Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

A NuSTAR study of quasi-periodic oscillations from the ultraluminous X-ray sources in M82

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper uses ten years of NuSTAR observations of M82 to show that the quasi-periodic oscillation at 20–300 mHz belongs to the ultraluminous source M82 X-1, that it carries no detectable harmonics or twin peaks, and that QPO frequency…

desk verdict Solid 10-year NuSTAR timing study of M82 X-1's QPO with real new constraints, but the Chandra association is weaker than Figure 6 claims and the rms calibration needs a clarifying sentence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16921 v1 pith:KVNADSUB submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMphysics.data-anstat.AP

Hamza El Byad , Matteo Bachetti , Silvia Columbu , Giuseppe Rodriguez , Maura Pilia , Matthew J. Middleton , Dominic J Walton , Murray Brightman
show 8 more authors
Hannah Earnshaw Karl Forster Brian Grefenstette Felix Fürst Marianne Heida Matteo Imbrogno Eleonora Veronica Lai Thomas Maccarone
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.data-anstat.AP
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationsM82X-1ultraluminousX-raysourcesNuSTARtimingintermediate-massblackholepowerspectraldensityaccretingcompactobjects
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

Over a decade of NuSTAR monitoring, the authors track a quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) at 20–300 mHz in the X-ray emission of the galaxy M82 and establish that it comes from the ultraluminous source M82 X-1, not its pulsar neighbor M82 X-2. The oscillation appears in roughly seventy percent of the three million seconds of usable exposure and follows an absolute-amplitude scaling with the square root of frequency that separates it clearly from a slower, broader noise component. The team finds no harmonic of this QPO and no trace in the NuSTAR data of the twin 3–5 Hz oscillations that had previously been used to argue for an intermediate-mass black hole. They argue that the QPO's behavior resembles low-frequency oscillations seen in both black-hole and neutron-star binaries, so its frequency alone cannot be used to weigh the central object.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) near 20–300 mHz in the power spectrum of M82 X-1's X-ray emission, and the diagnostic that carries the argument is the scaling of its absolute root-mean-square amplitude with frequency. To extract it, the authors clean each NuSTAR periodogram by filling bad time intervals with the mean count rate, notch-filtering the residual windowing peaks, and rescaling by the ratio of total bins to good-time-interval bins, then fit one or two Lorentzian components using maximum likelihood with bootstrap uncertainties. A shift-and-add technique aligns periodograms on the QPO frequency to measure its coherence and to search for a harmonic at twice the frequency. The feature is identified as a QPO when its quality factor exceeds two; the same machinery separates it from a broadband red-noise component whose rms stays flat at low frequencies.

What would settle it

Run the same periodogram pipeline on simulated light curves with known injected sinusoidal amplitudes and the same pattern of missing time intervals as each real observation, then compare the recovered rms to the injected value; if the recovered rms is systematically low by the ratio of total time bins to good-time bins, the reported rms-versus-frequency scaling and energy-dependent rms ratios are biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 20–300 mHz quasi-periodic oscillation in M82 is a robust, long-lived feature of the ultraluminous X-ray source M82 X-1, and that its statistical behavior — coherence declining with frequency, absolute rms growing roughly as the square root of frequency, and fractional rms increasing with photon energy — places it in the same phenomenological family as low-frequency QPOs seen in stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars. The authors identify the QPO with M82 X-1 using quasi-simultaneous Chandra images in which M82 X-2 is in a low state, plus tentative off-axis Chandra detections at the same frequency. They report that the twin-peak 3–5 Hz oscillations claimed for an intermediate-mass black hole are not present in the combined five-million-second NuSTAR periodogram, with an upper limit of about two percent rms, and that the main QPO has no detectable harmonic. From this they conclude that QPO frequency alone is not a reliable mass indicator for accreting compact objects.

