Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Broadband study of the SMC pulsar RX J0032.9-7348 during its X-ray brightening in 2024

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RX J0032.9-7348, an SMC transient that brightened in 2024, is established as an accreting X-ray pulsar spinning every 7.02 seconds.

desk verdict Solid broadband characterization of SXP 7.02; treat the spin-up as a tentative trend given no orbital correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21671 v1 pith:VWTRHST6 submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.HE

Birendra Chhotaray , Gaurava K. Jaisawal , Sachindra Naik , Arghajit Jana This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypulsarsaccretingneutronstarsSmallMagellanicCloudbinariespulseprofilesspectroscopypropellereffecttransients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper identifies the previously poorly understood X-ray transient RX J0032.9-7348 in the Small Magellanic Cloud as an accreting X-ray pulsar with a spin period of about 7.02 seconds. Using NuSTAR and NICER observations triggered by its 2024 X-ray brightening, the authors measure a double-peaked, energy-dependent pulse profile and a spectrum typical of accreting pulsars: an absorbed power law with a high-energy cutoff. They also measure a spin-up rate and use the possible onset of the propeller regime to estimate the neutron star's magnetic field. If correct, the result adds a new member to the SMC's Be/X-ray binary pulsar population and shows how a single broadband campaign can characterize a transient source.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on two observational pillars: X-ray timing via epoch folding and power-density spectra to measure the 7.02 s spin period and its evolution, and X-ray spectral fitting with an absorbed cutoff power-law model. The magnetic-field estimate is carried by the propeller-regime formula of Campana et al. (2002), which converts an assumed limiting luminosity ($10^{34}$-5×$10^{36}$ erg/s) into a surface dipole field using the measured spin period and standard neutron-star mass and radius.

What would settle it

A phase-connected pulse-timing campaign covering at least one orbital period would measure the orbital Doppler modulation and settle whether the observed period decrease between the NICER and NuSTAR observations is genuine spin-up.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes RX J0032.9-7348 (= SXP 7.02) as a newly identified accreting X-ray pulsar in the Small Magellanic Cloud. Using NuSTAR and NICER observations from November 2024, it detects coherent pulsations at roughly 7.02 s, finds a double-peaked, asymmetric pulse profile whose shape varies moderately with energy, and describes the 0.5-8 keV NICER spectrum as an absorbed power law and the 3-50 keV NuSTAR spectrum as an absorbed power law with a high-energy cutoff at about 17 keV. The data show no iron line or cyclotron line, and the 0.5-50 keV luminosity declines from about 3.6×$10^{37}$ to 8.2×$10^{36}$ erg/s across the campaign. The authors report a spin-up rate of -(3.3±0.8)×$10^{-4}$ s/day between the two period measurements and, assuming the source is near the propeller regime at the lower luminosity, estimate a surface magnetic field in the range 1.4×$10^{11}$ to 3.2×$10^{12}$ G.

Load-bearing premise

The spin-up rate is inferred from only two period measurements, one from NICER and one from NuSTAR, with no binary-orbit correction because the orbital parameters are unknown, so part of the measured period change could be orbital Doppler motion rather than true spin-up.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RX J0032.9-7348 becomes a confirmed SMC pulsar (SXP 7.02), joining the sample of Be/X-ray binary pulsars with known spin periods and measured spin-up.
  • The measured spin-up rate supports the idea that the neutron star gained angular momentum from accretion during the 2024 brightening.
  • The absence of a cyclotron line in the 3-50 keV band means the magnetic field is either outside the accessible range or the source was too faint; the propeller-based estimate of 1.4×10^11-3.2×10^12 G provides a testable prediction.
  • The non-detection of pulsations in the later NICER observation, if not due to short exposure, suggests the source may have entered the propeller regime, giving a luminosity-based handle on the magnetic field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A phase-connected timing campaign spanning one orbital period would separate true spin-up from orbital Doppler shifts, directly testing the reported -(3.3±0.8)×10^-4 s/day rate.
  • If the Corbet-diagram relation holds, long-term optical monitoring should eventually reveal a 20-30 day orbital periodicity, which could also help identify the optical counterpart.
  • A future bright outburst observed with NuSTAR could reveal a cyclotron resonance scattering feature, providing a direct magnetic-field measurement to test the propeller-based range.
  • The increasing pulsed fraction with energy (up to ~39% in 20-40 keV) suggests the hard X-ray emission comes from a compact region; high-energy polarimetric observations would sharpen the geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports NuSTAR and NICER observations of the SMC X-ray transient RX J0032.9-7348 during its 2024 X-ray brightening. Timing analysis detects coherent pulsations at approximately 7.02 s using epoch folding and Monte Carlo period uncertainties, confirming the source as an X-ray pulsar (SXP 7.02). The pulse profiles are double-peaked and asymmetric, with moderate energy dependence and a measured pulsed fraction that rises with energy in the NuSTAR band. Spectral analysis finds that the 0.5-8 keV NICER spectra are well described by an absorbed power-law, while the 3-50 keV NuSTAR spectrum requires an absorbed cutoff power-law with E_cut ~ 17 keV; no iron line or cyclotron line is detected. The 0.5-50 keV luminosity varies between roughly 8e36 and 4e37 erg/s across the observations. Phase-resolved spectroscopy shows no statistically significant variations in photon index or cutoff energy. The authors also estimate a magnetic field of 1.4e11-3.2e12 G under an assumed propeller-onset luminosity range, and discuss the non-detection of pulsations in one short NICER observation.

