Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 109 references

A new pulsating neutron star in the Ultraluminous X-ray source NGC 4559 X7?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a candidate 2.6–2.7 second pulsation in the ultraluminous X-ray source NGC 4559 X7, detected in two separate XMM-Newton observations after orbital corrections, which if real would make it a new extragalactic pulsating…

desk verdict A careful, honest candidate pulsation in NGC 4559 X7, but the two ~3.5-sigma peaks are not yet statistically tied — deserves review, not a discovery claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10246 v1 pith:GQRXICSQ submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.HE

F. Pintore , C. Pinto , G. Rodriguez-Castillo , G.L. Israel , N. O. Pinciroli Vago , S. Motta , F. Barra , D. J. Walton
show 12 more authors
F. Fuerst P. Kosec C. Salvaggio M. Del Santo A. Wolter M. Middleton A. D'Aì E. Ambrosi L. Burderi M. Imbrogno R. Salvaterra A. Robba
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretiondiscsStars:neutronblackholesX-rays:binariesgalaxiesindividual:NGC4559X7pulsatingULXstar
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 sets out to test whether the ultraluminous X-ray source NGC 4559 X7, whose X-ray output swings by a factor of five and flares erratically, is powered by an accreting neutron star rather than a black hole. Its central piece of evidence is a candidate coherent pulsation at about 2.63 seconds in a 2019 XMM-Newton observation and at about 2.73 seconds in a 2022 observation, both found only after correcting arrival times for plausible binary orbital motion. Each signal is only marginally significant (near 3.5σ), but they appear in the same region of orbital-parameter space and survive a background-event check, which the authors take as reasonable grounds to present them as a candidate. If the pulsation is real, X7 becomes a new extragalactic pulsating ULX, and the implied spin-down of about $10^{-9}$ s/s would be extreme among the known handful of such objects. The paper also maps the source's spectral states and proposes that all flat-topped flares reflect a common ceiling on accretion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is an accelerated pulsation search that corrects each photon arrival time for trial spin-period derivatives (|Ṗ/P| from $10^{-11}$ to $10^{-5}$ s/s) and for binary orbital motion over ~30,000 combinations of orbital period (4 hours to 4 days) and projected semi-major axis (2 to 120 light-seconds), then looks for a coherent peak in the epoch-folded power spectrum. A second, independent method (Particle Swarm Optimization, a meta-heuristic that moves candidate solutions through the four-dimensional space of spin period, Ṗ/P, orbital period, and projected semi-major axis) recovers the same two signals and produces the overlapping 'banana' contours that carry much of the plausibility argument. The central identity on which the interpretation rests is the period change: the 2.63 s and 2.73 s peaks, if they are one pulsar, imply Ṗ/P ≈ −1.06×$10^{-9}$ s/s, linking the signal to torque physics rather than to a single-epoch artifact.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a new XMM-Newton observation of X7 in a high-flux state analysed with the same orbital-correction and PSO pipeline: if the pulsation is real, a coherent peak should appear at the period extrapolated from the implied spin-down (roughly 2.8 s by mid-2025) with a matching orbital solution, whereas a null result would show the 2019–2022 peaks were noise. A complementary check is a joint Monte Carlo that applies the full two-observation trial penalty (all orbital configurations and both search methods) to compute a single combined significance instead of quoting each peak's ~3.5σ separately.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that NGC 4559 X7 shows a candidate spin signal of P≈2.63 s (2019) and P≈2.73 s (2022), detected in two independent XMM-Newton exposures after applying orbital corrections over a grid of ~30,000 binary configurations and confirmed by a particle-swarm optimization search. The two signals occupy overlapping 'banana' contours in the orbital-period versus projected-semi-major-axis plane, and no comparable signal appears in an equal-sized background-event sample, which the authors argue points to a common physical origin. On the paper's own terms this is a candidate rather than a discovery: the maximum significance of about 3.5σ does not allow a firm claim. If confirmed, the 0.1 s period change over three years implies a secular spin-down of about $10^{-9}$ s/s, which would be extreme among known pulsating ULXs and would make X7 one of a small set of extragalactic ULXs with a certified neutron-star accretor.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the assumption that two weakly significant peaks in two different observations are the same physical pulsation because their orbital-parameter solutions overlap; if either peak is an independent noise fluctuation, the neutron-star interpretation loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, X7 becomes a new extragalactic pulsating ULX, directly establishing that super-Eddington accretion in this source proceeds onto a neutron star.
  • The implied spin-down of ~10^-9 s/s, three years of deceleration while the source stayed bright, would push torque models beyond the known PULX population and favour mechanisms like magnetic-field threading over simple propeller shut-off.
  • The recovered orbital parameters (2–4 d period, 20–120 lt-s projected semi-major axis) match the known PULX binaries, supporting a young massive companion and a common formation channel.
  • A true pulsation would retroactively support the paper's spectral evidence—hard cut-off power law and two thermal components—as diagnostics of magnetized neutron-star ULXs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit is that the overlapping 'banana' contours, taken at face value, predict a specific orbital period around 2–4 days; a targeted optical radial-velocity campaign on the companion star could confirm the binary solution independently of X-ray timing.
  • A blinded re-analysis, in which the 2019 observation is searched before inspecting the 2022 solution, would measure how much of the shared-parameter-space argument is hindsight bias; the paper's search order leaves this open.
  • If the 2.6 s signal is spurious, the flat-topped flaring and the ~240 d periodicity still invite a neutron-star interpretation through the propeller mechanism; the paper's millisecond-pulsar scenario offers a testable alternative that requires timing-mode X-ray data.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength analysis of the ULX NGC 4559 X7 using XMM-Newton and Swift/XRT data spanning nearly two decades. The authors identify three spectral states, characterize a flaring activity with flat-topped profiles, search for long-term periodicities, and perform high-resolution spectroscopy. The central new claim is the candidate detection of a coherent pulsation at P ≈ 2.63 s in XMM1 (2019) and P ≈ 2.73 s in XMM2 (2022), found after orbital corrections and cross-checked with an evolutionary algorithm. The authors note that the signals are only marginally significant (~3.5σ each) and that a firm claim requires further confirmation, but they argue that the overlap of the orbital-parameter contours between the two observations supports a common physical origin and a neutron-star primary with a spin-down of ~1e-9 s/s.