Load-bearing premise

The reported absolute rms values are correctly calibrated after the periodogram cleaning, including the known underestimation of signal amplitude caused by filling the missing time intervals with the mean count rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the strongest observational argument that M82 X-1 contains an intermediate-mass black hole — the 3:2 twin QPOs — is not supported by the deeper NuSTAR data, and the mass estimate from QPO scaling no longer stands on that evidence.
  • The decade-long behavior of the 20–300 mHz QPO, including the rms∝ν^1/2 scaling and decreasing coherence, becomes a benchmark that any model of QPO production in ultraluminous X-ray sources must reproduce.
  • The lack of a detectable harmonic means the QPO cannot be classified as a typical Type-C QPO, narrowing the analogy to black-hole low-frequency QPO families.
  • Since the same phenomenology is seen in neutron-star binaries, QPO frequency alone cannot be used to weigh accreting compact objects in future X-ray studies of unresolved ULX populations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same NuSTAR dataset could be used to test whether the QPO frequency tracks the observed count rate within individual observations, which would determine whether the apparent rms–frequency correlation is a flux effect or an intrinsic timing property.
  • The non-detection of the 3–5 Hz twin QPOs does not prove they were never there; the features may be transient, so a longer or more sensitive campaign, or a search in XMM–Newton and Chandra data at their reported epoch, would be a cleaner test of the intermediate-mass black hole interpretation.
  • If the periodogram calibration issue described in the appendix — a residual underestimation of signal rms by the factor n_tot/n_gti — was not corrected, the reported ν^1/2 track could be an artifact; this is testable with an injected-signal simulation and should be checked before the scaling is used for physical interpretation.
  • The paper's caution against QPO-based mass inference applies beyond M82: any ultraluminous X-ray source where an mHz-frequency QPO is found but the accretor type is unknown should not be assigned a mass on frequency grounds alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 10-year NuSTAR timing study of M82, using 39 observations from 2014-2024 to characterize quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the 20-300 mHz range. The authors fit Lorentzian components to cleaned periodograms, report absolute rms and coherence for the QPO and a low-frequency red-noise component, examine energy dependence, search for harmonics and for the previously claimed 3-5 Hz twin QPOs, and use quasi-simultaneous Chandra observations to argue that the NuSTAR QPO originates from M82 X-1. The main conclusions are that no additional timing features are found, the QPO behaves similarly to low-frequency QPOs in both black-hole and neutron-star binaries, and QPO frequency alone should not be used as a mass indicator.

