Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 60 references

The amplitude of the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in 4U 1636$-$53 in the frequency-energy space

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The rms amplitude of the upper kilohertz QPO in 4U 1636−53 extrapolates to zero at the same frequency in every energy band, which the paper uses to bound the neutron-star mass.

desk verdict Genuinely new 2D rms map, careful empirical work, but the abstract's 1.6 M_sun mass limit is not supported by the paper's own Eq. (5). read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08462 v1 pith:EZI5RKL4 submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.HE

Evandro M. Ribeiro , Mariano Méndez , Marcio G. B. de Avellar , Guobao Zhang , Konstantinos Karpouzas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords kHzquasi-periodicoscillationsneutron-starX-raybinariesaccretiondiscsrmsamplitudefrequency-energyspace4U1636−53Comptonisation
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 presents, for the first time for any source of kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz QPOs), the two-dimensional behaviour of the fractional rms amplitude of the kHz QPOs as a function of both QPO frequency and photon energy, using 580 archival RXTE observations of the neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636−53. The lower kHz QPO's rms amplitude peaks near 760 Hz and near 12 keV before falling, while the upper kHz QPO's rms amplitude declines with frequency and is consistent with reaching zero at the same frequency, about 1400 Hz, in all energy bands. Under the sonic-point assumption that this frequency marks the inner edge of the accretion disc reaching the innermost stable circular orbit, the paper converts the zero-crossing into an upper limit on the neutron-star mass: the text's Equation (5) gives $M_{\rm NS} \le 1.77\,M_\odot$ for dimensionless spin $j = 0.17$ and $M_{\rm NS} \le 2.19\,M_\odot$ for $j = 0.52$. The abstract states $M_{\rm NS} \le 1.6\,M_\odot$, a value not reproduced by the calculation in the text. The paper also ties the slope of the rms-energy spectrum to the changing QPO frequency and shows that a Comptonising-cloud model can reproduce the rms and time-lag spectra.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional rms-amplitude surface, $\mathrm{rms}(\nu_{\rm QPO}, E)$, assembled by fitting Lorentzians to averaged power spectra in nine frequency intervals for the upper kHz QPO, eleven intervals for the lower kHz QPO, and seven energy bands. The argument hinges on the intercept $\nu_i$ of the linear fit to the upper QPO's rms-versus-frequency relation, with the intercept tied across energy bands, and on the sonic-point mass formula that converts $\nu_i$ into a neutron-star mass limit. The model of a Comptonising cloud, with parameters such as cloud size, optical depth, electron temperature, seed-photon temperature, feedback fraction, and heating-rate oscillation amplitude, is used to connect the rms and time-lag spectra.

What would settle it

A detection of the upper kHz QPO in 4U 1636−53 above about 1400 Hz with significantly nonzero rms in any energy band would falsify the zero-crossing claim; an independent neutron-star mass measurement above the derived 1.77–2.19 solar-mass range would contradict the bound if the Keplerian identification is kept.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the upper kHz QPO's fractional rms amplitude, measured in seven energy bands from about 3 to 20 keV, decreases with QPO frequency and extrapolates to zero at the same frequency, $\nu_i = 1398 \pm 24$ Hz, in every energy band. Because the QPO frequency is the same in all energy bands, the authors interpret this common zero-crossing as the frequency at which the inner edge of the accretion disc reaches the innermost stable circular orbit, so the upper QPO can no longer be excited. Using the sonic-point mass relation $M_{\rm NS} \le 2.2\,(1000\,\mathrm{Hz}/\nu_{\max})\,(1 + 0.75\,j)\,M_\odot$, they derive $M_{\rm NS} \le 1.77\,M_\odot$ for $j=0.17$ and $M_{\rm NS} \le 2.19\,M_\odot$ for $j=0.52$. The same analysis shows that the lower kHz QPO's rms amplitude peaks near 760 Hz and near 12 keV and then declines, and that both QPOs share a Gaussian feature near 750–770 Hz, which the paper reads as evidence of a common radiative mechanism with an additional component acting only on the upper QPO.