Significance. If the pulsation is real, this would add a new extragalactic pulsating ULX to the small but growing population of NS accretors, with an implied spin-down rate that is extreme among known PULXs. The paper's spectral and temporal analysis of X7 is thorough and provides useful constraints on the accretion flow and its variability. However, the detection claim is statistically under-supported: the two peaks are individually ~3.5σ, no joint false-alarm probability is computed, and the connection between them rests on a qualitative contour overlap rather than a calibrated test. The paper is honest about these limitations, but the central result—the candidate pulsation—needs stronger statistical backing before the discovery can be accepted. The rest of the analysis is solid and will be of interest to the ULX community regardless of the pulsation's fate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figs. 4–5] The claim that the two ~3.5σ peaks are the same physical pulsation is based on the qualitative overlap of the orbital-parameter contours (the 'banana' shapes) rather than a quantitative joint statistical test. The paper does not compute the probability of observing two independent noise peaks with overlapping orbital parameters, nor does it account for the fact that the XMM1 search was performed after the XMM2 detection over the same broad parameter space. Under the null hypothesis that both peaks are noise fluctuations, such an overlap could be a selection effect. To support the shared-origin claim, the authors should compute a joint false-alarm probability that includes the ~30,000 orbital trials and the targeted nature of the second search, or perform a coherent search combining both datasets.
  2. [Section 3.2, background-event test] The background-event test using ~30,000 events from XMM1 is a useful sanity check but does not calibrate the significance of the source signal. Background events from the same CCD do not reproduce the source's count rate, pile-up, or noise characteristics, and the test only checks that no similar peak appears in the background at the same frequencies. It does not quantify the probability of the observed overlap of orbital contours or the trials-corrected significance of the maximum power. A noise-only simulation of the full search pipeline, with the same grid of orbital parameters and frequency steps, is needed to derive a single-trial significance for the source peaks and for the conjunction of the two detections.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Conclusions] The derived spin-down of ~1e-9 s/s is computed from the difference between the two period measurements, but the uncertainties are not propagated in a way that tests whether a constant-period model is actually disfavored. The 2022 period is P = 2.726 ± 0.012 s (1σ), so the period difference of ~0.1 s is only marginally significant when the quoted errors are considered. Since both periods are selected from broad searches with low-significance peaks, the authors should perform a proper likelihood or chi-square test comparing a constant-period model to one with a period derivative, including systematic uncertainties from the search method.
  4. [Section 3.3.2] The spectral model (DISKBB+DISKPBB+CUTOFFPL) freezes the CUTOFFPL photon index and cutoff energy to the average PULX values (Γ=0.59, Ecut=7 keV) from Walton et al. (2018). The paper later uses the good fit of this model to argue that the X7 spectrum is NS-like, which is a mild model-driven circularity: the model is chosen because it is used for PULXs, and the frozen parameters are taken from PULX averages. The authors should either leave these parameters free and report the resulting constraints, or demonstrate with an independent test (e.g., a likelihood-ratio comparison with a simple power law) that the cutoff is actually required by the data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] The description of the ~240 d periodicity would benefit from a more explicit statement that the scrambling test does not account for red noise, and the red-noise simulations show that the significance could be below 3σ. The current text says 'the actual significance could be lower than the 3σ reported above,' which is clear but could be strengthened by quoting the expected number of false peaks from the power-law simulations in the abstract or conclusions.
  2. [Section 3.2] The paper quotes a significance of ~3.5σ for the pulsation signal but does not report how many independent frequencies and orbital trials were searched, nor the single-trial threshold. Please provide these numbers so the reader can appreciate the look-elsewhere effect.
  3. [Figure 4] The colorbar is labeled 'Leahy power' while the text quotes significances in σ. Please clarify the conversion between Leahy power and Gaussian significance for the plotted data.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract states that the thermal component 'clearly following a correlation between its temperature and luminosity,' but the text in Section 3.3.2 describes the soft-component correlation as 'tentative' and model-dependent. Please align the abstract with the actual findings.
  5. [Section 2.2] The conversion of Swift/XRT count rates to luminosities uses a single absorbed power-law model with Γ~2.2, which may not be representative of all flux states (especially the hard flaring state). A brief caveat in Section 2.2 or in the discussion would be helpful.
  6. [Table 3] In Table 3, the DISKBB kTin for state 6 is listed as '0.0+0.8 0', which appears to be a typographical error or a formatting problem. Please check this entry.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; one mild PULX-template ansatz in the spectral modelling, but the central pulsation claim is data-driven.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. 3.3.2 and Sec. 4.4]
    "The CUTOFFPL parameters were instead frozen to Γ = 0.59 and E cut = 7 keV (i.e. the average of the cut-off power law parameters of the PULXs; Walton et al. 2018). ... We remark that the spectral modeling we adopted for NGC 4559 X7 is consistent with that used for the PULXs (e.g. Walton et al. 2018)."