Significance. If the systematic issues are resolved, this is a valuable long-baseline characterization of an extragalactic ULX QPO. The manuscript brings together a homogeneous analysis of a large archival dataset, a novel periodogram-cleaning procedure, bootstrap-based uncertainties, a stacked search placing an ~2% rms upper limit on high-frequency QPOs, and a careful discussion of the dangers of inferring compact-object mass from QPO frequency alone. The paper also provides an independent hybrid Lomb-Scargle/Bartlett cross-check in Appendix B. These are genuine strengths. The main scientific payoff, however, hinges on two load-bearing points: the absolute rms calibration after the cleaning procedure, and the confidence with which the QPO is assigned to M82 X-1 rather than to the nearby M82 X-2 or a blend of sources. Both need to be addressed before the quantitative trends and the source-specific interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A] The calibration of the absolute rms after the periodogram-cleaning procedure is not fully specified. After multiplying the periodogram by n_tot/n_gti to restore the white-noise normalization, the text states that 'the measured rms of signal will still be underestimated by another factor n_tot/n_gti,' but it never states whether the rms values reported in Table 1 and Figure 3 were corrected for this factor. Because n_tot/n_gti varies between observations, an uncorrected or incorrectly corrected factor would directly affect the absolute-rms values, the claimed rms proportionality to ν^1/2 in Figure 3, and the energy-dependent comparisons in Figure 4. The simulation in Appendix A confirms the existence of a damping factor but does not by itself demonstrate that the pipeline corrects it. Please state explicitly what correction was applied to the reported rms values, or, if none was applied, recompute the affected quantities and re-evaluate the relevant conclusions.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure 6] The spatial association of the NuSTAR QPO with M82 X-1 is presented with inconsistent strength. The text reports only 'a tentative detection' of the QPO in off-axis Chandra ObsIDs 17578 and 18064, while the Figure 6 caption describes the same data as 'showing a clear association with M82 X-1,' and the Conclusions call the identification 'robust.' The manuscript should report the formal significance of the Chandra QPO detections, including the number of trials (sources, frequency range, and off-axis pointings) used, and should either justify the 'clear' language or soften it. The third simultaneous case (NuSTAR 90202038004 / Chandra 18072) is a low-state correlation without a Chandra timing detection, so it cannot by itself exclude contamination from M82 X-2, which is known to show low-frequency QPOs (Feng et al. 2010). This point is load-bearing because the behavioral comparisons in Section 4 are attributed specifically to M82 X-1.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Table 1] The identification of which Lorentzian components are classified as QPOs is not fully transparent. The text sets Qlim=2 as the boundary between QPO and broadband noise, yet Table 1 lists several components flagged as QPOs with best-fit Q values below 2 (for example ObsIDs 30502020002, 30502022004, 31001019002, and 90202038002). Please specify the role of the AIC comparison and the bootstrap significance in the final classification and define the precise criterion used to set the 'Q' flag in Table 1. Without this, the reader cannot determine which features enter the rms-frequency and coherence trends in Figure 3 and which support the claim that the QPO behaves similarly to low-frequency QPOs in other accreting sources.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The Conclusions state '50-300 Hz QPO,' but the abstract and the body of the paper consistently use '20-300 mHz'; please correct the unit.
  2. [Figure 3] The caption for Figure 3 refers to 'Section 1' for the fits described in the paper; this should be Section 3.3.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 contains a duplicated row for ObsID 80202020008; please remove or clearly label the duplicate.
  4. [Section 4] In the sentence beginning 'There does not seem to be a systematic pattern,' the phrase 'a simple criteria' should be 'a simple criterion.'
  5. [Section 3.5] The stacked-search upper limit of ~2% rms for features above the pulsation frequency should be quoted with an explicit confidence level and the frequency band over which it applies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the QPO measurement is an independent observational analysis; the only flagged weaknesses are calibration and source-association risks, not definitional or self-cited reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are an observational characterization of the 20-300 mHz QPO in M82 using NuSTAR periodogram fitting. The derivation chain is self-contained: periodograms are cleaned and fitted with Lorentzians via maximum likelihood (Eq. 3), model choice uses AIC on the same data being fit, and uncertainties come from a parametric bootstrap. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The QPO was originally discovered by external prior work (Strohmayer & Mushotzky 2003; Mucciarelli et al. 2006; Dewangan et al. 2006), and the paper's identification with M82 X-1 rests on Chandra spatial selection plus prior flux-based association, not on a definition or on an author-generated uniqueness theorem. The many citations to Bachetti et al. concern pulsar timing and orbital decay of M82 X-2; they are contextual and are not used to force the QPO conclusions. The tentative wording for Chandra ObsIDs 17578 and 18064 in Section 4 versus the 'clear association' caption of Figure 6 is a potential overstatement, but overstatement is a correctness or evidence-weighting concern, not circularity. Similarly, Appendix A's statement that after n_tot/n_gti normalization 'the measured rms of signal will still be underestimated by another factor n_tot/n_gti' flags a possible calibration bias in the reported rms values; that is an incomplete-correction risk, not a reduction of the result to its inputs. No equation in the paper defines the QPO in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no parameter fitted to a subset is presented as an independent prediction of a closely related quantity. The comparison to Type-C QPOs and the caution about mass estimates are external phenomenological comparisons, not self-referential derivations. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are analysis thresholds and the fitted Lorentzian parameters that constitute the measurement. The axioms are standard timing-analysis assumptions and the domain assumption that the cleaning procedure preserves the periodogram statistics.