Load-bearing premise

The mass constraint collapses if the upper kHz QPO frequency is not the Keplerian orbital frequency at the inner edge of the accretion disc, or if the straight-line fit that puts the zero of its amplitude at about 1400 Hz is not the correct shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the extrapolation is correct, the upper kHz QPO in 4U 1636−53 has a hard frequency ceiling near 1400 Hz, set by the inner edge of the accretion disc.
  • The lower kHz QPO's rms amplitude drops above about 12 keV, meaning the radiative mechanism behind this QPO becomes less efficient at energies where only the Comptonising component contributes.
  • The slope of the rms-energy relation changes with QPO frequency for both QPOs, so rms amplitude should be treated as a function of both frequency and energy, not just one of them.
  • The shared Gaussian feature near 750–770 Hz supports a common radiative mechanism acting on both QPOs, with an extra frequency-dependent component acting only on the upper QPO.
  • If the Comptonising-cloud model applies, the fitted parameters constrain the size, optical depth, temperature, and feedback properties of the inner accretion flow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The abstract's $1.6\,M_\odot$ limit does not follow from the paper's own formula and fitted $\nu_i$; a reader should quote the text's $1.77\text{--}2.19\,M_\odot$ range instead.
  • If the upper kHz QPO is produced by a beat-frequency or resonance mechanism rather than being the Keplerian frequency at the inner edge, the same ~1400 Hz zero-crossing would constrain those models rather than the neutron-star mass.
  • Re-fitting the published rms-versus-frequency table with a curved decay would test whether the zero-crossing, and therefore the mass bound, is an artifact of the linear model.
  • Applying the same frequency-energy analysis to other sources with long RXTE archives could map the implied zero-crossing frequency across the neutron-star population, providing a population-level test of the mass interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 580 RXTE observations of 4U 1636-53 and constructs, for the first time for any kHz QPO source, the two-dimensional distribution of the fractional rms amplitude of the lower and upper kHz QPOs as a function of QPO frequency and photon energy. The main reported findings are: the lower QPO rms peaks near 760 Hz and drops above roughly 12 keV; the upper QPO rms decreases with frequency and has a local hump near 770 Hz; and a linear fit to the upper-QPO rms versus frequency yields a common zero-crossing at 1398 +/- 24 Hz in all energy bands. Interpreting this zero-crossing as the Keplerian frequency at the ISCO, the paper claims a neutron-star mass upper limit. The paper also fits an approximate Comptonisation model to the lower-QPO rms and lag spectra and discusses the implications for the radiative mechanism behind the QPOs.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the two-dimensional rms maps are a valuable new observational product for spectral-timing models of kHz QPOs, and the energy-independent zero-crossing of the upper-QPO rms amplitude is a novel and falsifiable constraint. The analysis is careful in several respects: QPO identification criteria are consistent, the background-systematic effect is checked by varying the assumed background rate between zero and twice the pcabackest value, and upper limits are reported transparently. The main weakness is that the headline mass limit in the abstract does not follow from the paper's own calculation in Section 4.3, and the zero-crossing itself inherits a specific linear-model assumption. Neither issue undermines the empirical maps, but both must be addressed before the central mass claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.3, Eq. (5)] The abstract headline mass limit M_NS <= 1.6 M_sun is not supported by the paper's own calculation. In Section 4.3, Eq. (5) is evaluated with nu_max_QPO = nu_i = 1398 +/- 24 Hz and the extreme spin parameters j = 0.17 and j = 0.52 from Morsink & Stella (1999), giving M_NS <= 1.77 M_sun and M_NS <= 2.19 M_sun, respectively. The value 1.6 M_sun corresponds to j ~ 0, which is outside the adopted range, and the text's own caveat that Eq. (5) neglects oblateness for fast rotators implies the true limits are weaker, not stronger. The abstract must be corrected to report the values actually derived, or the j = 0 choice must be justified.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Eq. (3)] The zero-crossing nu_i = 1398 +/- 24 Hz, which drives the mass interpretation, is the zero of a linear function fitted to the rms-versus-frequency relation of the upper kHz QPO and extrapolated about 175 Hz beyond the highest measured average frequency (approximately 1223 Hz in Table 1). Because Table 3 contains several upper limits that are treated in the fit as zero rms with the 95% upper limit as the error bar, the exact value of nu_i is sensitive to both the functional form and the treatment of upper limits. Please add a robustness test with a different decay shape, such as a power law or an exponential, or excluding the 1025-1165 Hz interval, and report how nu_i and the resulting mass limit change, or explicitly state in the abstract that the mass limit depends on the linear-model assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The channel-selection cell for the 4th epoch in the 6.0 keV row reads 11-05, which appears to be a typo for 11-15; please verify and correct.
  2. [Table 3] In the upper kHz QPO row for the 930-1025 Hz interval, the entry 21.1 +/- 6.5(28.7* is missing its closing parenthesis; the asterisk should be followed by ')' as in the other upper-limit entries.
  3. [Section 3.2, page 6] The text says the linear function used to fit the upper kHz QPO 'decreases with energy', but the independent variable in Fig. 4 is QPO frequency; this should read 'decreases with frequency'.
  4. [Section 4.5 and Fig. 10] The Comptonisation-model comparison is explicitly approximate, with six model parameters and only five data points after excluding two energy bins, and the two shown solutions are degenerate; the abstract's statement that the properties of the kHz QPOs 'can constrain the thermodynamic properties of the inner accretion flow' is stronger than this demonstration supports and should be softened or qualified.
  5. [Section 4.5, caption of Fig. 10] The caption contains the doubled article in 'using the the model of Kumar & Misra (2014)'; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the rms measurements are model-independent, and the mass limit is a stated model-dependent transformation of a fitted zero-crossing; the abstract's 1.6 M⊙ is internally inconsistent with the text's 1.77–2.19 M⊙, but this is not circularity.