    The cut-off power-law shape is not measured from X7 but fixed to the average of known pulsating ULXs, and the same component is later cited as evidence that the spectrum is PULX-like. The consistency with PULX modelling is therefore partly an input assumption rather than an independent spectral finding. This is only a supporting argument; the pulsation detection, the spin-period values, and the orbital-parameter overlap come from the timing data and do not reduce to this spectral template.

full rationale

The central claim is the candidate detection of a 2.6–2.7 s coherent signal in two XMM-Newton observations. That claim rests on accelerated period searches with orbital corrections, a PSO cross-check, and a background-event control, all performed on the observed photon arrival times. The two periods are measured independently, and the spin-down is computed arithmetically from those two measured values; it is not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The paper explicitly cautions that the per-observation significance is only about 3.5 sigma and that a large trials penalty applies, so the candidate status is honestly stated. The main weakness, namely that the two signals are linked by qualitative overlap of orbital-parameter contours without a joint trials-corrected false-alarm probability, is a statistical limitation rather than a circular derivation. The only mild circularity is spectral: the DISKBB+DISKPBB+CUTOFFPL continuum, with cutoff parameters frozen to the PULX average (Walton et al. 2018), is later used to argue that the spectrum is consistent with PULX behaviour. That step imports a model choice from prior PULX work and then reads consistency back out of it, but it is not load-bearing for the pulsation detection or for the neutron-star interpretation, which is primarily motivated by the timing signal. Self-citations to Pintore et al. (2021) for the source's spectral suitability are also not load-bearing, since the continuum is a phenomenological description rather than a uniqueness theorem. Overall, the paper's main derivation chain is self-contained against the data; the circular element is minor and confined to a supporting spectral argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a barrage of fitted spectral parameters and on unverified assumptions about the source distance, position, spectral decomposition, and especially the identity of the two pulsation candidates. The orbital parameters and spin periods are search outputs, not independently measured quantities. The model choice is partly imported from prior PULX literature, including the authors' own work, which introduces a mild circularity in the NS interpretation.

