Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Accretion disc dynamics in extragalactic black hole X-ray binaries: A comprehensive study of M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three extragalactic black hole binaries are better described by hot slim discs plus cool outer discs than by a disc plus corona.

desk verdict A thorough, useful X-ray census of three extragalactic BH-XRBs whose headline slim-disc claim is physically motivated but not statistically forced; the authors are candid about that, so the paper deserves a serious referee with a request for a proper model comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17047 v1 pith:IVZOKKJD submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE

Bhuvana G. R. , Anuj Nandi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raybinariesaccretiondiscsslimdiscmodelsteeppower-lawstateblackholemassesM33X-7NGC300X-1IC10
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 argues that the persistent X-ray emission of three massive, eclipsing extragalactic black hole X-ray binaries, M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1, and IC 10 X-1, is not the usual standard thin disc plus Comptonizing corona. Instead, the non-eclipse spectra are best fitted with a hot slim disc at $1$--$2$ keV (temperature profile $T(r)\propto r^{-p}$ with $p=0.5$--$0.66$) together with a cooler standard disc at $0.1$--$0.2$ keV. If this interpretation is right, the sources are in a sub-Eddington steep power-law state with a vertically extended inner accretion region, and continuum fitting with a relativistic slim-disc model yields black hole masses of roughly $9$--$15$, $9$--$28$, and $10$--$30$ solar masses. The eclipse analysis supports the geometry: the soft disc component is completely hidden during eclipse while a hard component from an extended region persists, implying a puffed-up inner flow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the slim-disc model, represented by the phenomenological diskpbb component and the relativistic slimbh model. diskpbb is a multicolour disc model with a free radial temperature index $p$ in $T(r)\propto r^{-p}$; the fits give $p=0.5$--$0.66$ and $kT_{in}=1$--$2$ keV for the hot inner component, whereas a standard thin disc has $p=0.75$. This index is the diagnostic of vertical extension: the paper reads $p<0.75$ as an advection-dominated, optically thick flow with scale height $H/R\sim 1$. slimbh then turns the same continuum into a black hole mass via the relation between inner radius and mass, using assumed spin and inclination. The corroborating mechanism is the eclipse spectral analysis, where the in-eclipse spectra of IC 10 X-1 and NGC 300 X-1 contain only a power-law component with high covering fraction ($\sim 0.9$), indicating that the soft disc is entirely obscured while the extended hard-emitting region is not.

