveals an accretion disk and hot spot, and the X-ray luminosity $L_X = (1.6 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{31}$ erg/s falls in the low-luminosity intermediate-polar regime.

Load-bearing premise

The classification as a magnetic white dwarf rests on reading the stable 6.45-minute period as the white dwarf's rotation; if that period is instead a pulsation or disk oscillation, the intermediate-polar classification fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, Gaia 19cwm becomes one of the few known eclipsing WZ Sge stars, so the geometry of its eclipses can be used to test models of low-accretion-rate disks and hot-spot locations.
  • The system joins the small group of low-luminosity intermediate polars, where the X-ray luminosity is orders of magnitude below the canonical IP range, implying very low accretion rates onto the magnetic white dwarf.
  • The measured white-dwarf mass ($M_1 = 0.66 \pm 0.06 M_\odot$) and donor mass close to the period-bounce mass make Gaia 19cwm a useful anchor for the evolutionary status of WZ Sge stars near the orbital-period minimum.
  • The stability of the 6.45-minute period itself provides a clock: continued monitoring over many years can directly test the spin-period interpretation by checking for spin-down due to magnetic braking or spin-up from accretion.
  • Because the system is eclipsing, future high-time-resolution observations can map the accretion geometry (two-pole vs one-pole) onto the orbital phase, which is not possible for most intermediate polars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that, if the spin identification holds, Gaia 19cwm's period ratio $P_s/P_{\rm orb} \approx 0.075$ places it near the fast-rotation end of the intermediate-polar distribution, making it a natural test case for disk-magnetosphere interaction at low accretion rates.
  • A testable extension suggested by the argument: the same four-year stability used to reject pulsations would also rule out most disk-oscillation models, but the cleanest confirmation would be detecting the 6.45-minute modulation in X-rays, which the magnetic-accretion picture predicts and pulsation/disk models do not.
  • The paper notes the post-outburst brightness excess but does not model it; if that excess is a slow refilling of the inner disk, it should decay on the viscous timescale before the next superoutburst, which long-baseline photometry can check.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength photometric and spectroscopic study of the cataclysmic variable Gaia 19cwm (ZTF19aamkwxk). The authors identify an orbital period of 86.32048 ± 0.00005 min from eclipses, a stable out-of-eclipse period of about 6.45 min, and classify the system as a WZ Sge-type dwarf nova with a magnetic white dwarf (intermediate polar). They also estimate system parameters from eclipse light-curve modeling (M1 = 0.66 ± 0.06 Msun, M2 = 0.073 ± 0.015 Msun, i = 83.8 ± 1.1 degrees), fit the spectral energy distribution to infer a 13,000 K white dwarf, and derive an X-ray luminosity of 1.6e31 erg/s, which places the object in the low-luminosity intermediate polar group. The conclusion that Gaia 19cwm is an intermediate polar rests primarily on the claim that the 6.45-min period is stable over four years and therefore is the white dwarf spin period.

