Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Impact of the returning radiation on X-ray reflection spectroscopy measurements: the case of Galactic black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding returning radiation leaves black hole spin fits unchanged

desk verdict Useful as a validation of relxill's returnrad switch, but the null result only covers that implementation, not the full physics of returning radiation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11212 v2 pith:FZV3UPJ6 submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.HE

Kexin Huang , Honghui Liu , Cosimo Bambi , Javier A. Garcia , Zuobin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 95.85.Nv97.60.Lf
keywords X-rayreflectionspectroscopyreturningradiationblackholespinmeasurementlamppostcoronarelxillGalacticholesNuSTAR
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

X-ray reflection spectroscopy infers black hole spin from the distorted reflection spectrum of the accretion disk. A correction called returning radiation—disk-emitted photons bent back onto the disk by strong gravity—has been added to the relxill model family, but only through the disk emissivity profile. This paper tests whether that correction changes measured parameters by fitting NuSTAR spectra of three fast-spinning Galactic black holes (GX 339–4, Swift J1658.2–4242, and MAXI J1535–571) with the correction switched off and on. In all three cases the best-fit spin, coronal height, iron abundance, and most parameters agree within uncertainties. The authors conclude that, at current data quality and within this model, neglecting returning radiation does not significantly bias parameter estimates, while cautioning that the implementation omits changes to the non-relativistic reflection spectrum.

What carries the argument

The central object is the `relxilllpCp` lamppost reflection model in relxill, with the `returnrad` switch controlling whether the disk emissivity profile includes returning radiation. Returning radiation is the component of disk emission bent back to the disk by strong light bending. The switch changes only the emissivity profile; the non-relativistic reflection spectrum is still computed as if the incident radiation were a Comptonized power law. The paper's comparison is a controlled switch of this flag on three high-quality NuSTAR spectra.

What would settle it

Fit the same NuSTAR spectra with a model that treats the returning radiation self-consistently in the non-relativistic reflection spectrum, as in Refs. [43,44], and compare the best-fit $a_*$ and $h$ with the `returnrad = 1` relxill results; a significant shift would show that the emissivity-only implementation hides the effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that including the returning radiation in `relxilllpCp` leaves the inferred parameters statistically unchanged for these three Galactic black holes. For GX 339–4 the fit gives $a_* \approx 0.998$ and $h \approx 7.5 r_g$; for Swift J1658.2–4242, $a_* > 0.98$ and $h \approx 2 r_g$; for MAXI J1535–571, $a_* \approx 0.93$ and $h \approx 2 r_g$. These include exactly the conditions expected to maximize returning radiation (high spin, low corona), yet the values from fits with `returnrad = 0` and `returnrad = 1` are consistent at 90% confidence. The one systematic shift is a lower best-fit reflection fraction with returning radiation on, still marginally consistent with the off case. The paper does not claim the effect is negligible generally: it stresses that relxill includes the effect only in the emissivity profile and that a fuller treatment may change the estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that putting the returning radiation into the emissivity profile only, while keeping the incident spectrum a Comptonized power law, captures the effect; the paper itself notes this approximation is expected to be worse for high spins and low coronal heights, which are exactly the conditions of two of the three sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For GX 339–4, Swift J1658.2–4242, and MAXI J1535–571, spin and coronal height measurements are consistent whether returning radiation is on or off, so existing relxill-based measurements of these sources are not overturned by the correction.
  • The lower best-fit reflection fraction with returning radiation suggests that population-level reflection fraction estimates may shift slightly, though within current uncertainties.
  • The fact that the effect stays small in the high-spin, low-corona regime means the omission is unlikely to explain any tension in spin constraints for similar Galactic black holes at NuSTAR quality.
  • A faster implementation of the full treatment is needed before concluding that the approximation is safe beyond this sample.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the full self-consistent treatment changes parameter estimates, then current relxill-based spin catalogs could develop a systematic offset that grows with spin and shrinks with coronal height; that would only be visible in a mock-injection comparison, not in the single-source consistency shown here.
  • Polarimetric observations may be a more sensitive test of returning radiation than the spectral parameters considered here; the paper cites a Cygnus X-1 polarization study showing soft X-ray polarization dominated by returning reflection, so combined spectral-polarimetric fits could reveal the effect even when best-fit spectral parameters do not move.
  • Because two of the three sources pin the coronal height at the lower model boundary, the parameter space with the largest expected effect is only partially explored; allowing even lower heights or different coronal geometries in the model might bring the effect into view.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper fits high-quality NuSTAR (and Swift for one source) spectra of three Galactic black holes—GX 339-4, Swift J1658.2-4242, and MAXI J1535-571—using the lamppost model relxilllpCp, first with the returning-radiation switch off (returnrad=0) and then on (returnrad=1). For each source the best-fit parameters (spin, coronal height, iron abundance, reflection fraction, etc.) are compared with 90% confidence intervals. The central finding is that the parameters are statistically consistent between the two versions, even for sources with high spin and low coronal height, where returning radiation is expected to be most important. The paper also discusses the approximation in the relxill implementation, noting that only the emissivity profile is modified and the non-relativistic reflection spectrum is still computed assuming a Comptonized incident spectrum.