What would settle it

Take the $3$--$79$ keV spectrum of M33 X-7 with NuSTAR to high signal to noise: a true slim disc should show a Wien-like rollover at a few times the inner temperature and no unresolved power-law tail, whereas a corona would produce a distinct hard tail and a Compton hump above $\sim 10$ keV; the paper's NuSTAR data only reach $10$ keV, so the test remains open. Alternatively, a measured spin for NGC 300 X-1 or IC 10 X-1 that falls far below $0.8$ would break the mass estimates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $0.3$--$8$ keV spectra of M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1, and IC 10 X-1, assembled from all XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations, are better reproduced by two thermal components than by the conventional disc-blackbody-plus-power-law model. The hot component, a diskpbb slim disc with inner temperature $kT_{in}=1$--$2$ keV and radial index $p=0.5$--$0.66$, replaces the power law; the lower value of $p$ compared with the standard $0.75$ is interpreted as evidence of advection and a vertically extended inner flow. A cool diskbb component at $0.1$--$0.2$ keV accounts for the soft excess, which the paper attributes to a faint outer thin disc rather than a wind. The authors argue that the power-law component in the conventional model is an extrapolation artifact from the soft band and that Comptonization models leave unconstrained parameters. They then apply the relativistic slim-disc model slimbh in place of diskpbb, obtaining black hole masses of $8.9$--$14.9$, $8.7$--$28$, and $10.2$--$30$ $M_\odot$ for the three sources, consistent with dynamical estimates where available.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hard continuum is thermal emission from a hot slim disc rather than Comptonized radiation from a corona; the paper itself concedes that the disc-plus-power-law model yields statistically acceptable fits, so the switch to the slim-disc model rests on physical interpretation and not on fit quality alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three sources are interpreted as being caught in the steep power-law state, a sub-Eddington state previously identified in Galactic transients but not firmly in these extragalactic wind-fed systems.
  • The derived black hole masses place M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1, and IC 10 X-1 among the most massive stellar-mass black holes known, making them plausible progenitors of merging binary black holes.
  • The two-zone accretion geometry — hot slim disc inside, cool standard disc outside — would describe wind-fed systems at luminosities $0.1$--$0.7\,L_{\rm Edd}$, extending the regime where slim-disc behaviour appears.
  • Because the soft component is fully eclipsed while hard emission persists, any complete model of these systems must put the hard emitter on a larger scale height than the compact soft emitter, a constraint independent of the spectral decomposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the slim-disc interpretation is correct, the same two-thermal-component description could apply to other wind-fed HMXBs and to Galactic sources in the steep power-law state; this is testable with broadband spectra that resolve the soft excess.
  • The paper's mass ranges for NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 assume spins above $0.8$; a measurement of spin via reflection modelling or with future X-ray polarimetry would either tighten or invalidate the claimed masses.
  • A dedicated search for X-ray polarization of the $1$--$2$ keV component could distinguish a true slim disc, which should show a specific polarization-angle swing, from a hot corona, which would not, providing a clean test of the model choice.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comprehensive X-ray spectral and timing study of three eclipsing extragalactic black hole X-ray binaries: M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1, and IC 10 X-1, using all available XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations. The authors first fit the non-eclipse spectra with a diskbb+powerlaw continuum (Model-1), finding steep photon indices and sub-Eddington luminosities that they associate with the steep power-law (SPL) state. They then replace the powerlaw with a second thermal component, diskpbb, yielding Model-2 (diskbb+apec+diskpbb), which they interpret as a hot slim disc with temperature profile T(r) ∝ r^{-p}, p = 0.5–0.66, alongside a cooler standard disc at 0.1–0.2 keV. Using the relativistic slim-disc model slimbh, they estimate black hole masses of 8.9–14.9 M_sun, 8.7–28 M_sun, and 10.2–30 M_sun for M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1, and IC 10 X-1. Eclipse light-curve modelling yields companion-star radii of ~10, ~10, and ~18 R_sun, and eclipse spectral modelling is used to infer that the soft disc component is completely obscured while a hard component remains, supporting a vertically extended inner accretion region.