Significance. If the 6.45-min period is truly the spin of a magnetic white dwarf, Gaia 19cwm would be a very valuable addition to the small sample of eclipsing, low-luminosity intermediate polars, and it would be one of the few WZ Sge-type stars with a magnetized accretor. The paper's strengths include the use of long-baseline archival photometry (ZTF, ATLAS, Gaia, PTF, ASAS-SN), a careful Lomb-Scargle period search, and a standard eclipse-geometry analysis whose model dependencies are partly acknowledged. The eclipse ephemeris and the derived orbital parameters are independent of the spin-period interpretation and are likely robust. However, the central spin identification is not yet established: the stability argument is qualitative and the reported periods from different data sets are numerically inconsistent. The X-ray and spectral evidence are supportive but not conclusive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, 'Analysis of photometry'; Discussion and Conclusion] The stability argument used to exclude non-radial pulsations is not quantitatively supported. The text states that if the 6.45-min period were a pulsation, 'one would expect the period to change as the white dwarf cools' (Section 3), and the Discussion repeats this. For a WZ Sge-type white dwarf with Teff ~13,000 K, the cooling timescale is of order 10^6 years, so the expected period drift over a 4-year baseline is orders of magnitude below the measurement precision. Therefore, a constant period over four years does not discriminate between rotation and pulsation. The authors should either quantify the expected dP/dt from cooling and compare it with the measured period uncertainty, or provide independent evidence for magnetism (e.g., X-ray pulsations, Zeeman splitting, cyclotron features). Without such a test, the identification of the period as the white dwarf spin remains an assumption.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 3; Section 3 text] There is a numerical inconsistency in the reported 6.45-min period. The text quotes f = 223.33293 ± 0.00002 day^-1 for the ZTF data, while the caption of Fig. 3 gives fs = 223.323 ± 0.001 day^-1 from the 2024 ZTSh observations. Converting to periods, these values differ by about 0.0003 min, which is roughly 10 times the ZTSh uncertainty and about 500 times the ZTF uncertainty. If both measurements are correct, the period is not stable over the observed baseline, contradicting the central claim of white-dwarf rotation. The authors must reconcile these two values, for example by showing a season-by-season O-C diagram or by reanalyzing the 2024 data with the same period-search method used for ZTF. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the intermediate-polar classification depends entirely on the 6.45-min period being a stable, coherent signal.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 / Discussion and Conclusion] The authors acknowledge that the white-dwarf mass estimate is model dependent and affected by the disk contribution, hot-spot brightness offset, and accretion spots. This is appropriate, but the quoted statistical uncertainty (±0.06 Msun) does not include these systematic terms. The paper should state an estimated systematic error or at least discuss how the up-to-10% disk contribution translates into a mass uncertainty.
  2. [Section 6, 'The X-ray spectrum'] The X-ray temperature is fixed at 25 keV with no reference or sensitivity test. Because the spectrum has only 18 counts, the derived LX should be given with an additional uncertainty covering plausible kT values; the current 1.6 ± 0.3e31 erg/s likely underestimates the true systematic error.
  3. [General] There are several minor language and typographical issues: 'BW Sql' in the Discussion should be 'BW Scl'; the reference list contains two 'Szkody et al. 2021' entries (refs. 49 and 50) that are not distinguished in the text; and the description of Fig. 5 says 'convolved' where 'folded' is the usual term.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 3] In Fig. 3, the dotted line is defined as fs = 223.323 ± 0.001 day^-1, but the text reports f = 223.33293 ± 0.00002 day^-1. The figure would be clearer if both frequencies were marked and the data source for each were explicitly identified, especially given the discrepancy noted in my major comment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: independent detections drive the central conclusions.

full rationale

Gaia 19cwm's central classification is built from independently measured periodicities and eclipse geometry, not from a parameter fitted to the target result. The 6.45-minute period is detected in ZTF and new photometry; the claim that its four-year stability favors white-dwarf spin over non-radial pulsation is an astrophysical inference and may be debated, but it is not an input-output identity: the period is not used to construct the very data from which it is extracted. The eclipse analysis uses standard Wood et al. (1989) geometry with measured eclipse widths to solve for q and i, and the egress duration to set M1; the quoted M1 is not inserted back into the same equations to manufacture agreement. The SED fit and X-ray luminosity have fixed inputs (e.g., the 25 keV temperature), but those inputs are not the paper's conclusions. Self-citations (Kolbin et al. 2024 for the parallax/log g method and for the comparison object SRGe J194401.8+28445) are supporting or comparative, not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or hidden ansatz is imported. The noted f=223.33293 vs fs=223.323 day^-1 discrepancy is a possible correctness/consistency issue and a scientific concern, but it does not amount to circular reasoning: the spin interpretation would stand or fall on the period's reality and stability, not on an equation that presupposes it. The paper even flags its own limitation in not recovering the white-dwarf radial-velocity curve, which weakens dynamical confirmation without making the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard cataclysmic variable eclipse geometry, white dwarf atmosphere models, and the mass-radius relation. The main assumptions are the ballistic-stream hot-spot model, the dominance of white dwarf light in the SED, and the identification of the 6.45 minute period as spin. The fixed X-ray temperature is an ad hoc choice forced by low photon counts.

