Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Type I X-ray Burst Emission Reflected into the Eclipses of EXO 0748-676

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 This paper argues that 22 Type I X-ray bursts seen during eclipses of EXO 0748-676 are reprocessed, not direct, emission, and that flat-disc reflection is ruled out, leaving a flared disc, an accretion-disc wind, or the ablated outflow as…

desk verdict A solid archival study whose central negative result (a flat disc cannot explain the in-eclipse bursts) survives scrutiny; the secondary claim that bursts scatter more efficiently than persistent emission is statistically overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16324 v2 pith:WGV5FPES submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.HE

Amy H. Knight , Jakob van den Eijnden , Adam Ingram , James H. Matthews , Sara E. Motta , Matthew Middleton , Giulio C. Mancuso , Douglas J. K. Buisson
show 3 more authors
Diego Altamirano Rob Fender Timothy P. Roberts
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords TypeIX-raybursteclipsesneutronstarlow-massbinaryreflectionandscatteringaccretiondiscwindablatedoutflowEXO0748-676RXTE
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

During its 24-year outburst, the neutron star binary EXO 0748-676 was caught by RXTE producing Type I thermonuclear X-ray bursts while the companion star was eclipsing the X-ray source. This paper reports 22 such bursts—9 entirely inside totality, 7 split by egress, and 6 interrupted by ingress—and argues that none of them can be direct emission because the companion star and its ablated outflow fully block the line of sight to the neutron star. Instead, the bursts must be reflected or scattered into view. Comparing the peak flux of bursts that peak during totality (about 2.4% of out-of-eclipse bursts) with a simple flat-disc reflection model (about 0.003 to 0.01%) rules out a flat accretion disc, while a maximally flared disc reaches about 2% and matches some events. The paper concludes that extended scattering structures—an accretion-disc wind, the ablated outflow, or a burst-enhanced column—must be responsible, and that the exact reflection site remains unresolved.

What carries the argument

The quantitative engine is the comparison of two ratios: the burst reflection fraction $F_{\rm reflect}$, the mean in-eclipse peak count rate divided by the mean out-of-eclipse peak count rate, measured to be $0.024\pm 0.004$ via a Monte Carlo that draws from the observed out-of-eclipse peak-rate distribution, and the quiescent reflection fraction $R = 0.0167$ derived from over 400 eclipses. Behind these sits a disc-visibility calculation: for a flat disc illuminated by a lamppost at height $h = r_{\rm NS}$, the reflected flux per unit radius is $dF/dr = 2\cos i\, h r/(h^2+r^2)^{3/2}$, integrating to about $3\times 10^{-5}$ to $10^{-4}$ of the out-of-eclipse flux at totality; for a flared disc with $z(r) = 0.05\,r^{9/8}$ the in-eclipse fraction rises to about 2%. For the wind scenario, the paper uses Monte Carlo radiative transfer with a standard biconical wind prescription and an absorbing Roche-lobe-filling companion, computing how much burst radiation scatters into the line of sight. The work of this machinery is to convert a handful of rare eclipsed bursts into a constraint on the solid angle and location of the scattering structure.