free parameters (10)
  • Orbital period P_orb = 2-4 d (candidate range, unconstrained)
    Scanned over 4 h to 4 d grid and 2-4 d PSO regions; best power found for P_orb in 2-4 d, but the paper reports the parameter as quite unconstrained.
  • Projected semi-major axis A_x sin i = 20-120 lt-s
    Same search; the contours cover this entire range, so the binary parameters are not firmly measured.
  • Spin period P_spin = 2.628 +/- 0.001 s (XMM1), 2.726 +/- 0.012 s (XMM2)
    The central measured quantity from the power maximization; listed as a free parameter because its value is fitted, but it is the detection itself.
  • TBABS column density N_H = 1.3e21-1.6e21 cm^-2
    Tied across spectral states and used for flux conversion in Swift; a standard interstellar absorption parameter.
  • DISKBB inner temperature kTin = 0.20-0.35 keV across states
    Soft thermal component temperature fitted per hardness bin.
  • DISKBB normalization = 3-28 (arbitrary units)
    Soft component normalization fitted per state.
  • DISKPBB inner temperature kTin = 0.77-1.93 keV
    Hard thermal component temperature per state.
  • DISKPBB p parameter = 0.53-0.63
    Tied across states in Model 1; controls radial temperature profile.
  • DISKPBB normalization = 0.009-0.10
    Hard thermal component normalization.
  • CUTOFFPL normalization = 2.9e-5 to 1.7e-4 (units in Table 2)
    Normalization of the cut-off powerlaw; photon index and Ecut fixed at 0.59 and 7 keV respectively from PULX averages.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Distance to NGC 4559 is 7.5 Mpc
    Adopted from Tully et al. (2016); used to convert all count rates and fluxes to luminosities, and to estimate Eddington ratios and NS radii.
  • domain assumption Source position from Swartz et al. (2011) is accurate enough for barycentering
    Used in BARYCEN for all timing analyses; a position error would smear coherent pulsations.
  • ad hoc to paper The continuum model DISKBB+DISKPBB+CUTOFFPL with frozen photon index 0.59 and Ecut 7 keV is appropriate for X7
    The model and frozen cut-off parameters are borrowed from the average properties of known PULXs (Walton et al. 2018) and from the authors' previous work (Pintore et al. 2021); alternative models were tried but the adopted one is not derived from X7 data alone.
  • ad hoc to paper The two candidate pulsation signals are the same physical signal
    Used to boost significance and to derive a spin-down; the paper supports this with overlapping banana contours and a background test, but it remains an unproven identity that is central to the main claim.
  • domain assumption Pulsation searches assume a circular binary orbit and a constant spin derivative over the observation
    The orbital correction model uses only P_orb and A_x sin i; eccentricity or a varying spin derivative could change the significance and the inferred parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new pulsating neutron star in the Ultraluminous X-ray source NGC 4559 X7?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQRXICSQ

@misc{pith2026250210246,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new pulsating neutron star in the Ultraluminous X-ray source NGC 4559 X7?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQRXICSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10246}
}
read the original abstract

Ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULX) are extragalactic objects with X-ray luminosities above the Eddington limit for a 10 Msun black hole (BH). ULXs may host super-Eddington accreting neutron stars or stellar mass BH, although the exact proportion of the two populations is not yet known. We investigate the properties of the ULX NGC 4559 X7, which shows flux variability up to a factor of 5 on months-to-years and hours-to-days timescales. A flaring activity was also observed during the source highest flux epochs. Flares are unpredictable, with different durations and all flat-topped in flux. The latter suggests that, at the flare peaks, there is likely a common switch-off mechanism for the accretion onto the compact object. We analysed all the available XMM-Newton and Swift/XRT observations to investigate the spectral and temporal evolution of X7, looking for short and long-term variability. We look for long-term periodicities and for coherent signals through accelerated searches that included orbital corrections. We described the X7 spectra with two thermal components plus a cut-off powerlaw model. We found three well defined spectral states, where the spectral variability is mainly driven by the two harder components. In addition, a pulsed signal at 2.6-2.7s was detected in two XMM-Newton observations. The significance of these coherent signals is relatively weak but they are found in two different observations with the same parameter space for the orbital properties. If confirmed, it would imply a high spin-down of 1e-9 s/s, which could be extreme amongst the known pulsating ULXs. X7 would become a new extragalactic ULX pulsar. We discuss the spectral and temporal results of X7 in the context of super-Eddington accretion onto a stellar-mass compact object, in particular suggesting that the source might likely host a neutron star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10246 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lightcurve of X7 in the 0.3–10 keV energy band, using all available X-ray observations. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Lomb-Scargle periodograms of the Swift/XRT obser￾vations in the time intervals between 2020 and January 2023 in the 0.3–10 keV, 0.3–1 keV and 1–10 keV energy range. Dashed lines indicate signals with > 3σ significance. Bottom: The full 1–10 keV Swift/XRT lightcurve folded with a period of 240 d. On the other hand, we note that excluding the observations after 21 January 2023 (MJD 59965), i.e. during which the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Background subtracted lightcurve of X7 in XMM0, XMM1 and XMM2 (from left to right), binned at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimates of the X7 orbital period (Porb) and the projected semi-axis of the orbit for a spin period of ∼ 2.73s in XMM2. The confidence contour, more similar to an atoll rather than a “banana” shape, is indicative of the low significance of the spin period detection. H…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter space of the orbital parameters for the signal at 2.63s and 2.73s for XMM1 (left) and XMM2 (right), respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Combined EPIC-pn + MOS(1,2) spectra of the six spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Hardness-intensity diagram for PN+MOS lightcurves of all XMM-Newton observations (after apply￾ing a smoothing to the data, see text). The data of the XMM0, XMM1 and XMM2 observations are reported in blue, orange and green, respectively. Hardness is defined as the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Combined EPIC-pn + MOS(1,2) spectra of the six spectral states extracted from the HID (see text and Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Thermal component unabsorbed bolometric luminosities (0.001–30 keV) versus the soft (blue points) and hard (orange [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Thermal component unabsorbed bolometric luminosi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Combined RGS 1 st and 2 nd order (grey and blue), EPIC￾pn and MOS 1,2 (black, red and green) spectra (top panel). The black and red lines refer to the continuum and continuum + CIE models, respectively. The corresponding residuals are shown in the middle and bottom pa…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Gaussian line scan for the combined RGS (0.4-2 keV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: multi-dimensional grids of emission models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later rem...

  4. [4]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifcmd#1(@)(@)\@nil #2 @lbibitem\@undefined @lbibitem\@lbibitem \@lbibitem[#1]#2 @lb...

  5. [5]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 NAT@ctr 0 @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.=1000 \@...

  6. [6]

    A., Godet , O., & Middleton , M

    Amato , R., G \'u rpide , A., Webb , N. A., Godet , O., & Middleton , M. J. 2023, , 669, A130

    2023

  7. [7]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser., San Francisco CA, Vol. 101, Jacoby , G. H. and Barnes , J., eds., Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V., 17

    1996

  8. [8]

    A., Walton , D

    Bachetti , M., Harrison , F. A., Walton , D. J., et al. 2014, , 514, 202

    2014

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    2022, , 937, 125

    Bachetti , M., Heida , M., Maccarone , T., et al. 2022, , 937, 125

    2022

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Bachetti , M., Rana , V., Walton , D. J., et al. 2013, , 778, 163

    2013

  3. [11]

    Baluev , R. V. 2008, , 385, 1279

    2008

  4. [12]

    2024, , 682, A94

    Barra , F., Pinto , C., Middleton , M., et al. 2024, , 682, A94

    2024

  5. [13]

    2024, , 965, 78

    Belfiore , A., Salvaterra , R., Sidoli , L., et al. 2024, , 965, 78

    2024

  6. [14]

    2000, , 355, 271

    Belloni , T., Klein-Wolt , M., M \'e ndez , M., van der Klis , M., & van Paradijs , J. 2000, , 355, 271

    2000

  7. [15]

    & Kennedy, J

    Bratton, D. & Kennedy, J. 2007, in 2007 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, 120--127

    2007

  8. [16]

    2022, , 925, 18

    Brightman , M., Bachetti , M., Earnshaw , H., et al. 2022, , 925, 18

    2022

  9. [17]

    2020, , 895, 127

    Brightman , M., Earnshaw , H., F \"u rst , F., et al. 2020, , 895, 127

    2020

  10. [18]

    A., Bachetti , M., et al

    Brightman , M., Harrison , F. A., Bachetti , M., et al. 2019, , 873, 115

    2019

  11. [19]

    A., F \"u rst , F., et al

    Brightman , M., Harrison , F. A., F \"u rst , F., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 312