free parameters (4)
  • Qlim = 2
    Hand-chosen boundary between QPO and broadband noise (Section 3.2). Classification threshold; moderate effect on which features are called QPOs.
  • Delta AIC threshold = 2
    Threshold for preferring two Lorentzians over one (Section 3.3). Standard but hand-chosen.
  • Background flare threshold = 10% of mean source flux
    GTI cleaning: intervals with rescaled background above 10% of source mean flux are excluded (Section 2.1). Affects the GTI fraction and hence the damping factor.
  • Notch filter threshold = unspecified
    Threshold to select bad frequencies from the visibility-window periodogram (Appendix A). Not quantified in the text; affects which frequencies are removed.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Periodogram powers follow a chi-squared distribution with 2MW degrees of freedom
    Used for the likelihood in Eq. 3 (Barret & Vaughan 2012).
  • domain assumption The power spectrum can be modeled as a sum of Lorentzians plus Poisson noise
    Standard phenomenological model for X-ray binary PDS (Belloni et al. 2002), invoked in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption After mean-filling and notch filtering, the cleaned periodogram retains the assumed chi-squared statistics
    The cleaning procedure in Appendix A is validated with simulations for one ObsID (80002092006); the paper assumes this generalizes to all GTI patterns.
  • domain assumption The 70-arcsec extraction region and barycentering using M82 X-2 coordinates adequately represent M82 X-1's slow variability
    The 5-arcsec positional mismatch is stated to be irrelevant for slow variability (Section 2.1), and the blended region includes both ULXs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A NuSTAR study of quasi-periodic oscillations from the ultraluminous X-ray sources in M82." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVNADSUB

@misc{pith2026250516921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A NuSTAR study of quasi-periodic oscillations from the ultraluminous X-ray sources in M82},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVNADSUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16921}
}
read the original abstract

The study of quasi-periodic oscillations in X-ray binaries provides valuable insights into the physics of accretion around compact objects. The M82 galaxy hosts two ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs), one of which is suspected to harbor an intermediate-mass black hole. Using 39 NuSTAR observations acquired between 2014--2024, we investigate the aperiodic X-ray variability in M82. In particular, we study in detail the evolution of the QPO from M82 X-1 in the range 20--300 mHz. We do not find additional timing features in the data, besides a frequent broad noise component at lower frequencies. The QPO behaves similarly to other classes of low-frequency oscillations in accreting compact objects, both black holes and neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16921 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the GTI cleaning process. We plot a rescaled background light curve and the source light curve, and eliminate intervals where the background light curve is above 10 % of the mean level. Vertical black bands indicate these bad intervals, while blue bands indicate the standard bad time intervals due to occultation or poor star tracker cov￾erage. Red data points are taken in intervals with poor star tracker … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example analysis using obsid 80002092006. Data are cleaned as described in Section A. Orange bands show the notch-filtered frequencies. The top panel shows the pe￾riodogram of the light curve when BTIs contain zeroes, and the lower panel shows the result when BTIs are filled with the mean counts per bin. It is clear that notch filtering is still needed in this non-ideal case. The two blue curves are the two best-fit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top) rms versus frequency for the power spec￾tral features fit in Section 1 and (Bottom) HWHM versus frequency for the same features. There does not seem to be a systematic pattern in the appearance of these timing fea￾tures and pulsations. We calculated 1-σ uncertainties and 3-σ, upper limits through the bootstrap procedure in Sec￾tion 3.3. The identification of the two features is often diffi￾cult if only one of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fractional rms of the red noise and the QPO in different obsids. Horizontal bars with caps represent exact energy ranges, vertical bars are 1-σ uncertainties. All vari￾ability is more significant at higher energies of changes in the shape of the Lorentzian components w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Periodogram of the full ∼ 5 Ms of NuSTAR observations of M82, including data intervals with poor star tracker coverage. The peak at ∼ 0.7 Hz is the pulsation of M82 X-2, while the peak at ∼ 30 Hz is not significant and sets the upper limit to any quasi-coherent var…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simultaneous detections of the QPO in NuSTAR and Chandra data, showing a clear association with M82 X-1 NuSTAR HEW X-2 X-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Image of Chandra ObsID 18072, simultaneous to NuSTAR ObsID 90202038004. Blue circles indicate the 7 ULXs in the catalogue by Liu & Bregman (2005). The QPO is significantly detected in NuSTAR data and not in Chandra data of any source, but the Chandra image shows that t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Procedure to filter periodograms from the effect of visibility windows described in Section A, using simulated Poissonian data (so, no source variability) with the same mean count rate and GTIs of ObsID 80002092006. (Top) Periodogram of the visibility light curve, show…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Klu´ zniak, W

    Abramowicz, M. A., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 374, L19

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    arXiv 1974

  3. [3]

    A., & Shaham, J

    Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nat., 316, 239 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, Ap...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1985

  4. [4]