free parameters (1)
  • X-ray bremsstrahlung temperature kT = 25 keV (fixed)
    The 18-count X-ray spectrum could not constrain the temperature, so it was fixed at a typical value for accretion spots. The reported X-ray luminosity depends on this choice, though weakly over the 0.1-10 keV band.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The donor star fills its Roche lobe, and the accretion stream follows a ballistic trajectory from L1.
    Used to model the hot-spot position and eclipse geometry in Section 5; standard in CV eclipse models but not directly verified for this system.
  • domain assumption The hot spot is point-like and located at the intersection of the ballistic stream with the outer disk edge.
    Section 5: the position and width of the hot-spot eclipse are used as equations to solve for q and i.
  • domain assumption The Nauenberg (1972) white dwarf mass-radius relation applies.
    Used to convert the eclipse ingress/egress duration into M1 and to constrain log g from the parallax (Section 5).
  • domain assumption UV and optical fluxes are dominated by white dwarf radiation, with disk and hot-spot contribution no more than about 10%.
    Section 5, underpinning the Teff and log g fit from the SED. The authors exclude red-optical photometry on this basis.
  • domain assumption The 6.45 minute period being stable for about four years implies rotation rather than non-radial pulsation.
    Section 3 and Discussion; load-bearing for the intermediate-polar classification.
  • ad hoc to paper The X-ray spectrum is described by absorbed bremsstrahlung with a fixed temperature of 25 keV.
    Section 6; the 18-count spectrum cannot constrain the accretion spot temperature, so a typical value is imposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaia 19cwm -- an eclipsing dwarf nova of WZ Sge type with a magnetic white dwarf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R2AG5QDN

@misc{pith2026250207447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaia 19cwm -- an eclipsing dwarf nova of WZ Sge type with a magnetic white dwarf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R2AG5QDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07447}
}
abstract

The spectral and photometric studies of the cataclysmic variable Gaia 19cwm (or ZTF19aamkwxk) have been performed. Based on the analysis of long-term variability, it is concluded that the object belongs to WZ Sge type stars. The light curves show eclipses recurring with an orbital period of $86.32048 \pm 0.00005$ min, as well as an out-of-eclipse variability with a period of $\approx 6.45$ min. The latter period is stable for $\sim 4$ years and appears to correspond to the rotation of a magnetic white dwarf, i.e., Gaia 19cwm is an intermediate polar. The Gaia 19cwm spectra show photospheric lines of the white dwarf, and Doppler tomograms demonstrate the presence of an accretion disk and a hot spot. Analysis of the eclipse light curve gives an estimates of the white dwarf mass $M_1 = 0.66\pm0.06$ M$_{\odot}$, the donor mass $M_2 = 0.073 \pm 0.015$ M$_{\odot}$, and the orbital inclination $i=83.8 \pm 1.1^{\circ}$. Modeling of the spectral energy distribution gives the white dwarf temperature of $T_{eff}\approx 13000 $ K. The X-ray luminosity $L_X = (1.6 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{31}$ erg/s allows to assign Gaia 19cwm to a small group of low-luminosity intermediate polars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07447 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The light curves folded with the found period exhibit a double-peaked structure with a peak separation of ≈ Ps/2. Analysis of ZTF data obtained after the outburst revealed the same periodicity. Using the Lomb–Scargle method, the period Ps = 6.4477728 ± 0.0000006 min (frequency f = 223.33293 ± 0.00002 day−1 ) was determined. Periodograms of Gaia 19cwm constructed from ZTF observations in 2018-2019 (before the outburs… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Long-term light curve of Gaia 19cwm, reconstructed from ATLAS ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The examples of Gaia 19cwm light curves obtained with the Zeiss-1000 and ZTSh telescopes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Lomb-Scargle periodograms obtained from the ZTF data for 2018-2019 before the superoutburst, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. The blue line shows the periodograms constructed from g data, and the red lines show periodograms for r data. The dotted line indicates the frequency fs…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curves of the eclipse of Gaia 19cwm obtained at Zeiss-1000 telescope with EMCCD on April [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The light curve of Gaia 19cwm folded with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average spectra of Gaia 19cwm obtained from observations on April 24/25, 2023 and July 01/02, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: Doppler tomograms of Gaia 19cwm in the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial velocity curve of Gaia 19cwm in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The i − q plane with solutions providing the observed width of the white dwarf eclipse (blue line) and the parameters (position and width) of the hot spot eclipse (red line). The green inscriptions indicate the disk radii in units of the major semi￾axis RD/A correspond…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: a) The O −C diagram for the observed and theoretical magnitudes of the white dwarf (horizontal bars indicate the widths of the photometric bands). b) The map of χ 2 distribution in Tef f − log g plane. Gaia 19cwm also exhibits out-of-eclipse variability modulated with…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afanasiev, A.V