Significance. If the central results are accepted, the paper firmly establishes RX J0032.9-7348 as a newly identified accreting X-ray pulsar in the SMC with a well-characterized broadband spectrum, and it adds the source to the Be/X-ray binary population. The spectral continuum, pulse-profile morphology, and pulsed-fraction energy dependence are useful baseline results for future outburst observations. The paper is careful and reproducible: it uses standard data-reduction pipelines, reports 90% confidence spectral errors, obtains period uncertainties from Monte Carlo simulations, and honestly reports that phase-resolved variations are not statistically significant. The main scientific claim that needs qualification is the spin-up rate, which rests on only two period measurements without an orbital correction; this does not weaken the pulsar identification or spectral conclusions, but it should be fixed before publication.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5, first paragraph (spin period evolution)] The spin-up rate of -(3.3±0.8)×10^-4 s/day is derived from only two period measurements (NICER on MJD 60617, P=7.0243±0.0011 s, and NuSTAR on MJD 60631, P=7.0196±0.0001 s) with no binary orbital correction because the orbital parameters are not known. For a Be/X-ray binary with the ~20-30 d orbital period implied by the Corbet diagram, plausible radial-velocity amplitudes of K~100-300 km/s produce differential Doppler shifts of the order of (2K/c)P ≈ 0.005-0.014 s between the two epochs, comparable to or larger than the observed ΔP=0.0047 s. The apparent period decrease is therefore equally consistent with orbital Doppler motion, and the quantitative spin-up claim should either be removed or explicitly reframed as tentative pending an orbital solution. This concern does not affect the robust detection of 7.02 s pulsations, the pulse-profile morphology, or the spectral results, which are the paper's central claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2, second paragraph] The phrase 'HEAS/o.pc/f.pc/t.pcversion 6.34' appears garbled; it should read 'HEASoft version 6.34' or an equivalent clear reference to the software version.
  2. [Section 3, throughout] There are several missing spaces in phrases such as 'theNuSTAR', 'theFTOOLS', and similar; a copy-editing pass is needed.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table 3] The text states that the NuSTAR spectra are fitted with constant(Tbabs×cutoffpl), but Table 3 lists only 'Cutoffpl' without reporting the cross-normalization constant between FPMA and FPMB; please clarify whether a constant was included and what its value was.
  4. [Equation (1)] The pulsed-fraction equation is rendered with Unicode glyphs that will not typeset properly in the journal's LaTeX style; please ensure the equation is formatted with standard math notation.
  5. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgements thank an anonymous reviewer, which is premature for a submitted manuscript; this text should be removed or moved to the accepted-version notes.
  6. [Section 5, propeller discussion] The non-detection of pulsations in the 481-s NICER observation ID 113 is presented with appropriate caution, but the sentence 'This suggests that the source may be close to the propeller regime' could be made even more tentative by explicitly stating that the short exposure and the <21% pulsed-fraction upper limit do not exclude weak pulsations at this luminosity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; all central results are direct measurements and model fits.