What would settle it

Detect the 552 Hz burst oscillation, which originates on the neutron star surface, during an in-eclipse burst: its presence would prove that direct emission reaches the observer through the eclipsing material, overturning the central assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a population of observable in-eclipse bursts that behave as reprocessed, not direct, emission. Of 171 bursts identified in RXTE data, 22 coincide with eclipses; the 16 that peak during totality have a mean peak count rate only $2.4\%\pm 0.4\%$ of out-of-eclipse bursts, whereas a flat accretion disc reflecting a lamppost source at the neutron star would yield roughly $3\times 10^{-5}$ to $10^{-4}$ of the out-of-eclipse flux. A maximally flared disc, $z(r) = 0.05\,r^{9/8}$, raises the in-eclipse reflected fraction to about 2%, which is consistent with four of the 16 bursts, but the remaining 12 require another scatterer. Spectral fits cannot statistically separate an absorption-only model, an ionised reflection model, and a blackbody reflection model, so the paper frames the origin as a choice among a flared outer disc, the ablated outflow, or an accretion-disc wind. Monte Carlo radiative transfer simulations show that a biconical wind with a mass-loss rate near twice the accretion rate can naturally produce the observed 2.4% reflection fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that during eclipse totality the companion star and ablated outflow completely block direct X-rays from the neutron star, so every photon seen in eclipse must have been scattered or reflected; if some direct emission leaks through a clumpy or partial-covering medium, the bursts seen during totality could be direct emission and the need for burst-enhanced scattering would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the in-eclipse bursts are reprocessed emission, each such burst is a direct probe of the scattering medium's geometry and column during a thermonuclear flash.
  • A flat accretion disc is excluded as the sole reflector; any viable model must place a large-solid-angle scatterer, such as a flared rim, a wind, or ablated material, between the neutron star and the observer.
  • The burst reflection fraction exceeding the quiescent one, $F_{\rm reflect} > R$, implies that the burst either hardens the radiation field, puffs up the inner disc, or adds scattering material on burst timescales.
  • All in-eclipse and split bursts occurred while the source was in the hard spectral state, so the scattering or reflection geometry appears state-dependent; soft-state bursts either do not produce the same visibility or were not observed.
  • If a biconical wind with a mass-loss rate near $2\times 10^{-10}$ to $3\times 10^{-9}$ solar masses per year is present, the required 2.4% fraction is reproduced, making the wind scenario testable with high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The absence of in-eclipse bursts between MJD 53500 and 54000, which coincides with a reversal of the eclipse asymmetry, suggests that the ablated material's position controls burst visibility; future monitoring should find an anticorrelation between detected in-eclipse bursts and the magnitude of the eclipse asymmetry.
  • The XMM-Newton non-detection, with detection fraction $f \leq 0.29$ versus RXTE's $f \approx 0.92$, is plausibly caused by strong absorption of soft photons; a testable extension is that soft-band eclipse observations during the current outburst should show even fewer in-eclipse bursts, and any detected ones should be heavily absorbed.
  • If the known 552 Hz burst oscillation were ever detected during totality, it would prove direct leakage rather than scattering; conversely, its persistent absence during in-eclipse bursts would cement the reprocessing interpretation.
  • The four bursts consistent with a flared disc versus the twelve requiring another site suggest that the reflector may switch with orbital phase or burst properties; stacking future high-time-resolution observations of in-eclipse bursts by phase could map the scattering structure.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 22 RXTE Type I X-ray bursts from EXO 0748-676 that coincide fully or partially with the binary's X-ray eclipse, classified as nine in-eclipse, seven egress-split, and six ingress-split events, and compares them with 149 out-of-eclipse bursts. The authors argue that direct neutron-star surface emission cannot reach the observer during totality because the optically thick companion and the ablated outflow fully occult the source, so all in-eclipse burst flux must be reprocessed. They estimate the burst reflection fraction F_reflect = 0.024 +/- 0.004 and the persistent reflection fraction R = 0.0167. A simple analytic flat-disc lamppost model (Eqs. 3-4) predicts in-eclipse reflected flux of only ~3e-5 to 1e-4 of the direct flux, far below the observed 2.4%, while a maximally flared disc z(r)=0.05 r^{9/8} can reach ~2% and explain a subset of the bursts. The paper then tests reflection by the ablated outflow and by a biconical disc wind with Sirocco simulations, finding that plausible wind parameters can produce the required fraction, and concludes that the reflector is not uniquely identified.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a clean, order-of-magnitude refutation of the flat-disc reflection scenario for in-eclipse bursts, and it strengthens the case that an extended scattering structure (flared disc, ablated material, or wind) surrounds EXO 0748-676. The flat-disc calculation is essentially parameter-free for the claimed negative result, and the Monte Carlo estimate of F_reflect is reproducible from the public data and the supplied burst index. The paper also contributes a vetted catalogue of 171 RXTE bursts with PCU-level instrumental rejection. The spectral degeneracy and the wind-model grid are honestly presented as inconclusive, and the authors do not overstate the identification of the reflection site. I also find the central obscuration assumption sound: totality is defined by the solid-body companion occulting the neutron star, so the residual in-eclipse flux and the in-eclipse bursts cannot be direct leakage through clumpy outflow material. The central negative result is robust to the acknowledged Poisson caveat and to the spectral model degeneracy.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.2, Fig. 5] The reported tail probability p=0.0028 for R<=0.0167 is inconsistent with the quoted distribution F_reflect=0.024 +/- 0.004. For a Gaussian with these moments, the one-sided tail probability at 0.0167 is Phi((0.0167-0.024)/0.004)=Phi(-1.825)~0.034, roughly 12 times larger than reported. Please verify the calculation or the quoted sigma; if the distribution is non-Gaussian, show the tail estimate explicitly. This matters because the p-value is the quantitative basis for the claim that F_reflect exceeds R significantly, and hence for the suggestion of burst-enhanced scattering. The error does not affect the robust flat-disc negative result, but it should be corrected before the F_reflect>R finding is used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5)] The profile z(r)=0.05 r^{9/8} is missing units or a normalization radius; as written it is dimensionally inconsistent, and the relation between this profile and the claimed 'maximally flared' upper limit should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.1] The expectation-value test uses total in-eclipse and out-of-eclipse exposures, but since all in-eclipse bursts occur in the hard state, the authors should either restrict the comparison to hard-state exposure and bursts or justify why the state mix does not bias N_expected.
  3. [Section 5.2, Fig. 10] The trend line is presented as evidence for a phase dependence of the individual reflection fractions, but no correlation coefficient or significance is reported; please add one or soften the claim.
  4. [Section 4, Table 3] The three spectral models are statistically indistinguishable at the burst peak, and the non-reflection model also fits; the text should make explicit that the reflection models are not required by the spectra, so the spectral analysis provides only weak supporting evidence.
  5. [Section 5.2] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'influenced by the the gradual absorption'; please proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparison is a measured ratio versus an analytic forward model with independently published system parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a robust negative result, not a self-fulfilling derivation. The observed reflection fraction F_reflect = 0.024 ± 0.004 is obtained directly from RXTE count-rate data via a Monte Carlo resampling of out-of-eclipse burst peaks; no model parameter is fitted to force this value. The flat-disc prediction is an analytic integration (Eqs. 3-4 and Fig. 8) using the companion radius, mass ratio and inclination from prior published work (Knight et al. 2022a); it is not calibrated to F_reflect, and it yields 3e-5 to 1e-4, a factor of 200-800 below the measured ratio. The flared-disc and wind calculations are explicitly framed as plausibility demonstrations with stated unconstrained parameters (Section 5.3.1: 'our aim here is not to conduct a full parameter search or fit'), so they do not rename a fitted input as a prediction. The assertion that no direct burst emission is seen during totality rests on the geometric occultation by the companion star ('the companion star and the ablated outflow entirely obscure our view of the X-ray emitting region'), which is an input assumption rather than a consequence of the measured F_reflect. Self-citations to Knight et al. (2022a, 2023) provide system parameters, eclipse contacts and ablated-material properties that are independently published measurements, not uniqueness claims, and none of them encodes the target result. The reported p = 0.0028 for F_reflect > R appears inconsistent with the quoted 1.8-sigma separation and is a statistical correctness concern, but it is not an instance of circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the eclipse obscuration premise, the Poisson counting model, and the adopted system geometry. None of these are invented; they come from prior published work on this source. The flaring amplitude and wind parameters are adjustable modeling choices, and the paper is transparent about their uncertainty. No new physical entity is proposed.

