Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Broadband study of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 during its outburst in 2024

T0 review · 3 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 A 2024 giant outburst of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 shows the same 32 keV cyclotron absorption line seen in 2014, implying the neutron star's magnetic field has not changed in a decade.

desk verdict Solid single-source outburst study with a robust CRSF detection; the 'model-independent' line energy claim and an abstract/body inconsistency need fixing before the headline numbers are trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00960 v1 pith:IW2TVCRZ submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.HE

H. N. Yang , C. Maitra , G. Vasilopoulos , F. Haberl , P. A. Jenke , A. S. Karaferias , R. Sharma , A. Beri
show 13 more authors
L. Ji C. Jin W. Yuan Y. J. Zhang C. Y. Wang X. P. Xu Y. Liu W. D. Zhang C. Zhang Z. X. Ling H. Y. Liu H. Q. Cheng H. W. Pan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords RXJ0520.5-6932BeX-raybinarycyclotronresonantscatteringfeatureneutronstarmagneticfieldgiantoutburstpulseprofilepulsedfractionMagellanicClouds
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 analyzes the 2024 giant outburst of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 with multiwavelength data and shows that the cyclotron resonant scattering feature (CRSF) in its X-ray spectrum sits at about 32 keV, the same energy measured during the 2014 outburst. Because the energy of a CRSF directly measures the magnetic field strength near the neutron star surface, the authors infer a field of roughly $3.6 \times 10^{12}$ G that has not changed measurably over a decade. They also improve the orbital period to about 24.39 days, find a slight spin-down between outbursts, and report energy-dependent pulse profiles, including a dip in the pulsed fraction near 15 keV never before seen in an extragalactic source. A general reader might care because the constancy of the cyclotron energy constrains magnetic-field burial and accretion physics in strongly magnetized neutron stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cyclotron resonant scattering feature (CRSF), an absorption-like feature in the X-ray spectrum produced when electrons scatter off quantized Landau levels in a strong magnetic field; its centroid energy maps directly to field strength. The quantitative comparison rests on the joint spectral fit of simultaneous Swift-XRT (0.3-10 keV) and NuSTAR (3-79 keV) data using the model const*tbabs(powerlaw*fdcut*gabs+gauss), with alternative continua (nthcomp, cutoffpl+bbody) checked to show the line energy is not strongly model-dependent. The timing analysis uses a Bayesian torque-and-orbital model built on the Ghosh-Lamb accretion torque prescription, plus an FFT-based pulsed-fraction method, to connect the spin evolution over 10 years to the magnetic field and binary parameters.

What would settle it

A reanalysis of the same NuSTAR/Swift spectra with a physically motivated Comptonization continuum (for instance a model that includes bulk and thermal Comptonization self-consistently) that either removes the need for a line at 32 keV or shifts its centroid by more than the reported errors would falsify the stability claim. More decisively, a future outburst observed with a high-throughput hard X-ray instrument that measures the cyclotron energy outside $32.2 \pm 1.5$ keV would refute the field-constancy conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 2024 outburst of RX J0520.5-6932 shows a cyclotron absorption line at $E_{\mathrm{CRSF}} = 32.2^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ keV, statistically required by a joint Swift-XRT/NuSTAR fit and consistent with the line found in 2014. The authors interpret the constant line energy, despite a factor-of-two drop in luminosity, as evidence that the neutron star's magnetic field, about $3.6 \times 10^{12}$ G under the usual 12-B-12 conversion, has remained stable over approximately ten years. The same dataset yields an updated orbital period near 24.39 days, an intrinsic spin-up during each outburst but a net spin-down of about 0.04 s over 10.3 years, and phase-resolved variations of the CRSF energy and continuum parameters. The paper also reports, for the first time in an extragalactic source, a decrease in the pulsed fraction around 15 keV in addition to the drop near the cyclotron energy.