full rationale

This is an observational timing and spectral analysis paper, not a derivation whose output is built into its assumptions. The 7.02 s pulsation period is obtained independently by epoch-folding and power-density-spectrum searches of NICER and NuSTAR light curves, and the pulse-profile and spectral results are direct fits to data. The spin-up rate is computed from two measured periods, and while the lack of binary orbital correction is a real astrophysical caveat, it is explicitly disclosed and is a data-limitation issue rather than a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the two period measurements are independent. The magnetic-field estimate is model-dependent because it adopts an assumed propeller-onset luminosity range with the external Campana et al. relation, but the assumed luminosity range is not the reported magnetic-field outcome and the relation is an established external formula. Self-citations in the introduction, discussion, and the preliminary ATel are contextual and do not carry the central claims. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements come directly from public NuSTAR and NICER data. The spectral model parameters are fitted outputs, listed here for transparency; the only hand-chosen input in the derived magnetic-field estimate is the assumed propeller-onset luminosity range. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • NICER ID 102 column density NH = 0.17+0.02-0.02 x 10^22 cm^-2
    Fitted from 0.5-8 keV absorbed power-law spectrum on MJD 60617.
  • NICER ID 102 photon index = 1.08+0.05-0.05
    Fitted power-law slope on MJD 60617.
  • NICER ID 102 normalization = 3.02+0.02-0.02 x 10^-3
    Fitted model normalization on MJD 60617.
  • NICER ID 113 column density NH = 0.09+0.06-0.06 x 10^22 cm^-2
    Fitted from short 481 s exposure spectrum on MJD 60633.
  • NICER ID 113 photon index = 0.97+0.20-0.19
    Fitted power-law slope on MJD 60633.
  • NICER ID 113 normalization = 0.56+0.13-0.10 x 10^-3
    Fitted model normalization on MJD 60633.
  • NuSTAR column density NH (fixed) = 0.22 x 10^22 cm^-2
    Fixed to the Galactic HI4PI value because NuSTAR lacks coverage below 3 keV; not fitted.
  • NuSTAR photon index = 1.1+0.1-0.1
    Fitted cutoff power-law index in 3-50 keV.
  • NuSTAR cutoff energy Ecut = 17.1+3.7-2.7 keV
    Fitted high-energy cutoff of cutoffpl model.
  • NuSTAR normalization = 1.2+0.2-0.1 x 10^-3
    Fitted model normalization in 3-50 keV.
  • Assumed propeller-onset luminosity = 1e34 to 5e36 erg/s
    Hand-chosen range used only for the magnetic-field estimate; not measured and spans two decades.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption RX J0032.9-7348 is an accreting X-ray pulsar in the SMC at the adopted distance of 62 kpc.
    Used for luminosity and magnetic-field calculations; distance taken from Graczyk et al. (2014) rather than measured here.
  • domain assumption The 7.02 s periodicity is the neutron star spin period, not an orbital or instrumental alias.
    Consistent with the XMM-Newton discovery and the efsearch peak, but no binary orbital solution exists to exclude Doppler contamination.
  • domain assumption The period difference between NICER and NuSTAR is attributed entirely to spin-up.
    Section 3 states that binary motion correction was not applied because orbital parameters are unknown; the spin-up claim assumes this term is negligible.
  • domain assumption Standard empirical spectral models (Tbabs, powerlaw, cutoffpl) are adequate descriptions of the X-ray continuum.
    These are phenomenological models used in XSPEC; the paper does not derive them physically.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-detection of pulsations in NICER ID 113 may reflect propeller-regime onset, with a limiting luminosity in the assumed range 1e34-5e36 erg/s.
    This assumed range is not measured and directly sets the magnetic-field range; the paper cautions that low exposure could also explain the non-detection.
  • domain assumption The Campana et al. (2002) propeller formula and Ghosh & Lamb (1978) coupling k=0.5 apply to this source.
    Used to translate the assumed propeller luminosity into a magnetic field; these are standard relations but their applicability to this unmodeled system is unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Broadband study of the SMC pulsar RX J0032.9-7348 during its X-ray brightening in 2024." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWTRHST6

@misc{pith2026250421671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Broadband study of the SMC pulsar RX J0032.9-7348 during its X-ray brightening in 2024},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWTRHST6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21671}
}
abstract