Significance. If the central spectral interpretation is correct, the paper would provide evidence for slim-disc accretion in sub-Eddington wind-fed extragalactic binaries, potentially linking their SPL-like spectra to the ultraluminous states seen in ULXs, and would add new mass estimates for three high-mass black hole X-ray binaries. The paper makes good use of a large, multi-epoch dataset, includes simultaneous broad-band fits where available, and attempts a consistency check of the slimbh continuum-fitting method on M33 X-7, whose dynamically measured mass is reproduced. The eclipse analysis is also a useful addition. However, the load-bearing inference—that the non-eclipse spectra require a hot slim disc rather than a Comptonized powerlaw—rests on a model preference that the authors themselves describe as statistically marginal, and several of the quoted slim-disc parameters are at hard parameter boundaries. The mass and geometry conclusions are conditional on this model choice and on additional assumptions about spin, inclination, and the mass of IC 10 X-1.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The preference for Model-2 over Model-1 is not established statistically, yet the entire slim-disc interpretation depends on it. The text states that Model-1 'provides statistically satisfactory fits' and that 'the difference may not be significant,' and the F-test reported is used to justify adding a soft diskbb to diskpbb, not to justify replacing the powerlaw by diskpbb. In several epochs the chi-square values are nearly identical, e.g., M33 X-7 MX1: Model-1 chi2/dof = 235.46/221 versus Model-2 = 236.15/222, and MX6: 234.80/219 versus 234.90/220. A formal non-nested comparison (AIC/BIC, Bayesian evidence, or simulation-calibrated Delta chi2) is needed to support the claim that the hot slim disc is actually required; without it, the paper should explicitly present the slim-disc scenario as conditional on a physically motivated but statistically indistinguishable alternative.
  2. [Table 3 and Section 3.1] The quoted radial temperature index p = 0.5–0.66 is not actually constrained in a large fraction of the fits because the parameter is pegged at its hard lower limit. Many entries in Table 3 carry the '‡' marker indicating p = 0.50 at the hard limit, including most M33 X-7 epochs and several NGC 300 X-1 epochs. In these cases the data only provide an upper limit, not a measurement of p < 0.75, so the discussion's inference that low p indicates advection is supported only by the few epochs where p is free and significantly above 0.5 (notably IC 10 X-1). The paper should state how many epochs have p pegged and weaken the advection claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Table 3] The abstract and discussion claim that the sources consist of a hot slim disc 'along with a cooler standard disc,' but Table 3 shows that most M33 X-7 epochs are fit by diskpbb alone, with no diskbb component listed (e.g., MX1–MX3, MX5–MX13, MX15–MX17). Only a few epochs (MX4, MX14, MN18+MX19) require the soft diskbb. The two-component geometry presented in Figure 8 therefore applies only to a subset of the data, and the discussion should be qualified to reflect that the cool standard disc is not generally detected.
  4. [Section 4.2] The eclipse spectral analysis that is used to infer the vertically extended hard emitter is based on Model-1 (powerlaw), not the preferred Model-2. The text reports that during eclipse 'neither of the disk models (diskbb or diskpbb) adequately fit the spectrum' and that the eclipse spectrum could only be fitted with an absorbed powerlaw. Using the very component rejected in the non-eclipse analysis to draw conclusions about the accretion geometry is internally inconsistent, and it weakens the claim that the eclipse results independently confirm the Model-2 picture. The paper should either reconcile this inconsistency or clearly present the eclipse interpretation as tentative.
  5. [Section 3.2 and Table 3] Several derived quantities depend on assumptions that are not independently constrained: the Eddington-scaled luminosity of IC 10 X-1 assumes a mass of 17 M_sun copied from NGC 300 X-1, and the companion-star radii in Table 4 use the average slimbh mass derived in Section 3.2. Additionally, the slimbh mass ranges for NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 assume high spin (a > 0.8) and fixed inclination angles, with Figure 4 showing that the mass is strongly degenerate with spin. These internal assumptions should be stated prominently wherever the mass ranges and luminosities are quoted, and the inferred masses should be presented as conditional on the adopted model and prior constraints.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] In the paragraph describing Table 3, the text says the p parameter is '0.5−5.56 in NGC 300 X-1,' which appears to be a typo for 0.5–0.56; please correct it.
  2. [Table 1] Several entries in Table 1 are incomplete or run together, such as the NX7 exposure columns ('20 10 9-') and the IX1 row; the table should be reformatted so eclipse timings are unambiguous.
  3. [Figure 4] The caption of Figure 4 should state more explicitly that the spin range for M33 X-7 is restricted to 0.79–0.89 while NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 use 0.8–0.98; the current text is slightly ambiguous.
  4. [Section 5.3] The statement that the diskbb normalization gives a disc radius of 1000–6500 km (<130 R_g) should specify the black hole mass used to convert kilometres to gravitational radii, since the conversion is mass-dependent.
  5. [Section 3.2] Equation (1) defines R_in using correction factors kappa and xi, but the text does not discuss how uncertainties in these factors propagate into the mass ranges; a brief comment would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the slim-disc inference is an explicitly acknowledged model-comparison choice, not a prediction forced by construction; the slimbh mass for M33 X-7 is validated against an independent dynamical mass.