Load-bearing premise

The identification and centroid energy of the cyclotron line depend on the assumed continuum shape; the three continuum models tried place the line between about 30.1 and 32.6 keV, a spread larger than the quoted 90% statistical errors, so the decade-stability conclusion is only as firm as the choice of the powerlaw-times-Fermi-Dirac-cutoff continuum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The magnetic field of the neutron star in RX J0520.5-6932, as measured by the cyclotron line, is unchanged between 2014 and 2024.
  • The orbital period is refined to about 24.39 days, with the X-ray ephemeris aligning with the OGLE optical light curve over 10 years.
  • Between the two giant outbursts the neutron star spun down by about 0.04 s over 10.3 years, even though each outburst shows intrinsic spin-up.
  • The 2024 pulse profile is more complex and more energy dependent than in 2014, and the pulsed fraction shows a new dip near 15 keV, a feature not previously seen in an extragalactic accreting pulsar.
  • Phase-resolved NuSTAR spectra show the CRSF energy, photon index, and flux varying with rotation phase, with the CRSF lagging the flux by about 0.3 in phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the field is truly constant across a factor-of-two luminosity change, then this source does not show the CRSF-energy versus luminosity anti-correlation seen in some sources above the critical luminosity; a targeted comparison of J0520 with sources like V 0332+53 might clarify what distinguishes the behaviours.
  • The 15 keV pulsed-fraction dip coincides with the energy where the pulse profile changes shape; if real, it could trace a transition in the beaming or absorption pattern in the accretion column that future polarimetric or phase-resolved observations could test.
  • The unresolved mismatch between the X-ray orbital period (~24.39 d) and the optical period (~24.41 d) suggests a beat or precession interpretation; a third well-monitored major outburst would decide between the two orbital solutions proposed in the paper.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a multiwavelength study of the 2024 giant outburst of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932, combining optical OGLE photometry, LEIA and EP-WXT soft X-ray data, Swift-XRT monitoring, a simultaneous NuSTAR observation, and Fermi/GBM pulse-frequency measurements. A joint Swift-XRT/NuSTAR spectral fit yields a cyclotron resonant scattering feature at 32.2(+0.8/-0.7) keV, which the authors argue is consistent with the 2014 value and therefore implies a stable neutron-star magnetic field of about 3.6e12 G. Timing analysis provides an updated orbital solution with a period of 24.39 d, a suggested spin-down of about 4e-4 s/yr over 10.3 years, energy-dependent pulse profiles, and phase-resolved spectral variations. The paper also reports a decrease in pulsed fraction near 15 keV, claimed as a first for an extragalactic source.