free parameters (3)
  • Disc flaring amplitude = 0.05 (z(r)=0.05 r^{9/8})
    Chosen as 'maximally flared' in Section 5.1 to maximize the reflected flux from the outer disc; the conclusion that a flared disc can explain some bursts depends on this ad hoc amplitude.
  • Lamppost height h = r_NS (neutron star radius)
    Assumed in Section 5.1 to represent the bulk of burst emission; a different height would change the reflected fraction, though the flat-disc conclusion is robust.
  • Wind mass-loss rate and inner radius (Sirocco grid) = log[r_min(cm)] = 9.0-10.5; Mdot_wind ~ 3e-10 to 3e-9 Msun/yr for target fraction
    Varied over a grid in Section 5.3.1 to demonstrate plausibility; the paper states these are 'somewhat unconstrained'. The target reflection fraction can be reproduced for plausible values, but the parameters are not anchored by independent measurements.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The burst occurrence rate is constant and independent (Poisson) for the expectation calculation.
    Used in Section 3.1 to compute N_expected = (T_ec/T_ooe) N_ooe,peak. The authors explicitly note this cannot be strictly correct because of burst quasi-periodicity.
  • domain assumption The source parameters (inclination ~76.5 deg, mass ratio q=0.222, companion radius prescription) from Knight et al. 2022a are correct.
    Used in Section 5.1 to compute the disc visibility and in the eclipse model. These are prior published measurements, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The accretion disc is tidally truncated at 0.9 of its Roche lobe radius, r_out=0.9(a-r_cs), following Mushtukov et al. 2019.
    Used in Section 5.1 to define the outer disc radius for the reflection calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'maximally flared' disc profile z(r)=0.05 r^{9/8} is physically representative of the upper limit on flaring.
    Introduced in Section 5.1 to maximize the disc reflection fraction. The paper notes a more flared disc would obscure the NS, so this is the maximum allowed flaring, but it is not derived from data.
  • domain assumption All bursts are drawn from a single underlying population with the same intrinsic peak flux distribution.
    Stated in Section 2.1: 'The intrinsic properties of the bursts in all categories are assumed to be the same as they are drawn from a single underlying population.' This underpins the Monte Carlo reflection fraction estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Type I X-ray Burst Emission Reflected into the Eclipses of EXO 0748-676." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGV5FPES