    V.L. Afanasiev, A.V. Moiseev, Astron. Lett. 31, 194 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Amantayeva, S

    A. Amantayeva, S. Zharikov, K.L. Page, et al., Astrophys. J. 918, 58 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Aviles, S

    A. Aviles, S. Zharikov, G. Tovmassian, et al., Astrophys. J. 711, 389 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Bisikalo, A.A

    D.V. Bisikalo, A.A. Boyarchuk, P.V. Kaigorodov, et al., Astronomy Reports47, 809 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Boselli, S

    А. Boselli, S. Boissier, S. Heinis, et al., Astron. Astrophys.., 528, 107 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Cannizzo, in J.C

    J.K. Cannizzo, in J.C. Wheeler ed, Accretion discs in compact stellar systems, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 6 (1993)

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Capitanio, R

    L. Capitanio, R. Lallement, J.L. Vergely, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 606, A65 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Cash, Astrophys

    W. Cash, Astrophys. J.228, 939 (1979). 10Seealsohttps://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Koji.Mukai/iphome/catalog/llip.html

    work page 1979

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Chambers, E.A

    K.C. Chambers, E.A. Magnier, N. Metcalfe, et al., arXiv:1612.05560 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cropper, Space Science Reviews54, 195 (1990)

    M. Cropper, Space Science Reviews54, 195 (1990)

    1990

  3. [11]

    Evans, A.P

    P.A. Evans, A.P. Beardmore, K.L. Page, et al., MNRAS. 397, 1177 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Fitzpatrick, PASP111, 63 (1999)

    E.L. Fitzpatrick, PASP111, 63 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    Flannery, MNRAS.170, 325 (1975)

    B.P. Flannery, MNRAS.170, 325 (1975)

    1975

  6. [14]

    Flewelling, E.A

    H.A. Flewelling, E.A. Magnier, K.C. Chambers, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.251, 7 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Foight, T

    D. Foight, T. G¨ uver, F.¨Ozel, Astrophys. J. 826, 66 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Hameury, J.P

    J.M. Hameury, J.P. Lasota, J.M. Hure, MNRAS. 287, 937 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Kato, Publ

    T. Kato, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan67, 108 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Kato, arXiv:2301.03743 (2023)

    T. Kato, arXiv:2301.03743 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Knigge, I

    C. Knigge, I. Baraffe, J. Patterson, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 194, 28 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Koester, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana 81, 921 (2010)

    D. Koester, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana 81, 921 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Kolbin, A.V

    A.I. Kolbin, A.V. Karpova, M.V. Suslikov, et al., Astron. Lett. 50, 351 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kolbin, E.P

    A.I. Kolbin, E.P. Pavlenko, V.Yu. Kochkina, et al., Astron. Lett. 50, 335 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Kononov, D.V

    D.A. Kononov, D.V. Bisikalo, V.B. Puzin, et al., Astronomy Reports 59, 191 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Kotze, S.B