Significance. If the CRSF-stability result holds, it would provide a rare, direct constraint on the long-term evolution of the magnetic field of an accreting neutron star, a question of broad interest for accretion physics. The paper is data-rich and technically thorough: it uses simultaneous Swift/NuSTAR spectra, reports a 100% simftest significance for the CRSF, performs MCMC-based phase-resolved analysis, and compares with archival 2014 NuSTAR data. The multi-instrument coverage, including new LEIA and EP data, is a clear strength. However, the central stability claim is currently weakened by the model-dependence of the line energy, and the orbital-period and pulsed-fraction claims need additional qualification or significance assessment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, Tables A2-A3, Fig. 7] The statement that the CRSF energy is "model-independent" is not supported by the reported fits. The joint fits give E_CRSF = 32.2(+0.8/-0.7) keV for powerlaw*fdcut, 32.6(+0.9/-0.9) keV for nthcomp, and 31.0(+0.6/-0.6) keV for cutoffpl+bbody (Tables A2), and the NuSTAR-only fits in Table A3 extend the range to 30.1-32.6 keV. This 2.5 keV spread is 3-4 times the 90% statistical errors, so the line centroid is not model-independent. Since the decade-stability conclusion (abstract, Section 4.4, Fig. 7) is based on the preferred continuum only, and no alternative-model fits of the 2014 data are shown, the conclusion that the CRSF energy is unchanged could change if a different continuum is adopted. The authors should either quote a systematic uncertainty from continuum selection, or demonstrate that the 2014-2024 difference remains insignificant under all the considered continua.
  2. [Section 3.2.2, Table 2, Section 4.1, abstract] The paper overstates the orbital-period result. Table 2 lists two solutions: Solution I (P_orb = 23.9188 d) has higher Bayesian evidence (ln Z = 348.2) than Solution II (24.3886 d, ln Z = 338.5), and Section 4.1 admits that "it is not possible to strongly argue in favour of either orbital solution". Nevertheless, the abstract and conclusions report an "estimated orbital period of 24.39 days" as if it were unique. The authors should either present both solutions in the abstract and conclusions, or provide a quantitative justification for preferring the lower-evidence Solution II beyond its proximity to the OGLE period.
  3. [Section 4.5, Fig. 15, abstract] The claim that the decrease in pulsed fraction around 15 keV is "a first for an extragalactic source" is not supported by a significance estimate. The paper states that a decrease is noticed and compares it with 4U 1626-67, but no confidence intervals or significance levels are given for the PF values in Fig. 15. Without an assessment of whether the dip is statistically significant, the novelty claim in the abstract is premature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section 4.3] The abstract states a "spin-down of ~0.04 s over 10.3 years", but Section 4.3 reports the spin period increasing from ~8.026 s to ~8.03 s, which corresponds to ~0.004 s over 10.3 years (4.4e-4 s/yr). The abstract value appears to be off by a factor of ten.
  2. [Section 3.1.1, Table 1] The model notation is inconsistent: the text and Table 1 use "const*tbabs..." while the abstract and some captions use "constant*tbabs...". Please unify the notation.
  3. [Section 2.2] The LEIA background region is described as an annulus with inner and outer radii of 134 and 268 pixels, while the source region radius is 67 pixels. Given the small field of view, the background may be affected by the bright nearby supernova remnant N132D; please clarify how the background subtraction was validated.
  4. [Section 4.2] The phrase "Vasilopoulosin prep" is incomplete and does not correspond to an entry in the reference list; please provide a full citation or remove it.
  5. [Figure 11 caption] The caption states "we plot the 3-50 keV pulse profile" whereas the text and figure description refer to the 3-79 keV band. Please correct the energy range.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CRSF measurement and decade comparison are direct spectral fits anchored by external 2014/2024 data; only minor self-citation and a post-hoc orbital-solution choice.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the detection of a CRSF at 32.2(-0.7/+0.8) keV and its consistency with the 2014 value. This is a direct spectral fit to Swift-XRT/NuSTAR data, and the 2014 comparison uses archival NuSTAR data refit under the same continuum model; no fitted parameter from the torque model is used to define the CRSF energy, so the central claim is not circular. The torque-model magnetic field (log B about 12.0) is fitted to GBM spin frequencies and X-ray luminosities, but it is then compared to, not used to predict, the CRSF-derived field of about 3.6e12 G; the CRSF provides an external anchor. The orbital period selection is mildly post-hoc: the authors state 'Only the results of Solution II, in which the orbital period is closer to the reported optical period (Vasilopoulos et al. 2014a), are presented,' and later use this X-ray-derived period to claim alignment with OGLE; this is a selection effect on a side-result, not a circular derivation of the CRSF conclusion. The claim that E_CRSF is 'model-independent' is overstated because Tables A2 and A3 show a 30.1-32.6 keV spread across continuum models, larger than the reported 90% errors, but this is a systematic-uncertainty/correctness issue rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations to Karaferias et al. (2023) supply the torque-modelling framework, but the framework is a standard published method with an independent statistical implementation (UltraNest), so it is not load-bearing. No step of the derivation is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spectral results rest on standard X-ray model parameters that are fit to the data rather than introduced ad hoc; these are not listed as free parameters. The torque-model parameters above are genuine fitted quantities on which the spin-evolution and orbital-period claims depend. The chosen orbital solution also rests on an explicit assumption linking the optical and X-ray periods, which is the weakest non-spectral input.