@misc{pith2026250116324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Type I X-ray Burst Emission Reflected into the Eclipses of EXO 0748-676},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGV5FPES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16324}
}
abstract

The neutron star X-ray binary, EXO 0748--676, was observed regularly by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) and XMM-Newton during its first detected outburst (1985 - 2008). These observations captured hundreds of asymmetric, energy-dependent X-ray eclipses, influenced by the ongoing ablation of the companion star and numerous Type I thermonuclear X-ray bursts. Here, we present the light curves of 22 Type I X-ray bursts observed by RXTE that coincide, fully or partially, with an X-ray eclipse. We identify nine instances where the burst occurs entirely within totality, seven bursts split across an egress, and six cases interrupted by an ingress. All in-eclipse bursts and split bursts occurred while the source was in the hard spectral state. We establish that we are not observing direct burst emission during eclipses since the companion star and the ablated outflow entirely obscure our view of the X-ray emitting region. We determine that the reflected flux from the outer accretion disc, even if maximally flared, is insufficient to explain all observations of in-eclipse X-ray bursts and instead explore scenarios whereby the emission arising from the X-ray bursts is scattered, either by a burst-induced rise in $N_{\rm{H}}$ that provides extra material, an accretion disc wind or the ablated outflow into our line of sight. However, the rarity of a burst and eclipse overlap makes it challenging to determine their origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RXTE standard-2 light curves per PCU of ObsIDs 40039-04-04-00 (left), 20069-05-05-00 (middle) and 90059-12-04-00 (right). ObsID 90059-12-04- 00 demonstrates the behaviour of a malfunctioning PCU (PCU0), which creates a burst-like event before switching off and the burst-like event is not present in the other active PCU (PCU2). The in-eclipse burst in ObsID 40039-04-04-00 and the egress-split burst in ObsID 20069-05-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2 − 15 keV background subtracted RXTE light curves depicting a representative case from each of the four groups of Type I X-ray bursts discussed in this paper. Each light curve is normalised for the number of active PCUs and the ObsID and classification are given above each panel. Figures showing all in-eclipse, egress-split and ingress-split bursts from EXO 0748–676 are provided as online supplementary material. se… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The probability density of the fraction 𝑓 given that we detect 𝑁ec,peak = 16 X-ray bursts that peak during eclipse with RXTE (grey, solid) and 𝑁ec,peak = 0 with XMM-Newton (purple, dashed). Here, 𝑓 is the fraction of bursts occurring during an observed eclipse that we …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A histogram depicting 5000 calculations of the ratio of the mean peak count rate of the X-ray bursts that peak during totality (in-eclipse and egress-split bursts) to the mean peak count rate of the X-ray bursts that peak out-of-eclipse using a random sample of 16 burs…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Epoch 4 RXTE PCU2 spectra, extracted from 64s periods surrounding the peak of the in-eclipse (A, B, and C) and egress-split X-ray bursts (diamonds in D, E and F) with 3 different models. The models are: 1) tbabs*(diskbb+bbodyrad) (A, D) 2) tbabs(zxipcf*pexriv) (B, E) a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic diagram showing the three scenarios we consider (in Section 5) as possible origins of the in-eclipse bursts. In each case, the schematic gives a very approximate, not to scale observer viewpoint during the eclipse (zero orbital phase). The orange dotted arrow…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of reflected flux to out-of-eclipse direct flux as a function of orbital phase for a disc being illuminated by a lamppost source at ℎ = 𝑟ns. For the solid line, the disc is flat (𝑧 = 0) and for the purple, dot-dashed line, it is flared (𝑧 ∝ 𝑟 9/8 ). The solid hor…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of a flared disc being illuminated by a lamppost source. A given disc patch is at height 𝑧(𝑟) and cylindrical polar radius 𝑟. The illuminating flux depends on the distance 𝑑 from the source to the patch and the angle 𝜁 between the vector d and the disc normal…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fast rise – exponential decay fits to the part of the decay tail that occurs during out-of-eclipse phases for four egress split bursts, labelled in each panel. The fit is extrapolated to the peak of the burst (normalised such that it occurs at zero seconds). Many diff…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the in-eclipse reflection fraction from our MCRT simulations, as a function of 𝑀¤ wind, for four different values of 𝑟min. The horizontal dashed line marks the mean value of 𝐹reflect, the reflection fraction required to explain the in eclipse bursts. The reflect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., et al., 2023, Thermonuclear Type-I X-ray Bursts and Burst Oscillations from the Eclipsing AMXP Swift J1749.4-2807 ( @eprint arXiv 2306.11440 )