Significance. If read as a test of the current relxill implementation, the result is useful: it shows that, for these spectra, toggling the emissivity-only returning-radiation correction produces no significant change in the inferred parameters. The paper is transparent about the model's limitations and cites the relevant literature on where the approximation should break down. However, because the implementation excludes the spectral reprocessing of the returning radiation, the broader physical conclusion about returning radiation is not established. The study illustrates an important caveat for the reflection-spectroscopy community, but the interpretation in the abstract and title should be scoped more carefully.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, final paragraph; Abstract] The conclusion that returning radiation has no significant impact on the measured parameters is not established for the full physical effect. As the authors state, the relxill model includes the returning radiation only in the emissivity profile and still computes the non-relativistic reflection spectrum assuming that the incident radiation is a Comptonized power law. They also cite Ref. [43] showing this approximation is expected to work poorly for high spin and low coronal height—exactly the regime of Swift J1658.2-4242 and MAXI J1535-571. Therefore the observed agreement between returnrad=0 and returnrad=1 may only demonstrate that the emissivity-only correction is unimportant in the fits, not that the full returning-radiation effect is unimportant. The abstract and title should be explicitly restricted to the relxill implementation, or the interpretation should be revised to avoid overgeneralizing.
  2. [Tables IV and V; Section IV.B] The sensitivity of the test is limited by parameter boundaries. For Swift J1658.2-4242 and MAXI J1535-571, the coronal height is pinned at the lower boundary (h=2 rg), and for Swift J1658.2-4242 and GX 339-4 the spin is pinned at the upper boundary (a*=0.998). The fits therefore cannot explore the strongest light-bending regime, and the statement that these sources 'should maximize the effect' is only partially realized. The paper should quantify the fraction of the relevant parameter space that is excluded by these boundaries and discuss how this truncation affects the strength of the null result.
  3. [Tables IV and V] The claim of 'no significant difference' rests on overlapping 90% confidence intervals, but for key parameters those intervals are broad or one-sided. For example, a* for Swift J1658.2-4242 is 0.998-0.13, and h for the two low-corona sources has only an upper uncertainty. A more direct quantitative comparison, such as the change in chi-square for a fixed parameter or a confidence level for the parameter shift, would make the sensitivity of the test more explicit and strengthen the conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] There is a typo in the passage 'in the case of a lamppost corona a, h ≲ 5 rg': the stray 'a,' should be removed or replaced, e.g., 'in the case of a lamppost corona h ≲ 5 rg.'
  2. [Section IV.B and Table III] The kerrbb normalization is not reported in Table III; providing it would improve reproducibility, since the disk component is part of the spectral model.
  3. [Tables III-V] The small chi-square differences between the returnrad=0 and returnrad=1 fits (Δχ2 ≈ 1.4-1.7 for comparable dof) are a useful quantitative summary of the null result and could be highlighted in the text or table.
  4. [Figures 2-4] The residual panels show data-to-model ratios with a limited vertical scale; using chi-squared residuals might better reveal systematic residual features, particularly around the iron line and Compton hump.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper reports an empirical model-comparison with its main caveat explicitly disclosed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that fitting three NuSTAR spectra with relxilllpCp in the lamppost geometry yields statistically consistent parameter estimates whether the returnrad switch is off or on. This is an empirical, data-driven comparison between two versions of an existing spectral model, not a derivation in which an output is defined as an input. The value of a*, h, AFe, and Rf are free parameters in both fits, and the 'prediction' of no significant difference is read directly from the fitted distributions, so no fitted quantity is being relabeled as a prediction. The returning-radiation implementation is taken from the relxill package (Ref. [39], a code paper co-authored by one of the present authors), but the paper does not use that implementation as evidence for its conclusion; it merely uses it as the tool under test. The most important caveat, that in relxill the returning radiation changes only the emissivity profile and not the reflected continuum, is stated verbatim in Section V, and the authors explicitly cite Ref. [43] to warn that this approximation is not expected to work well for the high-spin, low-corona regime occupied by their sources. The final sentence of the paper even concedes that a fuller model might change some parameter estimates. That is a limitation on scope and accuracy, not circular reasoning. Self-citations to Refs. [39] and [43,44] are normal and are not load-bearing: they document the model and quantify its limitations rather than justifying the paper's conclusion. No equation in the paper reduces a claimed output to a fitted input, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author-defined ansatz is invoked to force the result. The appropriate finding is therefore a low circularity score consistent with the paper's self-contained, empirical nature.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or ad hoc constants. The free parameters listed are the standard fitted parameters of the reflection model. The key axioms are the lamppost geometry, the accuracy of the base reflection model, and the specific approximation of how returning radiation is implemented in relxill, which the authors themselves flag as uncertain.