free parameters (10)
  • Orbital period P_orb (Solution II) = 24.3886 ± 0.0012 d
    Fitted to spin-frequency evolution through the Ghosh-Lamb torque model; one of two degenerate solutions, chosen because it is closer to the optical period.
  • Magnetic field log B = 12.005 ± 0.014 (G)
    Polar field strength in the torque model, fitted to spin evolution; later compared with the CRSF-derived value.
  • Orbital eccentricity e = 0.05 ± 0.019
    Keplerian element fitted in the Bayesian model.
  • Argument of periastron omega = 256 ± 27 deg
    Keplerian element fitted in the Bayesian model.
  • Projected semimajor axis a sin i = 108.3 ± 2.0 light-sec
    Keplerian element fitted in the Bayesian model.
  • Time of mean longitude 90 deg T_pi/2 = 56666.17 ± 0.08 MJD
    Phase reference of the orbit, fitted in the Bayesian model.
  • Reference spin frequency F0 (2014) = 124.3919 ± 0.0011 mHz
    Free parameter in the torque model, anchors the 2014 outburst spin frequency.
  • Reference spin frequency F1 (2024) = 124.5306 ± 0.0013 mHz
    Free parameter in the torque model, anchors the 2024 outburst spin frequency.
  • Excess noise ln f = -12.81 ± 0.16
    Extra noise term in the Bayesian fit to absorb scatter beyond statistical errors.
  • Bolometric correction = ~6.55
    Scale factor derived from the joint spectral fit (1.5-5 keV to bolometric); applied to all epochs to estimate L_X, though it is measured at one time.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Ghosh-Lamb (1979) accretion torque model, with magnetic-to-Alfven radius ratio 0.5, describes spin evolution during these outbursts.
    Invoked in Section 3.2.2 and Section 4.3 to convert frequency measurements into orbital parameters and spin-up/down rates; if the model is mis-specified, the derived P_orb and spin-down change.
  • domain assumption Canonical neutron star parameters, mass = 1.4 Msun and radius = 12 km.
    Adopted in Section 3.2.2 for torque modeling; changes in these values would alter the derived magnetic field and spin-up rates.
  • domain assumption The distance to RX J0520.5-6932 is the standard LMC distance (roughly 50 kpc), used to compute X-ray luminosities.
    No explicit distance is stated; luminosities and Eddington comparisons in Sections 3.1.2 and 4.3 depend on it.
  • standard math The 12-B-12 rule converts CRSF centroid energy to magnetic field strength.
    Used in Section 4.4 to estimate B ~ 3.6e12 G; this conversion is standard for electron cyclotron lines.
  • domain assumption The bolometric correction (~6.55) derived from the April 2024 joint fit applies to all other epochs.
    Applied in Section 3.1.2 to convert 1.5-5 keV fluxes into bolometric luminosity; the correction may vary with spectral state.
  • ad hoc to paper The optical periodicity of ~24.41 d (OGLE) reflects the true orbital period, justifying the choice of Solution II (24.39 d) over the higher-evidence Solution I (23.92 d).
    Stated in Sections 3.2.2 and 4.1; without this assumption the paper would adopt the statistically preferred P_orb = 23.92 d, changing the beat-period and orbital evolution discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Broadband study of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 during its outburst in 2024." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IW2TVCRZ

@misc{pith2026241200960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Broadband study of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 during its outburst in 2024},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IW2TVCRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00960}
}
read the original abstract