    Albayati A. C., et al., 2023, Thermonuclear Type-I X-ray Bursts and Burst Oscillations from the Eclipsing AMXP Swift J1749.4-2807 ( @eprint arXiv 2306.11440 )

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Aoyama A., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16678....1A 16678, 1

    2024

  3. [3]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

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

    1996

  4. [4]

    C., Russell D

    Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Alabarta K., Rout S., Saikia P., Rhodes L., Lewis F., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16646....1B 16646, 1

    2024

  5. [5]

    Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp 1--62, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_94-1

    Bahramian A., Degenaar N., 2022, Low-Mass X-ray Binaries. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp 1--62, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_94-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_94-1 2022

  6. [6]

    C., McKee C

    Begelman M. C., McKee C. F., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...271...70B 271, 70

    doi:10.1086/161178 1983

  7. [7]

    Bhattacharya S., Bhattacharyya S., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16703....1B 16703, 1

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Boirin L., Keek L., M \'e ndez M., Cumming A., in't Zand J. J. M., Cottam J., Paerels F., Lewin W. H. G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465..559B 465, 559

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066204 2007

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Ferrando, P

    Bonnet-Bidaud Haberl, F. Ferrando, P. Bennie, P. J. Kendziorra, E. 2001, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000222 , 365, L282

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    Buisson D. J. K., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16673....1B 16673, 1

    2024

  3. [11]

    Casse F., Ferreira J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0008244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...361.1178C 361, 1178

    2000 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chakravorty S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201612325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337..429C 337, 429

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A...2D 687, A2

    Datta S. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A...2D 687, A2

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Fabian A

    Dauser T., Garcia J., Parker M. L., Fabian A. C., Wilms J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444L.100D 444, L100

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Joyce A., Licklederer S., Connors R

    Dauser T., Garc \' a J. A., Joyce A., Licklederer S., Connors R. M. T., Ingram A., Reynolds C. S., Wilms J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.3965D 514, 3965

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Degenaar N., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17562.x , 412, 1409

    2011

  9. [17]

    D \' az Trigo M., Boirin L., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201612315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337..368D 337, 368