full rationale

The empirical rms measurements in §3 are extracted directly from RXTE power spectra and are independent of any theoretical model. The analytical fits in §3.1–3.2 are explicitly labelled as having 'no physical motivation,' so no fitted quantity is defined in terms of the paper's target conclusion. The mass constraint in §4.3 is not circular: ν_i = 1398 ± 24 Hz is the fitted zero-crossing of a linear-plus-Gaussian model, and Eq. 5 is an external formula from Kluzniak et al. (1990) and van Doesburgh et al. (2018), applied under the explicitly stated sonic-point assumption; it is a model-dependent interpretation, not an equation that returns its own input. The self-citations (e.g., Ribeiro et al. 2017) are used for context and for comparison of the 'hump,' but the load-bearing rms measurements and joint distributions are re-derived from archival RXTE data in this paper. The Kumar & Misra (2014) comparison in §4.5 is an approximate, hand-tuned and explicitly degenerate fit, not presented as a prediction, so it cannot be circular. The only real defect is internal consistency: the abstract's M_NS ≤ 1.6 M⊙ is obtained by evaluating Eq. 5 with j = 0, whereas the text's own adopted range j = 0.17–0.52 gives 1.77 and 2.19 M⊙, and the paper itself warns these limits are 'likely underestimated' because Eq. 5 neglects oblateness and internal structure. This weakens the headline claim, but it is a correctness/consistency issue, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims do not rely on heavy theoretical assumptions. The mass limit, however, depends on the sonic-point identification and the use of Eq. 5, and the model interpretation in §4.5 depends on the Kumar & Misra (2014) framework, which has many free parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • δHext (oscillation amplitude of external heating) = 0.08 (hot-seed) / 0.09 (cold-seed)
    Chosen by hand to approximate the rms spectra in Fig. 10.
  • L (size of Comptonising medium) = 1.18 km (hot-seed) / 4.3 km (cold-seed)
    Chosen by hand for the two illustrative models.
  • η (feedback parameter) = 0.9 (hot-seed) / 0.6 (cold-seed)
    Chosen by hand.
  • kTe (electron temperature) = 4.6 keV (hot-seed) / 3.8 keV (cold-seed)
    Chosen by hand.
  • kTs (seed photon temperature) = 1.3 keV (hot-seed) / 0.4 keV (cold-seed)
    Chosen by hand.
  • τ (optical depth) = 2.7 (hot-seed) / 10.4 (cold-seed)
    Chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The upper kHz QPO frequency equals the Keplerian frequency at the inner edge of the accretion disc, and the maximum QPO frequency corresponds to the innermost stable circular orbit.
    Invoked in §4.3 when applying Eq. 5 to derive the neutron-star mass limit.
  • domain assumption The Kumar & Misra (2014) model describes the radiative mechanism of the kHz QPOs.
    Used in §4.5 to interpret the rms and lag spectra; the paper acknowledges the model is degenerate and only provides an approximate fit.
  • domain assumption The background count rate estimated with pcabackest is accurate enough for the rms measurements.
    The rms amplitude calculation in Eq. 1 depends on the background rate; the paper tests robustness by varying it by a factor of two.
  • domain assumption The frequency intervals and energy bands chosen are appropriate to preserve the QPO properties.
    The binning in Table 1 and 2 is inherited from prior work and assumes QPO frequency is constant within each 16-s segment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The amplitude of the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in 4U 1636$-$53 in the frequency-energy space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZI5RKL4