A new giant outburst of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 was detected and subsequently observed with several space-borne and ground-based instruments. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the optical and X-ray data, focusing on the spectral and timing characteristics of selected X-ray observations. A joint fit of spectra from simultaneous observations performed by the X-ray telescope (XRT) on the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory (Swift) and Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope ARray (NuSTAR) provides broadband parameter constraints, including a cyclotron resonant scattering feature (CRSF) at 32.2(+0.8/-0.7) keV with no significant energy change since 2014, and a weaker Fe line. Independent spectral analyses of observations by the Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy (LEIA), Einstein Probe (EP), Swift-XRT, and NuSTAR demonstrate the consistency of parameters across different bands. Luminosity variations during the current outburst were tracked. The light curve of the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) aligns with the X-ray data in both 2014 and 2024. Spin evolution over 10 years is studied after adding Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) data, improving the orbital parameters, with an estimated orbital period of 24.39 days, slightly differing from OGLE data. Despite intrinsic spin-up during outbursts, a spin-down of ~0.04s over 10.3 years is suggested. For the new outburst, the pulse profiles indicate a complicated energy-dependent shape, with decreases around 15 keV and 25 keV in the pulsed fraction, a first for an extragalactic source. Phase-resolved NuSTAR data indicate variations in parameters such as flux, photon index, and CRSF energy with rotation phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00960 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The optical and X-ray light curves of the 2024 outburst. Within the same panels, the data from the 2014 outburst were overplotted for visual comparison, which (marked as red) are shifted by an integer number (i.e. 154) of 𝑃orb = 24.39 𝑑, a value derived by the updated ephemeris (see Section 3.2.2). Then the 0-epoch of 2014 data corresponds to MJD-56544 d. Vertical dotted lines mark orbital cycles phased at the peria… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The single-exposure images from EP-WXT and LEIA with exposure times of 1210s and 840s, respectively. Left panel: 1-CMOS EP-WXT image (9.3 ◦ × 9.3 ◦ ), covering 1/48 of the total EP-WXT field of view. Middle panel: In the EP-WXT image, a 4 ◦ × 4 ◦ region around J0520 is enlarged, with nearby bright sources labeled. Right panel: 1-CMOS LEIA image (9.3 ◦ × 9.3 ◦ ), covering 1/4 of the total LEIA field of view. The 4 ◦ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Swift-XRT (black for PC and red for WT) and NuSTAR (blue for FPMA and green for FPMB) unfolded spectra with fit results and residuals for different models. Top panel: spectra with their best-fit const*tbabs(powerlaw*fdcut*gabs+gauss) models. Second panel: residual of the continuum-only model: const*tbabs*powerlaw*fdcut. Third panel: residual of the continuum model after adding an absorption component indicating a CR… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The LEIA and EP-WXT spectra derived during the same period, along with the best-fit absorbed power-law model. Black and blue cross marks indicate LEIA and EP-WXT data, respectively. excellent opportunity to improve the measured orbital period of the system. Keplerian o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: NuSTAR spectra fit results and residuals for different models. Top panel: spectra with their best-fit const*tbabs*cflux(powerlaw*fdcut*gabs+gauss) models. Black and red cross marks indicate FPMA and FPMB, respectively. Second to sixth panels are residuals corresponding…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NuSTAR contours of const*tbabs*cflux(powerlaw*fdcut*gabs+gauss) model for 2024 observation, comparing with observations 2014n1 and 2014n2. influenced by the precession of the Be disk. Orbital phase shifts or even jumps could also happen (e.g., Wilson et al. 2002). Howe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Lomb-Scargle Periodogram and pulse profile with 1-𝜎 error bars of Swift-XRT WT mode second part data from observation s091. The dashed red line marks the 99.73% (3𝜎) confidence level obtained from the simulation. 4.2 Optical and X-ray Alignment Edge et al. (2004) …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NuSTAR pulse profile in different bandpasses for 2024 outburst. Top panel: the total pulse profile from 3-79 keV. Second to fifth panels show the 3-8 keV, 8-20 keV, 20-40 keV, and 40-79 keV pulse profiles, respectively. The pulse profiles are plotted with 1-𝜎 error bar…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NuSTAR phase energy heat-maps for 2014 and 2024 observations (i.e. obsids 80001002002 and 91001317002). Each energy bin is normalized by subtracting the average pulse intensity and subtracted by the standard deviation of the energy bin. For clarity, we plot the 3-50 k…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Frequency evolution during the 2014 and 2024 outbursts of J0520 based on the calculation in 3.2.2. Barycentric corrections have been performed for GBM (orange) and NuSTAR (red) frequency measurements, thus the variability seen is due to binary orbital effects and intr…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: NuSTAR model parameters as a function of phases. Errors represent 90% confidence intervals from MCMC (200,000 step MCMC run with a 200,000 step burn-in). The 90% error region shown as a grey shadowed area comes from random sampling under distributions of log flux and …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Optical profile folded for periods derived by the timing analysis. Data obtained prior to 2020 are marked with black points while 2 more recent OGLE IV epochs are marked with colors. In the left panel we plot all available OGLE data, while in the other two we only plo…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: NuSTAR pulsed fraction as a function of energy for the 2014 and 2024 NuSTAR observations. up to ∼25 keV where there is a drop centered around the CRSF. How￾ever, due to background noise, we cannot resolve the PF evolution above 30 keV. In both the 2014 data we find a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 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]