    2018

  12. [20]

    & Di Salvo , T

    Burderi , L. & Di Salvo , T. 2013, , 84, 117

    2013

  13. [21]

    2018, , 610, A46

    Campana , S., Stella , L., Mereghetti , S., & de Martino , D. 2018, , 610, A46

    2018

  14. [22]

    2018, [ [arXiv] 1802.10341 ]

    Carpano , S., Haberl , F., Maitra , C., & Vasilopoulos , G. 2018, [ [arXiv] 1802.10341 ]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    1979, , 228, 939

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

    1979

  16. [24]

    2017, , 470, 2799

    Chashkina , A., Abolmasov , P., & Poutanen , J. 2017, , 470, 2799

    2017

  17. [25]

    Colbert , E. J. M. & Mushotzky , R. F. 1999, , 519, 89

    1999

  18. [26]

    2021, , 507, 5567

    D'A \` , A., Pinto , C., Del Santo , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 5567

    2021

  19. [27]

    2013, , 436, 3782

    De Marco , B., Ponti , G., Miniutti , G., et al. 2013, , 436, 3782

    2013

  20. [28]

    & Kubota , A

    Done , C. & Kubota , A. 2006, , 371, 1216

    2006

  21. [29]

    1989, , 41, 427

    Dotani , T., Kii , T., Nagase , F., et al. 1989, , 41, 427

    1989

  22. [30]

    P., Roberts , T

    Earnshaw , H. P., Roberts , T. P., Middleton , M. J., Walton , D. J., & Mateos , S. 2019, , 483, 5554

    2019

  23. [31]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2009, , 397, 1177

    2009

  24. [32]

    & Kaaret , P

    Feng , H. & Kaaret , P. 2006, , 650, L75

    2006

  25. [33]

    J., Stern , D., et al

    Fuerst , F., Walton , D. J., Stern , D., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1610.00258 ]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J., Heida , M., et al

    F \"u rst , F., Walton , D. J., Heida , M., et al. 2021, , 651, A75

    2021

  27. [35]

    J., Israel , G

    F \"u rst , F., Walton , D. J., Israel , G. L., et al. 2023, , 672, A140

    2023

  28. [36]

    2012, , 537, A66

    Gonz \'a lez-Gal \'a n , A., Kuulkers , E., Kretschmar , P., et al. 2012, , 537, A66

    2012

  29. [37]

    A., & Olive , J

    G \'u rpide , A., Godet , O., Vasilopoulos , G., Webb , N. A., & Olive , J. F. 2021, , 654, A10

    2021

  30. [38]

    F., Ji , L., & Yu , C

    Hu , Y. F., Ji , L., & Yu , C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12155

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L., Belfiore , A., Stella , L., & Esposito , P

    Israel , G. L., Belfiore , A., Stella , L., & Esposito , P. e. a. 2017 a , Science, 355, 817

    2017

  32. [40]

    L., Papitto , A., Esposito , P., & Stella , L

    Israel , G. L., Papitto , A., Esposito , P., & Stella , L. e. a. 2017 b , , 466, L48

    2017

  33. [41]

    Kaaret , P., Feng , H., & Roberts , T. P. 2017, , 55, 303

    2017

  34. [42]

    Kaastra , J. S. & Bleeker , J. A. M. 2016, , 587, A151

    2016

  35. [43]

    S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

    Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe , 411

    1996

  36. [44]

    Kajava , J. J. E. & Poutanen , J. 2009, , 398, 1450

    2009

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Kara , E., Pinto , C., Walton , D. J., et al. 2020, , 491, 5172

    2020

  38. [46]

    & Eberhart, R

    Kennedy, J. & Eberhart, R. 1995, in Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, ICNN-95 (IEEE)

    1995

  39. [47]

    & Lasota , J.-P

    King , A. & Lasota , J.-P. 2020, , 494, 3611

    2020

  40. [48]

    2023, , 96, 101672

    King , A., Lasota , J.-P., & Middleton , M. 2023, , 96, 101672

    2023

  41. [49]

    2017, , 608, A47

    Koliopanos , F., Vasilopoulos , G., Godet , O., et al. 2017, , 608, A47

    2017

  42. [50]

    C., & Walton , D

    Kosec , P., Pinto , C., Fabian , A. C., & Walton , D. J. 2018 , , 473, 5680

    2018

  43. [51]