@misc{pith2026190808462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The amplitude of the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in 4U 1636$-$53 in the frequency-energy space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZI5RKL4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08462}
}
abstract

We present for the neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636$-$53, and for the first time for any source of kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz QPOs), the two-dimensional behaviour of the fractional rms amplitude of the kHz QPOs in the parameter space defined by QPO frequency and photon energy. We find that the rms amplitude of the lower kHz QPO increases with energy up to $\sim12$ keV and then decreases at higher energies, while the rms amplitude of the upper kHz QPO either continues increasing or levels off at high energies. The rms amplitude of the lower kHz QPO increases and then decreases with frequency, peaking at $\sim 760$ Hz, while the amplitude of the upper kHz QPO decreases with frequency, with a local maximum at around $\sim 770$ Hz, and is consistent with becoming zero at the same QPO frequency, $\sim1400$ Hz, in all energy bands, thus constraining the neutron-star mass at $M_{NS} \leq 1.6 M_{\odot}$, under the assumption that this QPO reflects the Keplerian frequency at the inner edge of the accretion disc. We show that the slope of the rms energy spectrum is connected to the changing properties of the kHz QPOs in different energy bands as its frequencies change. Finally, we discuss a possible mechanism responsible for the radiative properties of the kHz QPOs and, based on a model in which the QPO arises from oscillations in a Comptonising cloud of hot electrons, we show that the properties of the kHz QPOs can constrain the thermodynamic properties of the inner accretion flow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of two observations with a kHz QPO in 4U 1636−53. The left column shows the averaged power-spectrum of the observation, and the right column shows the corresponding dynamical power spectrum. Top row: good quality observation, in which we are able to trace the QPO in each non-overlapping segment of 16-s. The multiple peak profile of the QPO in the left panel is due to the change of the QPO frequency during th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The marginal distribution of the rms amplitude of the kHz QPOs of 4U 1636−53 as a function of QPO frequency, averaged over the full PCA energy band. The lower kHz QPO is shown in light red and the upper kHz QPO in dark blue. The shaded areas represent the range of rms values assuming a back￾ground count rate between zero and two times larger than the maximum value given by the pcabackest tool, including the sta￾tist… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The marginal distribution of the rms amplitude of the kHz QPOs of 4U 1636−53 as a function of photon energy, averaged over all detected QPO frequencies using the shift-and￾add technique (M´endez et al. 1998a) separately for the lower and upper kHz QPOs. The lower kHz QPO is shown in light red and the upper kHz QPO in dark blue. The shaded areas represent the range of rms values assuming a background count rate betwe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The conditional distribution of the rms amplitude of the lower and upper kHz QPOs, left and right panels, respectively, of 4U 1636−53 as a function of QPO frequency for a given energy. Each energy band is represented by a different colour. (A colour version of this fig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: The normalisation of the Gaussian from the best-fitting model to the rms amplitude of the lower kHz QPO (light red circles) and the upper kHz QPO (dark blue squares) of 4U 1636−53 plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The conditional distribution of the rms amplitude of the lower and upper kHz QPO, left and right panels, respectively, of 4U 1636−53 as a function of photon energy for given QPO frequency. (A colour version of this figure is available in the on-line version of the pape…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The slope before the break of the conditional dis￾tribution of the rms amplitude as a function of energy for given frequency intervals ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The joint distribution of the rms amplitude of the lower kHz QPO of 4U 1636−53 as a function of photon energy and QPO frequency. The colour scale represents the rms amplitude as indicated in the colour bar at the far right of the Figure. The top and right panels show t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Modelling of the rms and time-lag spectra using the the model of Kumar & Misra (2014). The solid red line represents the hot seed photons model, and the dashed blue line represents the cold seed photons model. (A colour version of this figure is available in the on-li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    G., Klein-Wolt M., Lewin W

