Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

X-ray reflection spectroscopy with improved calculations of the emission angle

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 The paper presents relxillA, an extension of the relxill reflection model that replaces radial annuli with emission-angle zones, and shows it eliminates the residuals that plague older models on simulated next-generation X-ray spectra.

desk verdict A useful new relxill variant that bins by emission angle and fixes a real bug, but the bin definition is ambiguous and the validation is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00946 v3 pith:X3KLLY2R submitted 2025-06-01 astro-ph.HE

Yimin Huang , Honghui Liu , Temurbek Mirzaev , Ningyue Fan , Cosimo Bambi , Zuobin Zhang , Thomas Dauser , Javier A. Garcia
show 5 more authors
Adam Ingram Jiachen Jiang Guglielmo Mastroserio Shafqat Riaz Swarnim Shashank
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-rayreflectionspectroscopyaccretiondiskemissionanglerelxillAraytracingblackholespinNewAthena/X-IFUbinaries
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 claims that the dominant inaccuracy in current relativistic reflection models comes from averaging the non-isotropic reflected intensity over emission angles, and that this can be fixed with a modest computational cost. It presents relxillA, which divides the disk into zones of equal-width bins in $\mu = \cos\theta_e$ rather than radial annuli, so each zone uses a reflection spectrum computed at the appropriate emission angle. Against simulated NewAthena/X-IFU+LAD spectra of bright black hole X-ray binaries, relxillA yields $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof} \approx 1.03$ while relxill v2.4 and v2.5 give about 1.45 and 2.71, and its spectra agree with accurate ray-tracing to well within 1%. The authors also fit a NuSTAR spectrum of EXO 1846-031 and find no significant differences among models, suggesting current data cannot distinguish the improvement even though future high-quality data will require it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relxillA model, which divides the accretion disk into up to 10 zones defined by intervals of $\mu = \cos\theta_e$ of width 0.1, covering $\mu$ from 0 to 1. Each zone uses the non-relativistic reflection spectrum computed at a representative emission angle within that zone, and these zone spectra are then combined through the relativistic transfer function and the correct $r_e$ weighting. This replaces the approximation of using an average spectrum over the whole disk or over radial annuli, and it is only moderately slower than the standard relxill calculation.

What would settle it

Fit the same simulated NewAthena/X-IFU+LAD spectra with relxillA using 20 or 50 bins in $\mu$ instead of 10; if the fit improves substantially or parameter estimates shift beyond the 90% confidence intervals, the 10-bin discretization is not converged and the claimed accuracy does not hold. A complementary check would compare relxillA against an independent ray-tracing or Monte Carlo transfer code at spins such as $\alpha = 0, 0.5, 0.9$ and inclinations near $60^\circ-85^\circ$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing the whole-disk or radial-annulus averaging of the reflected intensity with a 10-zone decomposition in emission angle $\theta_e$ makes relativistic reflection spectra accurate enough to fit high-quality black hole spectra without large residuals. The model also corrects a bug in relxill v2.4 where the integral weighting contained $r_e^4$ instead of $r_e$; relxill v2.5 fixes that bug alone, but the paper shows this is still not enough. With relxillA, the simulated NewAthena/X-IFU+LAD spectra are fitted with no visible residuals, whereas relxill v2.4 and v2.5 leave systematic structure in the residuals. The paper further shows that for the current NuSTAR observation of EXO 1846-031, the improved model gives statistically similar fits to the older models, so past analyses with relxill v2.4 remain valid for available data, while the improvement becomes necessary only with higher-quality data.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy of relxillA is validated only against the authors' ray-tracing code blackray for a single spin value and three viewing angles, and it assumes the fixed 10-bin discretization in emission angle remains accurate for all spins, emissivity profiles, and ionization parameters used in spectral fits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Relativistic reflection fits on next-generation X-ray data can use relxillA without introducing any new model parameters or degeneracies.
  • The r^4 bug in relxill v2.4 is corrected in v2.5, but the angular averaging error remains and is larger than the bug for high-inclination sources.
  • Current NuSTAR-quality data cannot distinguish relxillA from older models, so archival analyses with relxill v2.4 do not need to be redone.
  • The speed penalty of relxillA is modest (about 17 ms per spectrum at default resolution versus 14 ms for relxill v2.4), keeping it usable for spectral fitting.
  • For simulated NewAthena/X-IFU+LAD spectra, relxillA removes the large residuals that make relxill v2.4 and v2.5 statistically unacceptable fits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the emission-angle decomposition is the main source of error, similar zone-based angular treatments could improve other relativistic models, including non-Kerr extensions and time-dependent reverberation codes.
  • The fixed 10-bin grid in $\mu$ may need a convergence check; testing 20 or 50 bins on simulated high-quality spectra would directly test whether the discretization is saturated.
  • The validation is currently limited to one spin value and three inclinations, so a broader parameter scan could reveal settings where the 10-bin approximation degrades.
  • Because the model changes predicted spectra only subtly, the practical payoff begins with X-IFU/LAD-like throughput, not with current observatories.
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 relxillA, a new version of the relxill reflection model that replaces the disk-averaged or annulus-averaged emission-angle treatment with a discretization of the emission angle itself. Following the exact integral formulation in Eq. (1), the model divides the emission-angle range into ten zones and evaluates the specific intensity at a representative angle within each zone, summing the ten resulting convolution integrals (Eq. 10). The authors report that relxillA reproduces ray-traced spectra from their blackray code much better than relxill v2.4 and v2.5, fits simulated NewAthena/X-IFU+LAD spectra with residuals consistent with noise, and gives results comparable to older models on a NuSTAR observation of EXO 1846-031, while adding no new free parameters. The paper also identifies and corrects an r_e^4 versus r_e error in relxill v2.4, issuing this as relxill v2.5.