We present the results of the broadband timing and spectral analysis of the poorly understood SMC pulsar RX J0032.9-7348 (= SXP 7.02) using NuSTAR and NICER observations during its X-ray brightening in 2024. Our timing analysis revealed a pulsation period of approximately 7.02 s in the X-ray light curve. The pulse profile obtained in the broad energy range is double-peaked and asymmetric in nature and shows moderate variation with the energy. An absorbed power-law model describes the 0.5-8 keV NICER spectra well. The 3-50 keV NuSTAR spectrum is best described with an absorbed power-law modified with a high-energy cutoff model. We find no evidence of iron or cyclotron line features in the energy spectrum. During our observation period, the 0.5-50 keV luminosity varies in the range of $\sim 8\times10^{36} - 4\times10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We also discuss the dependence of spectral parameters on the rotational phase of the pulsar through phase-resolved spectroscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The source and background region selection using cleaned event file of the NuSTAR observation on MJD 60631. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Counts/s 3−10 keV 0.1 0.2 Counts/s 10−79 keV 104 2×104 3×104 4×104 0 0.5 1 Time (s) Hardness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top and middle panels display the NuSTAR light curves of RX J0032.9-7348 in the 3–10 keV and 10–79 keV energy ranges, respectively. The bottom panel shows the hardness ratio, defined as the ratio of count rates in the 10–79 keV to 3–10 keV energy bands. The light curves are binned at 200 seconds. 20241104. We followed the standard data processing routines where the NUPIPELINE and NUPRODUCTS tasks are executed to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Power density spectrum (PDS) of RX J0032.9-7348 obtained from NICER and NuSTAR observations. The frequency and period corresponding to the fundamental and 1st harmonic peak are annotated in the figure. (Prigozhin et al. 2016). It provides high timing precision with a res￾olution of approximately 100 ns (rms) and a spectral resolution of around 85 eV at 1 keV. The field of view spans roughly 30 arcmin2 , and its effe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Chi-square distribution plot obtained using the efsearch method on NuSTAR light curve of RX J0032.9-7348, with the maximum Chi-square observed at a period of approximately 7.01968 s. 106 periods have been searched at a resolution of 10−5 s. sharp peaks are observed…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy-averaged and energy-resolved pulse profiles for NICER observation on MJD 60617 (ID 102) are presented where the pulse profiles are obtained in the energy bands of 0.5-10 keV, 0.5-3.0 keV, and 3-10 keV displayed from top to bottom, respectively. 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 0.5…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy-averaged and energy-resolved pulse profiles are generated from background-subtracted light curves for NuSTAR observation on MJD 60631 are presented where the pulse profiles are obtained in the energy bands of 3-79 keV, 3-7 keV, 7-10 keV, 10-20 keV, and 20-40 keV…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy-dependent evolution of the pulsed fraction (PF). The PF measurements from NICER are shown in black and those from NuSTAR in blue. 10-4 10-3 1 Photons cm-2 s-1 keV-1 -2 0 2 1 -2 0 2 Residual -2 0 2 0.5 1 2 5 8 -2 0 2 Residual Energy (keV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 0.5–8 keV NICER spectra and best-fit absorbed power-law model for observation IDs 102 (brown) and 113 (black) are shown in the top panel. The second and third panels display the residuals for IDs 102 and 113, respectively, after applying the best-fit model. and ID …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  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]

    A., Wolff M

    Becker P. A., Wolff M. T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..435B 654, 435

    doi:10.1086/509108 2007

  5. [5]

    Beri A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..565B 500, 565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3254 2021

  6. [6]

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

    doi:10.1086/313060 1997

  7. [7]

    L., Moretti A., Parmar A

    Campana S., Stella L., Israel G. L., Moretti A., Parmar A. N., Orlandini M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580..389C 580, 389

    doi:10.1086/343074 2002

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3354 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    K., Ahuja G., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2830C 534, 2830

    Chhotaray B., Naik S., Jaisawal G. K., Ahuja G., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2830C 534, 2830

    doi

  2. [10]

    K., Nandi P., Naik S., Kumari N., Ng M., Gendreau K

    Chhotaray B., Jaisawal G. K., Nandi P., Naik S., Kumari N., Ng M., Gendreau K. C., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963..132C 963, 132

    doi

  3. [11]

    K., Jana A., 2024c, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16930....1C 16930, 1

    Chhotaray B., Naik S., Jaisawal G. K., Jana A., 2024c, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16930....1C 16930, 1

  4. [12]

    A., Rothschild R

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

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    P., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..585D 179, 585

    Davidson K., Ostriker J. P., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..585D 179, 585

    1973 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Gupta S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3455E 472, 3455