    Altamirano D., van der Klis M., M \' e ndez M., Jonker P. G., Klein-Wolt M., Lewin W. H. G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590897 , 685, 436

    doi:10.1086/590897 2008

  3. [3]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    Barret D., 2001, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/S0273-1177(01)00414-8 , 28, 307

    doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(01)00414-8 2001

  5. [5]

    Barret D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/9 , 770, 9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/9 2013

  6. [6]

    C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09214.x , 361, 855

    Barret D., Olive J.-F., Miller M. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09214.x , 361, 855

    arXiv 2005

  7. [8]

    M., Altamirano D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt500 , 432, 10

    Belloni T. M., Altamirano D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt500 , 432, 10

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt500 2013

  8. [9]

    Belloni T., M \' e ndez M., Homan J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041377 , 437, 209

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041377 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [10]

    Belloni T., Homan J., Motta S., Ratti E., Mendez M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11943.x , 379, 247

    2007

  2. [11]

    Berger M., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310256 , 469, L13

    1996 doi

  3. [12]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/103 , 826, 103

    Cackett E. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/103 , 826, 103

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318278 , 546, 1107

    Di Salvo T., Mendez M., van der Klis M., Ford E., Robba N. R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318278 , 546, 1107

    2001 doi

  5. [14]

    H., Psaltis D., Alpar M

    Erkut M. H., Psaltis D., Alpar M. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592142 , 687, 1220

    2008 doi

  6. [15]

    Gilfanov M., Revnivtsev M., Molkov S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031141 , 410, 217

    2003 doi

  7. [16]

    Huang Y., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aade4c , 866, 122

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    arXiv:1901.07681

    Huppenkothen D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1901.07681

    2019 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Kato S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/57.4.699 , 57, 699

    2005 doi

  10. [19]

    Kato S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/61.6.1237 , 61, 1237

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    A., 2001, arXiv e-prints, pp astro--ph/0105057

    Kluzniak W., Abramowicz M. A., 2001, arXiv e-prints, pp astro--ph/0105057

    2001

  12. [21]

    V., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169006 , 358, 538

    Kluzniak W., Michelson P., Wagoner R. V., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169006 , 358, 538

    1990 doi

  13. [22]

    Kumar N., Misra R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1946 , 445, 2818

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    Kumar N., Misra R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1601 , 461, 4146

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    C., Miller G

    Lee H. C., Miller G. S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01842.x , 299, 479

    1998

  16. [25]

    C., Misra R., Taam R

    Lee H. C., Misra R., Taam R. E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319171 , 549, L229

    2001 doi

  17. [26]

    D., Zhang C

    Li X. D., Zhang C. M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499204 , 635, L57

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    A., Homan J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521181 , 667, 1073

    Lin D., Remillard R. A., Homan J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521181 , 667, 1073

    2007 doi

  19. [28]

    Lin Y.-F., Boutelier M., Barret D., Zhang S.-N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/74 , 726, 74

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    Lyu M., M \' e ndez M., Altamirano D., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1992 , 445, 3659

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    Mendez M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10830.x , 371, 1925

    2006

  22. [31]

    M \' e ndez M., et al., 1998a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311162 , 494, L65

    doi

  23. [32]