full rationale

The central claim that the three sources host a hot slim disc plus a cool standard disc is obtained by fitting Model-2 (Tbabs*Tbabs(diskbb+apec+diskpbb)) and comparing it with Model-1 (Tbabs*Tbabs(diskbb+apec+powerlaw)). The paper states in Section 3.1 that Model-1 "provides statistically satisfactory fits" and that the difference "may not be significant," with the primary motivation for Model-2 being Model-1's physical inadequacy rather than a statistical detection. That is a model-selection and statistical-degeneracy concern, not a circular reduction: no equation defining diskpbb in terms of the claimed slim-disc conclusion is used as evidence for that conclusion. The slimbh mass estimate is validated for M33 X-7 against the independent dynamical mass of Orosz et al. (2007), and the NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 ranges are explicitly conditioned on literature spin/inclination assumptions. The IC 10 X-1 Eddington-scaled luminosity uses an assumed 17 M_sun mass copied from NGC 300 X-1, but this is an input assumption used for normalization, not an output derived from the same assumption. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Bhuvana et al. 2021, 2022) are contextual comparisons and are not load-bearing. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input; the underdetermination between a Comptonized powerlaw and a two-thermal-disc model is a scientific caveat that the paper itself discloses.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The slim-disc interpretation rests on a sequence of model choices and assumptions: the spectral decomposition itself, the physical mapping from diskpbb p < 0.75 to advection, the preference for Model-2 despite marginal statistical improvement, and the assumed spin, inclination, distance and mass grid for the continuum-fitting mass estimates. No new physical entities are introduced. The mass and luminosity results are conditional on these assumptions, several of which are adopted from prior literature or from the authors' own earlier modeling of LMC X-1 and LMC X-3.

free parameters (6)
  • diskpbb temperature index p = 0.5-0.66, many observations pegged at hard limit 0.5
    Central to the slim-disc claim; p < 0.75 is interpreted as advection, but in most M33 X-7 epochs and some NGC 300 X-1 epochs p hits the lower boundary (Table 3).
  • diskpbb inner temperature Tin1 = 1-2 keV per epoch
    Fitted from spectra; the 'hot disc' component is defined by this parameter.
  • slimbh BH mass M_BH = 8.9-14.9 Msun (M33 X-7), 8.7-28 Msun (NGC 300 X-1), 10.2-30 Msun (IC 10 X-1)
    Fitted for each source with slimbh; the range spans an assumed spin/inclination grid, not a statistical uncertainty.
  • slimbh luminosity L = about 0.1-0.2 L_Edd per modeled epoch
    Fitted together with mass in Model-3; depends on assumed distance and normalization.
  • spin a and inclination i grid for NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 = a = 0.8-0.98 in steps of 0.02; i = 60-75 deg (NGC 300 X-1), 63-75 deg (IC 10 X-1); i fixed to 70 deg for MCMC
    Not fitted to data but chosen by hand from literature and assumptions; the mass ranges are conditional on these choices.
  • correction factors kappa = 1.7 and xi = 0.353 = adopted constants
    Used only for the initial Rin-based mass estimate; adopted from prior literature, not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spectra can be decomposed into additive thermal components (diskbb, diskpbb) with Tbabs absorption and an APEC line, with cross-normalization constants for different instruments.
    Standard X-ray spectral fitting practice; invoked throughout Section 3.
  • domain assumption A diskpbb component with p < 0.75 corresponds to an advection-dominated slim accretion disc (Abramowicz et al. 1988).
    The slim-disc interpretation of Model-2 rests on this physical mapping, cited in Sections 3.1 and 5.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The power-law component in Model-1 is inappropriate for soft energies, so Model-2 is preferred even when the statistical improvement is marginal.
    The paper selects Model-2 primarily for physical consistency rather than statistical significance (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 have spin > 0.8 and inclination in the assumed ranges, following wind-fed HMXB arguments.
    Used to set the slimbh grid for mass estimation; the paper cites Steiner et al. 2016 and Qin et al. 2019, but the spin is not measured for these sources.
  • ad hoc to paper IC 10 X-1 has a BH mass similar to NGC 300 X-1 (17 Msun) for Eddington luminosity scaling.
    The paper assumes this because no dynamical mass exists (Section 3.1 footnote); L/L_Edd values for IC 10 X-1 inherit this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accretion disc dynamics in extragalactic black hole X-ray binaries: A comprehensive study of M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVZOKKJD