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Mushotzky R

    Done C., Mulchaey J. S., Mushotzky R. F., Arnaud K. A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..275D 395, 275

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    Done C., Tomaru R., Takahashi T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..838D 473, 838

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    P., 1983, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    Eggleton P. P., 1983, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    1983 doi

  13. [21]

    Ferreira J., Casse F., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601L.139F 601, L139

    2004 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Stinebring D

    Fruchter A. S., Stinebring D. R., Taylor J. H., 1988, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/333237a0 , 333, 237

    1988 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Keek L., 2021, Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts

    Galloway D. K., Keek L., 2021, Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 209--262, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_5 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_5

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    K., Muno M

    Galloway D. K., Muno M. P., Hartman J. M., Psaltis D., Chakrabarty D., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/592044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..179..360G 179, 360

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Lin J., Chakrabarty D., Hartman J

    Galloway D. K., Lin J., Chakrabarty D., Hartman J. M., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/l148 , 711, L148

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9f2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249...32G 249, 32

    Galloway D. K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9f2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249...32G 249, 32

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Garc \' a J., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...76G 782, 76

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Uttley P., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3761G 481, 3761

    Gardenier D. W., Uttley P., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3761G 481, 3761

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    N., White N

    Gottwald M., Haberl F., Parmar A. N., White N. E., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..213G 308, 213

    1986 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Keek L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...47H 819, 47

    He C. C., Keek L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...47H 819, 47

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Matthews J

    Higginbottom N., Knigge C., Long K. S., Matthews J. H., Parkinson E. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4635H 484, 4635

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Homan J., Wijnands R., van den Berg M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...412..799H 412, 799

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    I., Steeghs D., Casares J., Charles P

    Hynes R. I., Steeghs D., Casares J., Charles P. A., O'Brien K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653.1217H 653, 1217

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    K., in't Zand J

    Keek L., Galloway D. K., in't Zand J. J. M., Heger A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718..292K 718, 292

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Ingram A., Middleton M., Drake J., 2022a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3722 , 510, 4736

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., Middleton M., Drake J., 2022a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3722 , 510, 4736

    doi

  28. [36]

    H., Ingram A., Middleton M., E 2022b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1340 , 514, 1908

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., Middleton M., E 2022b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1340 , 514, 1908

    1908 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Ingram A., van den Eijnden J., Buisson D

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., van den Eijnden J., Buisson D. J. K., Rhodes L., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad383 , 520, 3416

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Rhodes L., Buisson D

    Knight A. H., Rhodes L., Buisson D. J. K., Matthews J. H., Castro Segura N., Ingram A., Middleton M., Roberts T. P., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536L..26K 536, L26

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Koljonen K. I. I., Long K. S., Matthews J. H., Knigge C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4190K 521, 4190

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Kuulkers E., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16655....1K 16655, 1

    2024

  33. [41]

    R., in't Zand J

    Kuulkers E., den Hartog P. R., in't Zand J. J. M., Verbunt F. W. M., Harris W. E., Cocchi M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...399..663K 399, 663

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    Lewin W. H. G., Vacca W. D., Basinska E. M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...277L..57L 277, L57

    1984 doi

  35. [43]

    Lewin W. H. G., van Paradijs J., Taam R. E., 1993, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/BF00196124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993SSRv...62..223L 62, 223

    1993 doi

  36. [44]

    S., Knigge C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342879 , 579, 725

    Long K. S., Knigge C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342879 , 579, 725

    2002 doi

  37. [45]

    A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..837M 273, 837

    Magdziarz P., Zdziarski A. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..837M 273, 837

    1995 doi

  38. [46]

    V., Remillard R

    Makishima K., Maejima Y., Mitsuda K., Bradt H. V., Remillard R. A., Tuohy I. R., Hoshi R., Nakagawa M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..635M 308, 635

    1986 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Altamirano D., Garc \' a F., Lyu M., M \'e ndez M., Combi J

    Mancuso G. C., Altamirano D., Garc \' a F., Lyu M., M \'e ndez M., Combi J. A., D \' az-Trigo M., in't Zand J. J. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486L..74M 486, L74

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..879M 536, 879

    Matthews J. H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..879M 536, 879