    Alfonso-Garz \'o n J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..45A 683, A45

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347712 2024

  3. [3]

    M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..62A 662, A62

    Alonso-Hern \'a ndez J., F \"u rst F., Kretschmar P., Caballero I., Joyce A. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..62A 662, A62

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141774 2022

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.123B 544, A123

    Becker P. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.123B 544, A123

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219065 2012

  6. [6]

    Bildsten L., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJS..113..367B 113, 367

    doi:10.1086/313060 1997

  7. [7]

    Bozzo E., Stella L., Vietri M., Ghosh P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493..809B 493, 809

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810658 2009

  8. [8]

    Buchner J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131j8005B 131, 108005

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc 2019

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Buchner J., 2021, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JOSS....6.3001B 6, 3001

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Caballero I., Wilms J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1206.3124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MmSAI..83..230C 83, 230

    2012 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    A., Finger M

    Camero Arranz A., Wilson C. A., Finger M. H., Reglero V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...473..551C 473, 551

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Cemeljic M., Bulik T., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AcA....48...65C 48, 65

    1998 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cheng H., et al., 2024, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-024-09932-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ExA....57...10C 57, 10

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Kumari N., Naik S., Kumar V., Jana A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3354 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.5089C 518, 5089

    Chhotaray B., Jaisawal G. K., Kumari N., Naik S., Kumar V., Jana A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3354 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.5089C 518, 5089

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Rothschild R

    Coburn W., Heindl W. A., Rothschild R. E., Gruber D. E., Kreykenbohm I., Wilms J., Kretschmar P., Staubert R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580..394C 580, 394

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Gehrels N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L..99C 460, L99

    Cusumano G., La Parola V., D'A \` A., Segreto A., Tagliaferri G., Barthelmy S. D., Gehrels N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L..99C 460, L99

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Edge W. R. T., Coe M. J., Galache J. L., Hill A. B., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07606.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349.1361E 349, 1361

    2004

  10. [18]

    A., Segreto A., Mineo T., Santangelo A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200809373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...498..825F 498, 825

    Ferrigno C., Becker P. A., Segreto A., Mineo T., Santangelo A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200809373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...498..825F 498, 825

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    Ferrigno C., D'A \` A., Ambrosi E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A.103F 677, A103

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    F \"u rst F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780..133F 780, 133

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  14. [22]

    C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W

    Gendreau K. C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W. A., Takahashi T., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99051H, @doi 10.1117/12.2231304

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    1979 doi

  16. [24]

    V., Vasisht G., Dotani T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522L..49G 522, L49

    Gotthelf E. V., Vasisht G., Dotani T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522L..49G 522, L49

    1999 doi

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    A., Rothschild R

    Heindl W. A., Rothschild R. E., Coburn W., Staubert R., Wilms J., Kreykenbohm I., Kretschmar P., 2004, in Kaaret P., Lamb F. K., Swank J. H., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 714, X-ray Timing 2003: Rossi and Beyond. AIP, pp 323--330 ( @eprint arXiv as...