    E.J. Kotze, S.B. Potter, V.A. McBride, Astron. Astrophys. 579, 77 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Kotze, S.B

    E.J. Kotze, S.B. Potter, V.A. McBride, Astron. Astrophys. 595, 47 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Lallement, J.-L

    R. Lallement, J.-L. Vergely, B. Valette et al., Astron. Astrophys. 561, A91 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Lallement, L

    R. Lallement, L. Capitanio, L. Ruiz-Dern et al., Astron. Astrophys. 616, A132 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Law, S.R

    N.M. Law, S.R. Kulkarni, R.G. Dekany, et al., PASP 121, 1395 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Marsh, A.D

    T.R. Marsh, A.D. Schwope, ASSL439, 195 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Masci, R

    F. Masci, R. Laher, B. Rusholme, et al., PASP131, 995 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Matthews, R

    O.M. Matthews, R. Speith, G.A. Wynn, et al., MNRAS. 375, 105 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    McAllister, S.P

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

    2019

  26. [34]

    Nauenberg, Astrophys

    M. Nauenberg, Astrophys. J.175, 417 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    Neustroev, I

    V.V. Neustroev, I. M¨ antynen, MNRAS.523, 6114 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Osaki, Publ

    Y. Osaki, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan47, 47 (1995)

    1995

  29. [37]

    Pala, B.T

    A.F. Pala, B.T. G¨ ansicke, T.R. Marsh, et al., MNRAS. 483, 1080 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Pala, B.T

    A.F. Pala, B.T. G¨ ansicke, D. Belloni, et al., MNRAS. 510, 6110 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Patterson, PASP106, 209 (1994)

    J. Patterson, PASP106, 209 (1994)

    1994

  32. [40]

    P., Kato T., Antonyuk O

    Pavlenko E. P., Kato T., Antonyuk O. I., et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan66, 111 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Pavlenko, K

    E. Pavlenko, K. Niijima, P. Mason, et al., Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnat´ e Pleso49, 204 (2019). ASTRONOMY LETTERS том 0 №0 2021 Gaia 19cwm — a dwarf nova of WZ Sge type 13

    2019

  34. [42]

    Pavlenko E., Shugarov S., Kato T., et al., CoSka 54, 117 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Pretorius, K

    M.L. Pretorius, K. Mukai, MNRAS. 442, 2580 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Ridden-Harper, B.E

    R. Ridden-Harper, B.E. Tucker, P. Garnavich, et al., MNRAS. 490, 5551 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Schwope, J

    A. Schwope, J. Kurpas, P. Baecke, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 686, A110 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Shafter, Astrophys

    A.W. Shafter, Astrophys. J.267, 222 (1983)

    1983

  39. [47]

    Shakura, R.A

    N.I. Shakura, R.A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys. 24, 337 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    Shappee, J.L

    B.J. Shappee, J.L. Prieto, D. Grupe, et al., Astrophys. J. 788, 48 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Szkody, C

    P. Szkody, C. Olde Loohuis, B. Koplitz, et al., Astron. J. 162, 94 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Szkody, P

    P. Szkody, P. Godon, B.T. G¨ ansicke, et al., Astrophys. J. 914, 40 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Tonry, L

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

    2018

  44. [52]

    Tovmassian, B.T

    G. Tovmassian, B.T. G¨ ansicke, J. Echevarria, et al., Astrophys. J.939, 14 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Townsley, B.T

    D.M. Townsley, B.T. G¨ ansicke, Astrophys. J.693, 1007 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Warner, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge Univ

    B. Warner, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge)

  47. [55]

    Wilms, A

    J. Wilms, A. Allen, R. McCray, Astrophys. J.542, 914 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    J.H. Wood, K. Horne, G. Berriman, et al., Astrophys. J. 341, 974 (1989)

    1989

  49. [57]

    Zharikov, G

    S. Zharikov, G. Tovmassian, A. Aviles, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 549, A77 (2013). ASTRONOMY LETTERS vol. 0 №0 2021

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.