@misc{pith2026241117047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accretion disc dynamics in extragalactic black hole X-ray binaries: A comprehensive study of M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVZOKKJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17047}
}
abstract

Extragalactic Black Hole X-ray Binaries (BH-XRBs) are the most intriguing X-ray sources as some of them are `home' to the most massive stellar-mass BHs ever found. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive study of three massive, eclipsing extragalactic BH-XRBs i.e., M33X-7, NGC300X-1, and IC10X-1 and using entire X-ray observations available from \textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{NuSTAR} till date. Preliminary analysis using \textit{diskbb} and \textit{powerlaw} models shows that the sources have steep spectra and sub-Eddington luminosities (L<0.69 L$_{Edd}$), with major flux contribution from non-thermal component, resembling the relatively uncharted Steep Powerlaw State (SPL). To understand the accretion disc properties in this state, we explore alternate modelling scenario that reveals the presence of a `hot' ($kT_{in}=1-2$ keV) slim-disc (\textit{diskpbb}) with radial temperature profile $T(r)\propto r^{-p}$ ($p=0.5-0.66$), along with a cooler ($kT_{in}=0.1-0.2$ keV) standard thermal disc (\textit{diskbb}). We carry out the continuum-fitting method using relativistic slim-disc model (\textit{slimbh}) and estimate the mass range of M33 X-7, NGC300X-1 and IC10X-1 is to be 9$-$15 M$_{\odot}$, 9$-$28 M$_{\odot}$ and 10$-$30 M$_{\odot}$, respectively. Further, eclipse periods are determined by modelling the lightcurve, using which we estimate the size of the eclipsing bodies. Modelling of the eclipse spectra revealed the complete obscuration of soft spectral component during eclipse, implying the emission of hard component from an extended accretion region. Based on our findings, we provide an inference on geometry of accretion disc in these wind-fed systems and compare their properties with the other two extragalactic BH-XRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray image of M33 X-7 (left panel), NGC 300 X-1 (middle panel) and IC 10 X-1 (right panel) obtained from EPIC-pn instrument on-board XMM-Newton. Images are filtered for background in the energy band 0.3−12 keV. Selected source region for the extraction of source spectrum and lightcurve are marked as circle in yellow color. A source free region with radius twice as that of the source region from which background spe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The unfolded XMM-Newton and NuSTAR non-eclipse spectra of M33 X-7 (left), XMM-Newton spectra of NGC 300 X-1 (middle) and IC 10 X-1 (right) that are modelled using Model-2 (Tbabs*Tbabs(diskbb+diskpbb+apec)) are plotted in the top panels. The XMM-Newton spectra of all three sources comprised of EPIC-pn, MOS1 and MOS2 are plotted in magenta and the NuSTAR spectra comprised of FPMA and FPMB of M33 X-7 are shown in cyan … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass values of M33 X-7 (red), NGC 300 X-1 (cyan) and IC 10 X-1 (blue) obtained by fitting Model-3 (Tbabs*Tbabs(diskbb+apec+slimbh)). Spectral modelling is carried out with dimensionless spin (a) parameter fixed to 0.84 for M33 X-7 and varied between 0.8 and 0.98 in steps of 0.02 for both NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1. Inclination angle is considered to be at four different values i.e., 60◦ , 65◦ , 70◦ and 75◦ for M33 X-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot showing the variation of parameters of Model-3 fit i.e., luminosity, spin, and black hole mass for Epoch MN18+MX19 (top left), NX3 (top right) and IX1 (bottom) observations of M33 X-7, NGC 300 X-1 and IC 10 X-1 respectively. Marginalized distribution for ea…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: EPIC-pn lightcurves of IC 10 X-1, NGC 300 X-1 and M33 X-7 of Epoch IX2, NX8 and MX14 extracted in the energy range of 0.3−8 keV are plotted with time-bin of 100 sec in top panels. Fitted model is plotted in red for all three lightcurves. Hardness ratio (2−8 keV/0.3−2 k…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The unfolded non-eclipse spectra modelled using Model-1 along with the residual of source IC 10 X-1 and NGC 300 X-1 are plotted in black colour. True eclipse spectra modelled using modified Model-1 (Tbabs*Tbabs*pcfabs(powerlaw)) are plotted in red color. See the text f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Unfolded spectra of all five extragalactic BH-XRBs are plotted in the top panel. Residuals of best-fit of these spectra are plotted in the bottom panel. EPIC-pn spectrum and residual of M33 X-7 (black), NGC 300 X-1 (red) and IC 10 X-1 (orange) are modelled with Tbabs*T…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The illustration of accretion geometry in extragalactic BH-XRBs during different spectral states. Diagram on the left illustrates the geometry of the accretion disk, while on the right, the observed energy spectrum during respective spectral state is plotted. In Figure…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 26 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]