free parameters (5)
  • Black hole spin a* = 0.998 (GX 339-4 and Swift J1658, upper boundary), 0.928 to 0.933 (MAXI J1535)
    Central to the claim that the sources are fast-rotating; the high values are used to argue that the returning radiation effect should be significant. Two values sit at the model boundary.
  • Coronal height h [rg] = 7.5 to 7.6 (GX 339-4), 2.0 (Swift J1658, lower boundary), 2.0 (MAXI J1535, lower boundary)
    Low h is expected to maximize the returning radiation effect. Two sources have h at the lower boundary, so the most extreme regime is not fully sampled.
  • Iron abundance A_Fe = 10 (GX 339-4, upper boundary), 0.5 (Swift J1658), 0.73 to 0.84 (MAXI J1535)
    A fitted parameter compared between the two models; the GX value is at the boundary, limiting sensitivity.
  • Reflection fraction Rf = 0.91 to 0.77 (GX 339-4), 1.7 to 1.02 (Swift J1658), 1.4 to 1.05 (MAXI J1535)
    This is the parameter that shows the largest change when returning radiation is included, but the 90% confidence intervals overlap, supporting the no-significant-difference conclusion.
  • Other relxill fit parameters (Gamma, kTe, ionization, disk density, normalizations) = Varies per source (see Tables III to V)
    The full model has additional free parameters that were fit simultaneously; they are not the focus of the comparison but contribute to the fit quality.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lamppost geometry (point-like, static, isotropic corona on the spin axis) is an adequate description of the X-ray corona for these sources.
    Assumed in the relxilllpCp model (Section IV.B). If the true corona is extended or off-axis, the fitted parameters and the comparison could be affected.
  • domain assumption The relxill v2.0 non-relativistic reflection spectrum is computed correctly when returning radiation is ignored.
    The comparison relies on the accuracy of the underlying xillver-type reflection calculations; any error there would affect both fits equally but could bias the astrophysical interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper The effect of returning radiation is adequately captured by modifying only the emissivity profile of the lamppost corona, leaving the non-relativistic reflection spectrum unchanged.
    This is the key approximation in the model implementation (Section V). The authors acknowledge it may fail for fast-spinning, low-corona sources, which are exactly the cases studied.
  • domain assumption The inner edge of the accretion disk is at the ISCO and the disk is a standard thin disk.
    Implied by the relxill model. If the inner edge deviates (e.g., due to a truncated disk), spin measurements and the returning radiation strength would change.
  • domain assumption Overlapping 90% confidence intervals from the XSPEC 'error' command imply that the two fits are statistically consistent.
    The paper does not perform a formal hypothesis test; it relies on interval overlap. This is a common but conservative practice in X-ray astronomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of the returning radiation on X-ray reflection spectroscopy measurements: the case of Galactic black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZV3UPJ6