    Epili P., Naik S., Jaisawal G. K., Gupta S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3455E 472, 3455

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Kennea J

    Gaudin T. M., Kennea J. A., Coe M. J., Evans P. A., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16900....1G 16900, 1

    2024

  8. [16]

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

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

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    K., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223L..83G 223, L83

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223L..83G 223, L83

    1978 doi

  10. [18]

    Graczyk D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...59G 780, 59

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

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

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Haberl F., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16901....1H 16901, 1

    2024

  13. [21]

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

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

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Huppenkothen D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...39H 881, 39

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Sunyaev R

    Illarionov A. F., Sunyaev R. A., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....39..185I 39, 185

    1975

  16. [24]

    K., Naik S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..620J 448, 620

    Jaisawal G. K., Naik S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..620J 448, 620

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Naik S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461L..97J 461, L97

    Jaisawal G. K., Naik S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461L..97J 461, L97

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Naik S., Epili P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2749J 457, 2749

    Jaisawal G. K., Naik S., Epili P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2749J 457, 2749

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Naik S., Chenevez J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4432J 474, 4432

    Jaisawal G. K., Naik S., Chenevez J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4432J 474, 4432

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

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

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

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Q., Liu Q

    Jiang S. Q., Liu Q. C., Cheng H. Q., Zhang W. D., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16880....1J 16880, 1

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kahabka P., Pietsch W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...312..919K 312, 919

    1996 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    A., Williams P

    Kaper L., 1995, in van der Hucht K. A., Williams P. M., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 163, Wolf-Rayet Stars: Binaries; Colliding Winds; Evolution. p. 271

    1995

  24. [32]

    K., Pethick C

    Lamb F. K., Pethick C. J., Pines D., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...184..271L 184, 271

    1973 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Tsygankov S

    Lutovinov A. A., Tsygankov S. S., Krivonos R. A., Molkov S. V., Poutanen J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..209L 834, 209

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Coe M

    Monageng I. M., Coe M. J., Buckley D. A. H., Udalski A., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16904....1M 16904, 1

    2024

  27. [35]

    Nagase F., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PASJ...41....1N 41, 1

    1989

  28. [36]

    K., 2015, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/15/4/007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RAA....15..537N 15, 537

    Naik S., Jaisawal G. K., 2015, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/15/4/007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RAA....15..537N 15, 537

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Paul B., Dotani T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647.1293N 647, 1293

    Naik S., Callanan P. J., Paul B., Dotani T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647.1293N 647, 1293

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    Naik S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..516N 672, 516

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Paul B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..158N 764, 158

    Naik S., Maitra C., Jaisawal G. K., Paul B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..158N 764, 158

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Takahashi T., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Prigozhin G., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W. A., Takahashi T., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99051I, @doi 10.1117/12.2231718

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

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

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Reig P., Nespoli E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...551A...1R 551, A1

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..130R 163, 130

    Remillard R. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..130R 163, 130

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Schreier E., Levinson R., Gursky H., Kellogg E., Tananbaum H., Giacconi R., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...172L..79S 172, L79

    1972 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Lightman A

    Shapiro S. L., Lightman A. P., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..555S 204, 555

    1976 doi

  38. [46]

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

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Lutovinov A

    Tsygankov S. S., Lutovinov A. A., Churazov E. M., Sunyaev R. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10610.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371...19T 371, 19

    2006

  40. [48]

    S., Doroshenko V., Lutovinov A

    Tsygankov S. S., Doroshenko V., Lutovinov A. A., Mushtukov A. A., Poutanen J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..39T 605, A39

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Vasilopoulos G., Haberl F., Maggi P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1971V 470, 1971

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

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

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Ferland G

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

    1996 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Bozzo E., Tsygankov S

    Walter R., Lutovinov A. A., Bozzo E., Tsygankov S. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-015-0082-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&ARv..23....2W 23, 2

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Swank J

    White N. E., Swank J. H., Holt S. S., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270..711W 270, 711

    1983 doi

  46. [54]

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

    2000 doi

  47. [55]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aace60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863....9W 863, 9

    Wilson-Hodge C. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aace60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863....9W 863, 9

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Yang J., et al., 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#229. p. 233.05

    2017

  49. [57]

    N., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...316..411V 316, 411

    van der Klis M., Stella L., White N., Jansen F., Parmar A. N., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...316..411V 316, 411

    1987 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.