    Atapin, K., Fabrika, S., & Caballero-Garc ´ ıa, M. D. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1027 2019

  5. [5]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature13791

    doi:10.1038/nature13791 2014

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67

    Bachetti, M., Heida, M., Maccarone, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67 2022

  7. [8]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 131

    Barret, D., & Vaughan, S. 2012, ApJ, 746, 131

    work page 2012

  8. [9]

    Bartlett, M. S. 1950, Biometrika, 37, 1

    work page 1950

Show all 67 references
  1. [10]

    1990, A&A, 230, 103

    Belloni, T., & Hasinger, G. 1990, A&A, 230, 103

    1990

  2. [11]

    2005, 440, 207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042457

    Belloni, T., Homan, J., Casella, P., et al. 2005, 440, 207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042457

    2005 doi

  3. [12]

    2002, ApJ, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290 15

    Belloni, T., Psaltis, D., & van der Klis, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290 15

    2002 doi

  4. [13]

    M., & Stella, L

    Belloni, T. M., & Stella, L. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 183, 43, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9922-0

    2012 doi

  5. [14]

    V., Rothschild, R

    Bradt, H. V., Rothschild, R. E., & Swank, J. H. 1993, A & A Supp. Series,, 97, 355

    1993

  6. [15]

    J., Xu, Y., et al

    Brightman, M., Walton, D. J., Xu, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab629a

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    A., Bachetti, M., et al

    Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., Bachetti, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0215

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., & Zhu, C

    Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., & Zhu, C. 1995, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 16, 1190, doi: 10.1137/0916069

    1995 doi

  9. [18]

    W., & Tukey, J

    Cooley, J. W., & Tukey, J. W. 1965, Math. Comp., 19, 297, doi: 10.2307/2003354

    1965 doi

  10. [19]

    C., Titarchuk, L., & Griffiths, R

    Dewangan, G. C., Titarchuk, L., & Griffiths, R. E. 2006, ApJL, 637, L21, doi: 10.1086/499235

    2006 doi

  11. [20]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 941

    Feng, H., & Kaaret, P. 2007, ApJ, 668, 941

    2007

  12. [21]

    2010, ApJL, 710, L137

    Feng, H., Rao, F., & Kaaret, P. 2010, ApJL, 710, L137

    2010

  13. [22]

    C., Blaes, O

    Fragile, P. C., Blaes, O. M., Anninos, P., & Salmonson, J. D. 2007, ApJ, 668, 417, doi: 10.1086/521092

    2007 doi

  14. [23]

    L., Hughes, S

    Freedman, W. L., Hughes, S. M., Madore, B. F., et al. 1994, ApJ, 427, 628, doi: 10.1086/174172

    1994 doi

  15. [24]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and

    2006

  16. [25]

    6270, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760 F¨ urst, F., Walton, D

    Systems, Vol. 6270, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760 F¨ urst, F., Walton, D. J., Israel, G. L., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 672, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245048

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    C., Roberts, T

    Gladstone, J. C., Roberts, T. P., & Done, C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1836, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15123.x

    2009

  19. [28]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen, D., Bachetti, M., Stevens, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2011, MNRAS, 419, 2369, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19885.x

    2011

  22. [31]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 85, 101524

    2019

  23. [32]

    L., Belfiore, A., Stella, L., et al

    Israel, G. L., Belfiore, A., Stella, L., et al. 2017, Science, 355, 817, doi: 10.1126/science.aai8635

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    2021, A&A, 652, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140670

    Iwasawa, K. 2021, A&A, 652, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140670

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Roberts, T. P. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 303

    2017

  26. [35]

    G., & Lang, C

    Kaaret, P., Simet, M. G., & Lang, C. C. 2006, ApJ, 646, 174, doi: 10.1086/504830

    2006 doi

  27. [36]

    2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    King, A., Lasota, J.-P., & Middleton, M. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    2023

  28. [37]

    Kluzniak, W., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2001, Acta Physica Polonica B, 32, 3605 Klu´ zniak, W. 2006, Acta Physica Polonica B, 37, 1361

    2001

  29. [38]

    S., et al

    Kosec, P., Pinto, C., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2856

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    1983, ApJ, 266, 160

    Leahy, D., Darbro, W., Elsner, R., et al. 1983, ApJ, 266, 160

    1983

  31. [40]