@misc{pith2026250111212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of the returning radiation on X-ray reflection spectroscopy measurements: the case of Galactic black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZV3UPJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11212}
}
read the original abstract

The effect of the returning radiation has long been ignored in the analysis of the reflection spectra of Galactic black holes and active galactic nuclei and only recently has been implemented in the relxill package. Here we present a study on the impact of the returning radiation on the estimate of the parameters of Galactic black holes. We consider high-quality NuSTAR spectra of three Galactic black holes (GX 339-4, Swift J1658.2-4242, and MAXI J1535-571) and we fit the data with the lamppost model in the latest version of relxill, first without including the returning radiation and then including the returning radiation. We do not find any significant difference in the estimate of the parameters of these systems between the two cases, even if all three sources are fast-rotating black holes and for two sources the estimate of the height of the corona is very low, two ingredients that should maximize the effect of the returning radiation. We discuss our results and the approximations in relxill.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Data to best-fit model ratio plots for an absorbed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Best-fit model and residuals for Swift J1658.2–4242 when we turn the returning radiation off (left panel) and on (right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Best-fit model and residuals for MAXI J1535–571 when we turn the returning radiation off (left panel) and on (right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The population of NuSTAR Black Hole X-ray Binaries

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The observed spins of black holes in X-ray binaries are almost all high and can be described by a beta distribution with alpha=5.66 and beta=1.09, with spin precision improving for more massive, closer, and more incli...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [43]

    Towards more accurate synthetic reflection spectra: improving the calculations of returning radiation

    T. Mirzaev, S. Riaz, A. B. Abdikamalov, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia, J. Jiang, H. Liu, and S. Shashank, Astrophys. J. 965, 66 (2024), arXiv:2401.05582 [astro-ph.HE]. 10

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    An XMM-Newton survey of broad iron lines in Seyfert galaxies

    K. Nandra, P. M. O’Neill, I. M. George, and J. N. Reeves, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 382, 194 (2007), arXiv:0708.1305 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    A. C. Fabian, M. J. Rees, L. Stella, and N. E. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 238, 729 (1989). 9

    work page 1989

  4. [3]

    Risaliti, F

    G. Risaliti, F. A. Harrison, K. K. Madsen, D. J. Wal- ton, S. E. Boggs, F. E. Christensen, W. W. Craig, B. W. Grefenstette, C. J. Hailey, E. Nardini, D. Stern, and W. W. Zhang, Nature (London) 494, 449 (2013), arXiv:1302.7002 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [4]

    Bambi, L

    C. Bambi, L. W. Brenneman, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, V. Grinberg, A. Ingram, J. Jiang, H. Liu, A. M. Lo- hfink, A. Marinucci, G. Mastroserio, R. Middei, S. Nam- palliwar, A. Nied´ zwiecki, J. F. Steiner, A. Tripathi, and A. A. Zdziarski, Space Sci. Rev. 217, 65 (2021), arXiv:2011.04792 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    P. A. Draghis, J. M. Miller, A. Zoghbi, M. Reynolds, E. Costantini, L. C. Gallo, and J. A. Tomsick, Astrophys. J. 946, 19 (2023), arXiv:2210.02479 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    P. A. Draghis, J. M. Miller, E. Costantini, L. C. Gallo, M. Reynolds, J. A. Tomsick, and A. Zoghbi, Astrophys. J. 969, 40 (2024), arXiv:2311.16225 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Z. Cao, S. Nampalliwar, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, and J. A. Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 051101 (2018), arXiv:1709.00219 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    Tripathi, S

    A. Tripathi, S. Nampalliwar, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, and A. Marinucci, Astrophys. J. 875, 56 (2019), arXiv:1811.08148 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Tripathi, Y

    A. Tripathi, Y. Zhang, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzen- berg, C. Bambi, J. Jiang, H. Liu, and M. Zhou, Astro- phys. J. 913, 79 (2021), arXiv:2012.10669 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Garc ´ ıa, T

    J. Garc ´ ıa, T. Dauser, C. S. Reynolds, T. R. Kallman, J. E. McClintock, J. Wilms, and W. Eikmann, Astro- phys. J. 768, 146 (2013), arXiv:1303.2112 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    R. R. Ross and A. C. Fabian, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 358, 211 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501116 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Dauser, J