    C., Wijnands R., van Paradijs J., 1998b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311836 , 511, L49

    Mendez M., van der Klis M., Ford E. C., Wijnands R., van Paradijs J., 1998b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311836 , 511, L49

    doi

  24. [33]

    C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323486 , 561, 1016

    Mendez M., van der Klis M., Ford E. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323486 , 561, 1016

    2001 doi

  25. [34]

    C., Lamb F

    Miller M. C., Lamb F. K., Psaltis D., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306408 , 508, 791

    1998 doi

  26. [35]

    M., Stella L., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306876 , 513, 827

    Morsink S. M., Stella L., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306876 , 513, 827

    1999 doi

  27. [36]

    Mukherjee A., Bhattacharyya S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/55 , 756, 55

    2012 doi

  28. [37]

    Mukhopadhyay B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/387 , 694, 387

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    Osherovich V., Titarchuk L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312225 , 522, L113

    1999 doi

  30. [39]

    Peille P., Barret D., Uttley P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/109 , 811, 109

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    M., M \' e ndez M., Zhang G., Sanna A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1686 , 471, 1208

    Ribeiro E. M., M \' e ndez M., Zhang G., Sanna A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1686 , 471, 1208

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    Sanna A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17145.x , 408, 622

    2010

  33. [42]

    Sanna A., M \' e ndez M., Belloni T., Altamirano D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21435.x , 424, 2936

    2012

  34. [43]

    M., Linares M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt530 , 432, 1144

    Sanna A., Hiemstra B., M \' e ndez M., Altamirano D., Belloni T. M., Linares M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt530 , 432, 1144

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    Shi C., Li X.-D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14041.x , 392, 264

    2009

  36. [45]

    Stella L., Vietri M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311075 , 492, L59

    1998 doi

  37. [46]

    Stella L., Vietri M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.17 , 82, 17

    1999 doi

  38. [47]

    E., Zhang W., Swank J

    Strohmayer T. E., Zhang W., Swank J. H., Smale A., Titarchuk L., Day C., Lee U., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310261 , 469, L9

    1996 doi

  39. [48]

    Titarchuk L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367630 , 591, 354

    2003 doi

  40. [49]

    S., Cackett E

    Troyer J. S., Cackett E. M., Peille P., Barret D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a4 , 860, 167

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    Wang J., 2016, @doi [IJAA] 10.4236/ijaa.2016.61006 , 06, 82

    2016

  42. [51]

    Wijnands R. A. D., van der Klis M., van Paradijs J., Lewin W. H. G., Lamb F. K., Vaughan B., Kuulkers E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310600 , 479, L141

    1997 doi

  43. [52]

    Zhang C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035808 , 423, 401

    2004 doi

  44. [53]

    E., Titarchuk L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310255 , 469, L17

    Zhang W., Lapidus I., White N. E., Titarchuk L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310255 , 469, L17

    1996 doi

  45. [54]

    M., Gelfand J

    Zhang G., M \' e ndez M., Sanna A., Ribeiro E. M., Gelfand J. D., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3100 , 465, 5003

    doi

  46. [55]

    Zhang L., Wang Y., M \' e ndez M., Chen L., Qu J., Altamirano D., Belloni T., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8138 , 845, 143

    doi

  47. [56]

    de Avellar M. G. B., M \' e ndez M., Sanna A., Horvath J. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1001 , 433, 3453

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    de Avellar M. G. B., M \' e ndez M., Altamirano D., Sanna A., Zhang G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1271 , 461, 79

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    de Avellar M. G. B., Porth O., Younsi Z., Rezzolla L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3071 , 474, 3967

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1404 , 479, 426

    van Doesburgh M., van der Klis M., Morsink S. M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1404 , 479, 426

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    van Straaten S., van der Klis M., di Salvo T., Belloni T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338948 , 568, 912

    2002 doi

  52. [61]

    H., Zhang W., Jahoda K., Morgan E

    van der Klis M., Swank J. H., Zhang W., Jahoda K., Morgan E. H., Lewin W. H. G., Vaughan B., van Paradijs J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310251 , 469, L1

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.