    Liu, J.-F., & Bregman, J. N. 2005, ApJ Supp. Ser., 157, 59, doi: 10.1086/427170

    2005 doi

  32. [41]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  33. [42]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1170

    Rana, V. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1170

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    Matsumoto, H., & Tsuru, T. G. 2001, ApJ, 549, L97, doi: 10.1086/319149

    2001 doi

  35. [44]

    Roberts, T. P. 2015a, MNRAS, 447, 3243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2644

    doi

  36. [45]

    J., Roberts, T

    Middleton, M. J., Roberts, T. P., Done, C., & Jackson, F. E. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 644, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17712.x

    2011

  37. [46]

    J., Walton, D

    Middleton, M. J., Walton, D. J., Fabian, A., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 454, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2214

    doi

  38. [47]

    J., Walton, D

    Middleton, M. J., Walton, D. J., Roberts, T. P., & Heil, L. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt157

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2311

    Motta, S., Rouco-Escorial, A., Kuulkers, E., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., & Sanna, A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2311

    2017

  40. [49]

    E., Casella, P., & Henze, T

    Motta, S. E., Casella, P., & Henze, T. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 7, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0094-2

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    2006, MNRAS, 365, 1123, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09754.x

    Ranalli, P. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1123, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09754.x

    2006

  42. [51]

    R., Strohmayer, T

    Pasham, D. R., Strohmayer, T. E., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2014, Nature, 513, 74

    2014

  43. [52]

    J., & Fabian, A

    Pinto, C., Middleton, M. J., & Fabian, A. C. 2016, Nature, 533, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature17417

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    Pinto, C., & Walton, D. J. 2023, Ultra-Luminous X-ray Sources: Extreme Accretion and Feedback, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00006

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx641

    Pinto, C., Alston, W., Soria, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx641

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    2000, On the Origin of Quasi-Periodic Oscillations and Broad-band Noise in Accreting Neutron Stars and Black Holes, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001391

    Psaltis, D., & Norman, C. 2000, On the Origin of Quasi-Periodic Oscillations and Broad-band Noise in Accreting Neutron Stars and Black Holes, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001391

    2000 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    M., Eikenberry, S

    Ransom, S. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Middleditch, J. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 1788Figure, doi: 10.1086/342285 16

    2002 doi

  48. [57]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  49. [58]

    2001, A&A, 372, 138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010434

    Revnivtsev, M., Churazov, E., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, A&A, 372, 138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010434

    2001 doi

  50. [59]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  51. [60]

    2012, ApJL, 752, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L25

    Shaposhnikov, N. 2012, ApJL, 752, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L25

    2012 doi

  52. [61]

    1999, Physical Review Letters, 82, 17, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.17

    Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1999, Physical Review Letters, 82, 17, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.17

    1999 doi

  53. [62]

    E., & Mushotzky, R

    Strohmayer, T. E., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2003, ApJL, 586, L61 Van der Klis, M. 1989, in Timing neutron stars (Springer), 27–69 van der Klis, M. 2006, In: Compact stellar X-ray sources. Edited by Walter Lewin & Michiel van der Klis. Cambridge Astrophysics Series, 39

    2003

  54. [63]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16

    2018

  55. [64]

    J., Mackenzie, A

    Walton, D. J., Mackenzie, A. D. A., Gully, H., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 1587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3001

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al. 2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114, 1, doi: 10.1086/338108

    2002 doi

  57. [66]

    1999, ApJ, 514, 939, doi: 10.1086/306993

    Wijnands, R., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJ, 514, 939, doi: 10.1086/306993

    1999 doi

  58. [67]

    2024, A Systematic Study of Millihertz Quasi-periodic Oscillations in GS 1826-238, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04963

    Xiao, H., Ji, L., Tsygankov, S., et al. 2024, A Systematic Study of Millihertz Quasi-periodic Oscillations in GS 1826-238, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04963

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    M., Yin, H

    Zhang, C. M., Yin, H. X., Zhao, Y. H., Zhang, F., & Song, L. M. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1373, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09920.x

    2006

Pith tools

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