    T. Dauser, J. Garcia, J. Wilms, M. B¨ ock, L. W. Brenneman, M. Falanga, K. Fukumura, and C. S. Reynolds, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 430, 1694 (2013), arXiv:1301.4922 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Garc ´ ıa, T

    J. Garc ´ ıa, T. Dauser, A. Lohfink, T. R. Kallman, J. F. Steiner, J. E. McClintock, L. Brenneman, J. Wilms, W. Eikmann, C. S. Reynolds, and F. Tombesi, Astro- phys. J. 782, 76 (2014), arXiv:1312.3231 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ingram, G

    A. Ingram, G. Mastroserio, T. Dauser, P. Hovenkamp, M. van der Klis, and J. A. Garc ´ ıa, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 488, 324 (2019), arXiv:1906.08310 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Nied´ zwiecki and P

    A. Nied´ zwiecki and P. T. ˙Zycki, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 386, 759 (2008), arXiv:0710.5578 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Nied´ zwiecki, M

    A. Nied´ zwiecki, M. Szanecki, and A. A. Zdziarski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 2942 (2019), arXiv:1805.06065 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Dovˇ ciak, V

    M. Dovˇ ciak, V. Karas, and T. Yaqoob, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 153, 205 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403541 [astro- ph]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bambi, A

    C. Bambi, A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J. 842, 76 (2017), arXiv:1607.00596 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J.878, 91 (2019), arXiv:1902.09665 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    D. R. Wilkins and A. C. Fabian, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 414, 1269 (2011), arXiv:1102.0433 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    D. R. Wilkins and A. C. Fabian, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 424, 1284 (2012), arXiv:1205.3179 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Bambi, D

    C. Bambi, D. Malafarina, and N. Tsukamoto, Phys. Rev. D 89, 127302 (2014), arXiv:1406.2181 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. G. Gonzalez, D. R. Wilkins, and L. C. Gallo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 472, 1932 (2017), arXiv:1708.03205 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    M. Zhou, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, and S. Nampalliwar, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043010 (2020), arXiv:1910.12494 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, M

    A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, M. Zhou, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123014 (2020), arXiv:2005.06719 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, S. Nampalliwar, A. Tripathi, and M. Zhou, Astrophys. J. 899, 80 (2020), arXiv:2003.09663 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, H. Liu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103023 (2021), arXiv:2101.10100 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, and H. Liu, Astrophys. J. 913, 129 (2021), arXiv:2102.04695 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, H. Liu, and A. Tripathi, Astrophys. J. 923, 175 (2021), arXiv:2108.00375 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Shashank, S

    S. Shashank, S. Riaz, A. B. Abdikamalov, and C. Bambi, Astrophys. J. 938, 53 (2022), arXiv:2207.11526 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Jiang, A

    J. Jiang, A. B. Abdikamalov, C. Bambi, and C. S. Reynolds, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 514, 3246 (2022), arXiv:2205.06696 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    G. Mall, A. Tripathi, A. B. Abdikamalov, and C. Bambi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, 5721 (2022), arXiv:2206.03478 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    S. Li, H. Liu, C. Bambi, J. F. Steiner, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043021 (2024), arXiv:2404.06893 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    H. Liu, A. B. Abdikamalov, T. Mirzaev, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia, and Z. Zhang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.00349 (2024), arXiv:2412.00349 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Dabrowski, A

    Y. Dabrowski, A. C. Fabian, K. Iwasawa, A. N. Lasenby, and C. S. Reynolds, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 288, L11 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9704177 [astro-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Nied´ zwiecki, A

    A. Nied´ zwiecki, A. A. Zdziarski, and M. Szanecki, Astro- phys. J. 821, L1 (2016), arXiv:1602.09075 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Nied´ zwiecki and A

    A. Nied´ zwiecki and A. A. Zdziarski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 477, 4269 (2018), arXiv:1803.03781 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [38]

    S. Riaz, M. Szanecki, A. Nied´ zwiecki, D. Ayzen- berg, and C. Bambi, Astrophys. J. 910, 49 (2021), arXiv:2006.15838 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Dauser, J