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C., Narayan R., Kallman T

    Hickox R. C., Narayan R., Kallman T. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..881H 614, 881

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.3951J 521, 3951

    Jaisawal G. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.3951J 521, 3951

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Ji L., Staubert R., Ducci L., Santangelo A., Zhang S., Chang Z., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.3797J 484, 3797

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..51K 605, A51

    Kaastra J. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..51K 605, A51

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Vasilopoulos G., Petropoulou M., Jenke P

    Karaferias A. S., Vasilopoulos G., Petropoulou M., Jenke P. A., Wilson-Hodge C. A., Malacaria C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520..281K 520, 281

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2112.03779

    King A., Lasota J.-P., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2112.03779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211203779K p. arXiv:2112.03779

    2021 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ad3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917L..38K 917, L38

    Kong L. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ad3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917L..38K 917, L38

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Kreykenbohm I., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492..511K 492, 511

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Fuerst F., Pottschmidt K., Haberl F., Wilms J., 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ATel.5856....1K 5856, 1

    Kuehnel M., Finger M. H., Fuerst F., Pottschmidt K., Haberl F., Wilms J., 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ATel.5856....1K 5856, 1

    2014

  28. [36]

    La Parola V., Cusumano G., Segreto A., D'A \` A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..185L 463, 185

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    X., et al., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23i5007L 23, 095007

    Ling Z. X., et al., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23i5007L 23, 095007

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2023.1292500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FrASS..1092500L 10, 1292500

    Ludlam R. M., et al., 2023, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2023.1292500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FrASS..1092500L 10, 1292500

    2023

  31. [39]

    A., Tsygankov S

    Lutovinov A. A., Tsygankov S. S., 2009, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773709070019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AstL...35..433L 35, 433

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Maggi P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...585A.162M 585, A162

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Maitra C., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9476-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...50M 38, 50

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Maitra C., Paul B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771...96M 771, 96

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Wilson-Hodge C

    Malacaria C., Jenke P., Roberts O. J., Wilson-Hodge C. A., Cleveland W. H., Mailyan B., GBM Accreting Pulsars Program Team 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab855c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896...90M 896, 90

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Meegan C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702..791M 702, 791

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    Nagel W., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...251..288N 251, 288

    1981 doi

  38. [46]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...33P 822, 33

    Parfrey K., Spitkovsky A., Beloborodov A. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...33P 822, 33

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Paul B., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9475-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...39P 38, 39

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Pavlinsky M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..42P 650, A42

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Chakrabarty D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...581.1293R 581, 1293

    Ray P. S., Chakrabarty D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...581.1293R 581, 1293

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    Reig P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Ap&SS.332....1R 332, 1

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Cowley A

    Schmidtke P. C., Cowley A. P., Frattare L. M., McGrath T. K., Hutchings J. B., Crampton D., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PASP..106..843S 106, 843

    1994 doi

  44. [52]

    E., Coburn W., Staubert R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...472..353S 472, 353

    Sch \"o nherr G., Wilms J., Kretschmar P., Kreykenbohm I., Santangelo A., Rothschild R. E., Coburn W., Staubert R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...472..353S 472, 353

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    N., Mereminskiy I

    Semena A. N., Mereminskiy I. A., Lutovinov A. A., Molkov S. V., Tkachenko A. Y., Arefiev V. A., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16562....1S 16562, 1

    2024

  46. [54]

    C., Ray P

    Sharma R., Gendreau K., Arzoumanian Z., Ferrara E. C., Ray P. S., Sanna A., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16569....1S 16569, 1

    2024

  47. [55]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7320S 528, 7320

    Shui Q. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7320S 528, 7320

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    V., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Skilling J., 2004, in Fischer R., Preuss R., Toussaint U. V., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods...