    A., Fragile P

    Abramowicz M. A., Fragile P. C., 2013, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.12942/lrr-2013-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013LRR....16....1A 16, 1

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-1 2013

  3. [3]

    A., Czerny B., Lasota J

    Abramowicz M. A., Czerny B., Lasota J. P., Szuszkiewicz E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..646A 332, 646

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  4. [4]

    K., Nandi A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3926A 446, 3926

    Agrawal V. K., Nandi A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3926A 446, 3926

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2291 2015

  5. [5]

    S., Dewangan G

    Alam M. S., Dewangan G. C., Belloni T., Mukherjee D., Jhingan S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.4259A 445, 4259

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2048 2014

  6. [6]

    P., Radhika D., Agrawal V

    Athulya M. P., Radhika D., Agrawal V. K., Ravishankar B. T., Naik S., Mandal S., Nandi A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3019A 510, 3019

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3614 2022

  7. [7]

    E., Bhuvana G

    Baby B. E., Bhuvana G. R., Radhika D., Katoch T., Mandal S., Nandi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.2447B 508, 2447

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2719 2021

  8. [8]

    M., Press W

    Bardeen J. M., Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..347B 178, 347

    doi:10.1086/151796 1972

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    S., Kolb U

    Barnard R., Clark J. S., Kolb U. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...488..697B 488, 697

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Brandt W

    Bauer F. E., Brandt W. N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601L..67B 601, L67

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Bhattacharya S., Laycock S. G. T., Chene A.-N., Binder B. A., Christodoulou D. M., Roy A., Sorabella N. M., Cappallo R. C., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230213984B p. arXiv:2302.13984

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    R., Radhika D., Agrawal V

    Bhuvana G. R., Radhika D., Agrawal V. K., Mandal S., Nandi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa4012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5457B 501, 5457

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Radhika D., Nandi A., 2022, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2021.09.036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AdSpR..69..483B 69, 483

    Bhuvana G. R., Radhika D., Nandi A., 2022, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2021.09.036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AdSpR..69..483B 69, 483

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe6a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...74B 910, 74

    Binder B. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe6a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...74B 910, 74

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    I., 2014, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772914030019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARep...58..126B 58, 126

    Bogomazov A. I., 2014, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772914030019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARep...58..126B 58, 126

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    N., Ward M

    Brandt W. N., Ward M. J., Fabian A. C., Hodge P. W., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/291.4.709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.291..709B 291, 709

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    Carpano S., Pollock A. M. T., Wilms J., Ehle M., Schirmer M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...461L...9C 461, L9

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Ostlie D

    Carroll B. W., Ostlie D. A., 2007, A n I ntroduction to M odern A strophysics, 2nd (international) edn

    2007

  11. [19]

    G., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...455..623C 455, 623

    Chakrabarti S., Titarchuk L. G., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...455..623C 455, 623

    1995 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Crowther P

    Clark J. S., Crowther P. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...414L..45C 414, L45

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Bauer F

    Corral-Santana J. M., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Bauer F. E., Mart \' nez-Pais I. G., Russell D. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...587A..61C 587, A61

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Crampton D., Hutchings J

    Cowley A. P., Crampton D., Hutchings J. B., Remillard R., Penfold J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...272..118C 272, 118