    T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, A. Joyce, S. Licklederer, R. M. T. Connors, A. Ingram, C. S. Reynolds, and J. Wilms, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 514, 3965 (2022), arXiv:2206.07973 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

    S. Riaz, T. Mirzaev, A. B. Abdikamalov, and C. Bambi, European Physical Journal C 83, 838 (2023), arXiv:2303.12581 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Markoff, M

    S. Markoff, M. A. Nowak, and J. Wilms, Astrophys. J. 635, 1203 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0509028

    2005 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Kara et al., Nature 565, 198 (2019), arXiv:1901.03877 [astro-ph.HE]

    E. Kara et al., Nature 565, 198 (2019), arXiv:1901.03877 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mirzaev, C

    T. Mirzaev, C. Bambi, A. B. Abdikamalov, J. Jiang, H. Liu, S. Riaz, and S. Shashank, Astrophys. J. 976, 229 (2024), arXiv:2406.01226 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. F. Steiner, E. Nathan, K. Hu, H. Krawczynski, M. Dovˇ ciak, A. Veledina, F. Muleri, J. Svoboda, K. Al- abarta, M. Parra, Y. Bhargava, G. Matt, J. Poutanen, P.-O. Petrucci, A. F. Tennant, M. C. Baglio, L. Baldini, S. Barnier, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Bianchi, M. Brigitte, M. Cab...

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    T. H. Markert, C. R. Canizares, G. W. Clark, W. H. G. Lewin, H. W. Schnopper, and G. F. Sprott, Astrophys. J. 184, L67 (1973)

    1973

  39. [47]

    M. L. Parker, J. A. Tomsick, J. A. Kennea, J. M. Miller, F. A. Harrison, D. Barret, S. E. Boggs, F. E. Christensen, W. W. Craig, A. C. Fabian, F. F¨ urst, V. Grinberg, C. J. Hailey, P. Romano, D. Stern, D. J. Walton, and W. W. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 821, L6 (2016), arXiv:1603.03...

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Y. Xu, F. A. Harrison, J. A. Kennea, D. J. Walton, J. A. Tomsick, J. M. Miller, D. Barret, A. C. Fabian, K. Forster, F. F¨ urst, P. Gandhi, and J. A. Garc ´ ıa, Astro- phys. J. 865, 18 (2018), arXiv:1805.07705 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Negoro, T

    H. Negoro, T. Kawase, M. Sugizaki, S. Ueno, H. To- mida, Y. Sugawara, N. Isobe, M. Ishikawa, R. Shi- momukai, T. Mihara, M. Serino, S. N. W. Iwakiri, M. Shidatsu, M. Matsuoka, N. Kawai, S. Sugita, T. Yoshii, Y. Tachibana, S. Harita, Y. Muraki, K. Morita, A. Yoshida, T. Sakamot...

    2017

  42. [50]

    J. A. Kennea, The Astronomer’s Telegram 10731, 1 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    T. D. Russell, J. C. A. Miller-Jones, G. R. Sivakoff, A. J. Tetarenko, and Jacpot Xrb Collaboration, The Astronomer’s Telegram 10711, 1 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Y. Xu, F. A. Harrison, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, A. C. Fabian, F. F¨ urst, P. Gandhi, B. W. Grefenstette, K. K. Madsen, J. M. Miller, M. L. Parker, J. A. Tomsick, and D. J. Wal- ton, Astrophys. J. 852, L34 (2018), arXiv:1711.01346 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. S. Kaastra and J. A. M. Bleeker, Astron. Astrophys. 587, A151 (2016), arXiv:1601.05309 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K. A. Arnaud, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, Vol. 101, edited by G. H. Jacoby and J. Barnes (1996) p. 17

    1996

  47. [55]

    Wilms, A

    J. Wilms, A. Allen, and R. McCray, Astrophys. J. 542, 914 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0008425 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Mitsuda, H

    K. Mitsuda, H. Inoue, K. Koyama, K. Makishima, M. Matsuoka, Y. Ogawara, N. Shibazaki, K. Suzuki, Y. Tanaka, and T. Hirano, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 36, 741 (1984)

    1984

  49. [57]

    L.-X. Li, E. R. Zimmerman, R. Narayan, and J. E. McClintock, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 157, 335 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411583 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/archive.html

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.