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    Staubert R., 2003, @doi [Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement] 10.1088/1009-9271/3/S1/270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ChJAS...3..270S 3, 270

    2003 doi

  50. [58]

    I., Rothschild R

    Staubert R., Klochkov D., Wilms J., Postnov K., Shakura N. I., Rothschild R. E., F \"u rst F., Harrison F. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...572A.119S 572, A119

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    Staubert R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A..61S 622, A61

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    Suchy S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1487S 675, 1487

    2008 doi

  53. [61]

    E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..124S 745, 124

    Suchy S., F \"u rst F., Pottschmidt K., Caballero I., Kreykenbohm I., Wilms J., Markowitz A., Rothschild R. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..124S 745, 124

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..154T 795, 154

    Tendulkar S. P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..154T 795, 154

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4861T 518, 4861

    Tobrej M., Rai B., Ghising M., Tamang R., Paul B. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4861T 518, 4861

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Kennea J

    Townsend L. J., Kennea J. A., Coe M. J., McBride V. A., Buckley D. A. H., Evans P. A., Udalski A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.3878T 471, 3878

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    Treiber H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.6187T 503, 6187

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Tr\" u mper J., Pietsch W., Reppin C., Voges W., Staubert R., Kendziorra E., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...219L.105T 219, L105

    1978 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Lutovinov A

    Tsygankov S. S., Lutovinov A. A., Serber A. V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15791.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1628T 401, 1628

    2010

  60. [68]

    Udalski A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.0810.2244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AcA....58..187U 58, 187

    2008 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    Udalski A., Szymanski M., Kaluzny J., Kubiak M., Mateo M., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AcA....42..253U 42, 253

    1992

  62. [70]

    Udalski A., Kubiak M., Szymanski M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AcA....47..319U 47, 319

    1997 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    Varun Pradhan P., Maitra C., Raichur H., Paul B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...61V 880, 61

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Vasilopoulos G., Haberl F., Sturm R., Maggi P., Udalski A., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...567A.129V 567, A129

    doi

  65. [73]

    Vasilopoulos G., Sturm R., Maggi P., Haberl F., 2014b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ATel.5760....1V 5760, 1

  66. [74]

    Vasilopoulos G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5350V 494, 5350

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    P., G \'u rpide A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abda49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909...50V 909, 50

    Vasilopoulos G., Koliopanos F., Haberl F., Treiber H., Brightman M., Earnshaw H. P., G \'u rpide A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abda49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909...50V 909, 50

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    K., Maitra C., Haberl F., Maggi P., Karaferias A

    Vasilopoulos G., Jaisawal G. K., Maitra C., Haberl F., Maggi P., Karaferias A. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.194V 664, A194

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Ferland G

    Verner D. A., Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Yakovlev D. G., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465..487V 465, 487

    1996 doi

  70. [78]

    M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449L.153W 449, L153

    Wang Y. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449L.153W 449, L153

    1995 doi

  71. [79]

    Wang W., et al., 2021, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2021.01.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JHEAp..30....1W 30, 1

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..125W 935, 125

    Wang P. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..125W 935, 125

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Finger M

    Wilson C. A., Finger M. H., Coe M. J., Laycock S., Fabregat J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...570..287W 570, 287

    2002 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Finger M

    Wilson C. A., Finger M. H., Camero-Arranz A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678.1263W 678, 1263

    2008 doi

  76. [84]

    Xiao H., Ji L., Zhang P., Ducci L., Doroshenko V., Santangelo A., Zhang S., Zhang S.-N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963...18X 963, 18

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Tian P

    Yang W., Wang W., Liu Q., Chen X., Wu H. J., Tian P. F., Chen J. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5402Y 519, 5402

    2023 doi

  78. [86]

    Springer, p

    Yuan W., Zhang C., Chen Y., Ling Z., 2022, in , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. Springer, p. 86, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_151-1

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    Zhang C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aca32f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941L...2Z 941, L2

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    J., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16571....1Z 16571, 1

    Zhang Y. J., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16571....1Z 16571, 1

    2024

  81. [89]

    dal Fiume D., Frontera F., Morelli E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...331..313D 331, 313

    1988 doi

Pith tools

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