    1983 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..183...67D 183, 67

    Dalcanton J. J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..183...67D 183, 67

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...38E 881, 38

    Earnshaw H. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...38E 881, 38

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Rees M

    Fabian A. C., Rees M. J., Stella L., White N. E., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/238.3.729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.238..729F 238, 729

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    N., Atapin K

    Fabrika S. N., Atapin K. E., Vinokurov A. S., Sholukhova O. N., 2021, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S1990341321010077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AstBu..76....6F 76, 6

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Feng H., Soria R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2011.08.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011NewAR..55..166F 55, 166

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Woosley S

    Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Hartmann D. H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..152F 526, 152

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    Gieren W., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...69G 773, 69

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Roberts T

    Gladstone J. C., Roberts T. P., Done C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15123.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1836G 397, 1836

    2009

  24. [32]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CAMCS...5...65G 5, 65

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.116H 594, A116

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770..103H 770, 103

    Harrison F. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770..103H 770, 103

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Russell D

    Hyde E. A., Russell D. M., Ritter A., Filipovi \'c M. D., Kaper L., Grieve K., O'Brien A. N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129i4201H 129, 094201

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Bradt H

    Johnston M. D., Bradt H. V., Doxsey R. E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...233..514J 233, 514

    1979 doi

  29. [37]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..303K 55, 303

    Kaaret P., Feng H., Roberts T. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..303K 55, 303

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    G., Im M., Karoji H., Noumaru J., Tanaka I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..816K 703, 816

    Kim M., Kim E., Hwang N., Lee M. G., Im M., Karoji H., Noumaru J., Tanaka I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..816K 703, 816

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Fabian A

    Kosec P., Pinto C., Walton D. J., Fabian A. C., Bachetti M., Brightman M., F \"u rst F., Grefenstette B. W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3978K 479, 3978

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Kubota A., Done C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08134.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..980K 353, 980

    2004

  33. [41]

    Kubota A., Tanaka Y., Makishima K., Ueda Y., Dotani T., Inoue H., Yamaoka K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/50.6.667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASJ...50..667K 50, 667

    1998 doi

  34. [42]

    Kubota A., Makishima K., Ebisawa K., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560L.147K 560, L147

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Lan c ov \'a D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab48f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884L..37L 884, L37

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Laycock S. G. T., Cappallo R. C., Moro M. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1399L 446, 1399

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Narayan R., Davis S

    Liu J., McClintock J. E., Narayan R., Davis S. W., Orosz J. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679L..37L 679, L37

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Nandi A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2086M 526, 2086

    Majumder S., Das S., Agrawal V. K., Nandi A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2086M 526, 2086

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Remillard R

    McClintock J. E., Remillard R. A., 2006, in , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. pp 157--213, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0306213

    2006 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    J., Sutton A

    Middleton M. J., Sutton A. D., Roberts T. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19285.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417..464M 417, 464

    2011

  41. [49]

    Miller-Jones J. C. A., et al., 2021, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abb3363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Sci...371.1046M 371, 1046

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Miller J. M., Raymond J., Fabian A., Steeghs D., Homan J., Reynolds C., van der Klis M., Wijnands R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.441..953M 441, 953

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...542A..56N 542, A56

    Nandi A., Debnath D., Mandal S., Chakrabarti S. K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...542A..56N 542, A56

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Mead R., 1965, @doi [The Computer Journal] 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 , 7, 308

    Nelder J. A., Mead R., 1965, @doi [The Computer Journal] 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 , 7, 308

    1965 doi

  45. [53]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.449..872O 449, 872

    Orosz J. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.449..872O 449, 872

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..573O 697, 573

    Orosz J. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..573O 697, 573

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Steiner J

    Orosz J. A., Steiner J. F., McClintock J. E., Buxton M. M., Bailyn C. D., Steeghs D., Guberman A., Torres M. A. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..154O 794, 154

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Misanovic Z., Haberl F., Ehle M., Trinchieri G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...413..879P 413, 879

    Pietsch W., Mochejska B. J., Misanovic Z., Haberl F., Ehle M., Trinchieri G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...413..879P 413, 879