    S., et al

    Kosec , P., Pinto , C., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2021, , 508, 3569

    2021

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Kosec , P., Pinto , C., Walton , D. J., et al. 2018, , 479, 3978

    2018

  45. [53]

    & Done , C

    Kubota , A. & Done , C. 2004, , 353, 980

    2004

  46. [54]

    1998, , 50, 667

    Kubota , A., Tanaka , Y., Makishima , K., et al. 1998, , 50, 667

    1998

  47. [55]

    Leahy , D. A. & Igna , C. D. 2010, , 713, 318

    2010

  48. [56]

    2024, , 961, 196

    Liu , J. 2024, , 961, 196

    2024

  49. [57]

    1988, , 333, 746

    Makishima , K., Ohashi , T., Sakao , T., et al. 1988, , 333, 746

    1988

  50. [58]

    L., Canizares , C

    Marshall , H. L., Canizares , C. R., Hillwig , T., et al. 2013, , 775, 75

    2013

  51. [59]

    S., Khabibullin , I

    Medvedev , P. S., Khabibullin , I. I., & Sazonov , S. Y. 2019, Astronomy Letters, 45, 299

    2019

  52. [60]

    Middleton , M., G \'u rpide , A., & Walton , D. J. 2023, , 519, 2224

    2023

  53. [61]

    J., Brightman , M., Pintore , F., et al

    Middleton , M. J., Brightman , M., Pintore , F., et al. 2019, , 486, 2

    2019

  54. [62]

    J., Heil , L., Pintore , F., Walton , D

    Middleton , M. J., Heil , L., Pintore , F., Walton , D. J., & Roberts , T. P. 2015a, , 447, 3243

  55. [63]

    Middleton , M. J. & King , A. 2017, , 470, L69

    2017

  56. [64]

    J., Walton , D

    Middleton , M. J., Walton , D. J., Roberts , T. P., & Heil , L. 2014, , 438, L51

    2014

  57. [65]

    S., Davis , S

    Mills , B. S., Davis , S. W., Jiang , Y.-F., & Middleton , M. J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.07977

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    T., & Fukue , J

    Mineshige , S., Hirano , A., Kitamoto , S., Yamada , T. T., & Fukue , J. 1994, , 426, 308

    1994

  59. [67]

    2017, , 464, 2039

    Molkov , S., Lutovinov , A., Falanga , M., Tsygankov , S., & Bozzo , E. 2017, , 464, 2039

    2017

  60. [68]

    A., Ingram , A., Middleton , M., Nagirner , D

    Mushtukov , A. A., Ingram , A., Middleton , M., Nagirner , D. I., & van der Klis , M. 2019, , 484, 687

    2019

  61. [69]

    & Degenaar , N

    Neilsen , J. & Degenaar , N. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.05412

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    W., Vaughan , B

    Nelson , R. W., Vaughan , B. A., Bildsten , L., et al. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 121, IAU Colloq. 163: Accretion Phenomena and Related Outflows, ed. D. T. Wickramasinghe , G. V. Bicknell , & L. Ferrario , 256

    1997

  63. [71]

    & Mineshige , S

    Ohsuga , K. & Mineshige , S. 2011, , 736, 2

    2011

  64. [72]

    2006, , 639, 363

    Perna , R., Bozzo , E., & Stella , L. 2006, , 639, 363

    2006

  65. [73]

    2017, , 468, 2865

    Pinto , C., Alston , W., Soria , R., et al. 2017, , 468, 2865

    2017

  66. [74]

    & Kosec , P

    Pinto , C. & Kosec , P. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20220134

    2023

  67. [75]

    J., & Fabian , A

    Pinto , C., Middleton , M. J., & Fabian , A. C. 2016, , 533, 64

    2016

  68. [76]

    J., et al

    Pinto , C., Soria , R., Walton , D. J., et al. 2021, , 505, 5058

    2021

  69. [77]

    & Walton , D

    Pinto , C. & Walton , D. J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.00006

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    J., Kara , E., et al

    Pinto , C., Walton , D. J., Kara , E., et al. 2020, , 492, 4646

    2020

  71. [79]

    2021, , 504, 551

    Pintore , F., Motta , S., Pinto , C., et al. 2021, , 504, 551

    2021

  72. [80]

    & Zampieri , L

    Pintore , F. & Zampieri , L. 2012, , 420, 1107

    2012

  73. [81]