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    Mihara T., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16654....1M 16654, 1

    2024

  42. [50]

    J., Reeves J

    Miller L., Turner T. J., Reeves J. N., George I. M., Porquet D., Nandra K., Dovciak M., 2006, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...453L..13M 453, L13

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Raymond J., Reynolds C

    Miller J. M., Raymond J., Reynolds C. S., Fabian A. C., Kallman T. R., Homan J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680.1359M 680, 1359

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Lipunova G

    Mushtukov A. A., Lipunova G. V., Ingram A., Tsygankov S. S., M \"o nkk \"o nen J., van der Klis M., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz948 , 486, 4061

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    \"O zel F., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature04858 , 441, 1115

    2006 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Degenaar N., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J

    Parikh A. S., Degenaar N., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J. V., Wijnands R., Psaradaki I., Costantini E., Modiano D., Miller J. M., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3734 , 501, 1453

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    N., White N

    Parmar A. N., White N. E., Giommi P., Gottwald M., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..199P 308, 199

    1986 doi

  48. [56]

    N., Smale A

    Parmar A. N., Smale A. P., Verbunt F., Corbet R. H. D., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/169557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...366..253P 366, 253

    1991 doi

  49. [57]

    Paul B., Archana M., Saripalli L., 2012, @doi [Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India] 10.48550/arXiv.1203.1731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012BASI...40...93P 40, 93

    2012 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    J., Breton R

    Polzin E. J., Breton R. P., Stappers B. W., Bhattacharyya B., Janssen G. H., Os owski S., Roberts M. S. E., Sobey C., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2579 , 490, 889

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Begelman M

    Ponti G., Fender R. P., Begelman M. C., Dunn R. J. H., Neilsen J., Coriat M., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01224.x , 422, L11

    2012

  52. [61]

    P., 2014b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1742 , 444, 1829

    Ponti G., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Fender R. P., 2014b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1742 , 444, 1829

    doi

  53. [62]

    H., Knight A., Srivastav S., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16648....1R 16648, 1

    Rhodes L., Gillanders J. H., Knight A., Srivastav S., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16648....1R 16648, 1

    2024

  54. [63]

    M., Saikia P., Alabarta K., van den Eijnden J., Knight A

    Rhodes L., Russell D. M., Saikia P., Alabarta K., van den Eijnden J., Knight A. H., Baglio M. C., Lewis F., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.3421R 536, 3421

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    I., Sunyaev R

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

    1973

  56. [65]

    Shlosman I., Vitello P., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172670 , 409, 372

    1993 doi

  57. [66]

    N., Oosterbroek T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20047023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...429..291S 429, 291

    Sidoli L., Parmar A. N., Oosterbroek T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20047023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...429..291S 429, 291

    2005 doi

  58. [67]

    Strohmayer T., Bildsten L., 2006, New views of thermonuclear bursts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113--156, @doi DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511536281.004 , https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/compact-stellar-xray-sources/new-views-of-thermonuclear-bursts/AF210903A212AC9...

    2006 doi

  59. [68]

    M., van den Heuvel E

    Tauris T. M., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2006, in , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. pp 623--665, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    2006 doi arXiv

  60. [69]

    Tawara Y., et al., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...276L..41T 276, L41

    1984 doi

  61. [70]

    Tomaru R., Done C., Mao J., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.1789T 518, 1789

    doi

  62. [71]

    Tomaru R., Done C., Odaka H., Tanimoto A., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3441T 523, 3441

    doi

  63. [72]

    T., Becker P

    Wolff M. T., Becker P. A., Ray P. S., Wood K. S., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/444348 , 632, 1099

    2005 doi

  64. [73]

    T., Ray P

    Wolff M. T., Ray P. S., Wood K. S., Hertz P. L., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/156 , 183, 156

    2009 doi

  65. [74]

    in't Zand J. J. M., Cumming A., Triemstra T. L., Mateijsen R. A. D. A., Bagnoli T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..16I 562, A16

    2014 doi

  66. [75]

    van Paradijs J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/274650a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.274..650V 274, 650

    1978 doi

Pith tools

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