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Plucinsky P

    Pietsch W., Haberl F., Sasaki M., Gaetz T. J., Plucinsky P. P., Ghavamian P., Long K. S., Pannuti T. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646..420P 646, 420

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    Prabhakar G., Mandal S., G R B., Nandi A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp..141P

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    H., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669L..21P 669, L21

    Prestwich A. H., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669L..21P 669, L21

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    Qin Y., Marchant P., Fragos T., Meynet G., Kalogera V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf97b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870L..18Q 870, L18

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Ramachandran V., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..77R 667, A77

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Pietsch W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...373..473R 373, 473

    Read A. M., Pietsch W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...373..473R 373, 473

    2001 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Nowak M

    Reynolds C. S., Nowak M. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00584-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhR...377..389R 377, 389

    2003 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Vadawale S., Gar \'c ia J., Connors R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaaa4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...68R 944, 68

    Rout S. K., Vadawale S., Gar \'c ia J., Connors R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaaa4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...68R 944, 68

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    arXiv:1108.0396

    Sadowski A., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1108.0396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1108.0396S p. arXiv:1108.0396

    2011 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  59. [67]

    M., Filippenko A

    Silverman J. M., Filippenko A. V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678L..17S 678, L17

    2008 doi

  60. [68]

    K., Brickhouse N

    Smith R. K., Brickhouse N. S., Liedahl D. A., Raymond J. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556L..91S 556, L91

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    F., Antoniou V., Meynet G., Dosopoulou F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..12S 597, A12

    S rensen M., Fragos T., Steiner J. F., Antoniou V., Meynet G., Dosopoulou F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..12S 597, A12

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    T., Iyer N., Agrawal V

    Sreehari H., Ravishankar B. T., Iyer N., Agrawal V. K., Katoch T. B., Mandal S., Nandi A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..928S 487, 928

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    F., Walton D

    Steiner J. F., Walton D. J., Garc \' a J. A., McClintock J. E., Laycock S. G. T., Middleton M. J., Barnard R., Madsen K. K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..154S 817, 154

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    Str \"u der L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L..18S 365, L18

    2001 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Titarchuk L

    Sunyaev R. A., Titarchuk L. G., 1980, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....86..121S 86, 121

    1980

  66. [74]

    D., Roberts T

    Sutton A. D., Roberts T. P., Middleton M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.1758S 435, 1758

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    D., Swartz D

    Sutton A. D., Swartz D. A., Roberts T. P., Middleton M. J., Soria R., Done C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...48S 836, 48

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    E., Sivakoff G

    Tetarenko B. E., Sivakoff G. R., Heinke C. O., Gladstone J. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222...15T 222, 15

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    Trinchieri G., Fabbiano G., Peres G., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...325..531T 325, 531

    1988 doi

  70. [78]

    M., Fragos T., Willems B., Orosz J

    Valsecchi F., Glebbeek E., Farr W. M., Fragos T., Willems B., Orosz J. A., Liu J., Kalogera V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.468...77V 468, 77

    2010 doi

  71. [79]

    arXiv:2303.01174

    Veledina A., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230301174V p. arXiv:2303.01174

    2023 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    Vierdayanti K., Watarai K.-Y., Mineshige S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/60.3.653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASJ...60..653V 60, 653

    2008 doi

  73. [81]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...65W 806, 65

    Walton D. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...65W 806, 65

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    J., Mackenzie A

    Walton D. J., Mackenzie A. D. A., Gully H., Patel N. R., Roberts T. P., Earnshaw H. P., Mateos S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1587W 509, 1587

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    Watarai K.-y., Fukue J., Takeuchi M., Mineshige S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/52.1.133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASJ...52..133W 52, 133

    2000 doi

  76. [84]

    T., Ray P

    Wolff M. T., Ray P. S., Wood K. S., Hertz P. L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..183..156W 183, 156

    2009 doi

  77. [85]

    C., Woosley S

    Yoon S. C., Woosley S. E., Langer N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725..940Y 725, 940

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.