    2017, , 836, 113

    Pintore , F., Zampieri , L., Stella , L., et al. 2017, , 836, 113

    2017

  74. [82]

    D., et al

    Pintore , F., Zampieri , L., Sutton , A. D., et al. 2016, , 459, 455

    2016

  75. [83]

    G., & Abolmasov , P

    Poutanen , J., Lipunova , G., Fabrika , S., Butkevich , A. G., & Abolmasov , P. 2007, , 377, 1187

    2007

  76. [84]

    J., et al

    Robba , A., Pinto , C., Walton , D. J., et al. 2021, , 652, A118

    2021

  77. [85]

    A., Israel , G

    Rodr \' guez Castillo , G. A., Israel , G. L., Belfiore , A., et al. 2019, , submitted (eprint: astro-ph.HE/1906.04791) [ [arXiv] 1906.04791 ]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    E., et al

    Sacchi, A., Imbrogno, M., Motta, S. E., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    2024

  79. [87]

    2022, , 512, 1814

    Salvaggio , C., Wolter , A., Pintore , F., et al. 2022, , 512, 1814

    2022

  80. [88]

    P., Walton , D

    Sathyaprakash , R., Roberts , T. P., Walton , D. J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.00640

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Scargle , J. D. 1981, , 45, 1

    1981

  82. [90]

    Shakura , N. I. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  83. [91]

    & Takahara , F

    Shimura , T. & Takahara , F. 1995, , 445, 780

    1995

  84. [92]

    J., Lansbury , G

    Song , X., Walton , D. J., Lansbury , G. B., et al. 2020, , 491, 1260

    2020

  85. [93]

    M., & Stevens , I

    Soria , R., Motch , C., Read , A. M., & Stevens , I. R. 2004, , 423, 955

    2004

  86. [94]

    D., Roberts , T

    Sutton , A. D., Roberts , T. P., & Middleton , M. J. 2013, , 435, 1758

    2013

  87. [95]

    A., Soria , R., Tennant , A

    Swartz , D. A., Soria , R., Tennant , A. F., & Yukita , M. 2011, , 741, 49

    2011

  88. [96]

    S., Mushtukov , A

    Tsygankov , S. S., Mushtukov , A. A., Suleimanov , V. F., & Poutanen , J. 2016, , 457, 1101

    2016

  89. [97]

    B., Courtois , H

    Tully , R. B., Courtois , H. M., & Sorce , J. G. 2016, , 152, 50

    2016

  90. [98]

    S., et al

    van den Eijnden , J., Degenaar , N., Schulz , N. S., et al. 2019, , 487, 4355

    2019

  91. [99]

    K., Koliopanos , F., & Bailyn , C

    Vasilopoulos , G., Lander , S. K., Koliopanos , F., & Bailyn , C. D. 2020, , 491, 4949

    2020

  92. [100]

    S., & Uttley , P

    Vaughan , S., Edelson , R., Warwick , R. S., & Uttley , P. 2003, , 345, 1271

    2003

  93. [101]

    J., F \"u rst , F., Bachetti , M., et al

    Walton , D. J., F \"u rst , F., Bachetti , M., et al. 2016, , 827, L13

    2016

  94. [102]

    J., F \"u rst , F., Harrison , F

    Walton , D. J., F \"u rst , F., Harrison , F. A., et al. 2018, , 473, 4360

    2018

  95. [103]

    J., Harrison , F

    Walton , D. J., Harrison , F. A., Grefenstette , B. W., Miller , J. M., & et al. 2014, , 793, 21

    2014

  96. [104]

    J., Mackenzie , A

    Walton , D. J., Mackenzie , A. D. A., Gully , H., et al. 2022, , 509, 1587

    2022

  97. [105]

    J., Miller , J

    Walton , D. J., Miller , J. M., Harrison , F. A., et al. 2013, , 773, L9

    2013

  98. [106]

    J., Pinto , C., Nowak , M., Bachetti , M., & et al

    Walton , D. J., Pinto , C., Nowak , M., Bachetti , M., & et al. 2020, , 494, 6012

    2020

  99. [107]

    2001, , 549, L77

    Watarai , K.-y., Mizuno , T., & Mineshige , S. 2001, , 549, L77

    2001

  100. [108]

    & Feng , H

    Weng , S.-S. & Feng , H. 2018, , 853, 115

    2018

  101. [109]

    2022, , 513, 1910

    Xu , Y., Pinto , C., Kara , E., et al. 2022, , 513, 1910

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.