Significance. If the accuracy claim holds, relxillA addresses a known systematic limitation of the relxill family that becomes critical for high-throughput next-generation X-ray instruments. The paper is methodologically transparent in writing down the exact Eq. (1) and the approximations in Eqs. (4)-(10), and it explicitly reports the code fix behind v2.5. The comparison against blackray, including the reltrans comparisons in Fig. 3, is a useful benchmark, and the modest runtime increase reported in Table 1 makes the model practical. The central claim is plausible, but it rests on a rather narrow validation set and on a binning prescription that is internally inconsistent between the text and the equations; both points need to be resolved before the model can be used as a community standard. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs, but the model code is intended for public release in the relxill package, which is a strength if the final version includes the corrected equations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1 and Eqs. (5), (10)] The binning prescription is internally inconsistent. The text states that the cosine of the emission angle, mu = cos theta_e, is divided into 10 equal-width intervals from 0 to 1 in steps of 0.1, but Eqs. (5), (8), and (10) define theta_i = i pi/20, i.e., equal-width bins in theta_e rather than in mu. These two discretizations are not equivalent: equal-width theta bins give non-uniform mu widths that are largest near grazing emission, while equal-width mu bins concentrate zones near theta_e = 90 degrees. Because the paper's stated rationale is uniform sampling across the full angular distribution, the implemented scheme must be specified unambiguously. The authors should correct either the text or the equations and, ideally, report results for both prescriptions to demonstrate that the claimed accuracy is not an artifact of the chosen binning.
  2. [Section 3, Figs. 2-3] The accuracy validation of relxillA covers only a single spin value (alpha = 0.998), three observer inclinations (20, 45, 80 degrees), and a single set of reflection parameters (Gamma = 2, q = 3, log xi = 3.1, AFe = 1). The headline spectral fit in Section 4 uses theta_obs = 15 degrees, q = 5, and log xi = 1.0, which lies outside this validated grid. Moreover, no convergence test in the number of emission-angle zones is presented, so it is not established that ten zones is sufficient across the parameter space of spin, emissivity index, ionization, and iron abundance. The authors should add a convergence study (e.g., comparing 5, 10, 20, and 50 zones) and at least validate the model at the parameters used in the simulated fit of Fig. 4, including a lower spin value, since the emission-angle distribution changes strongly with spin.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 4] The unexplained degradation of relxill v2.5 relative to v2.4 in the simulated fit needs a quantitative explanation. The paper states that v2.5 'does not do better than' v2.4, but Fig. 4 shows chi^2/dof = 26279/9714 = 2.71 for v2.5 versus 14110/9714 = 1.45 for v2.4, a dramatic worsening. Since relxillA incorporates the same r_e correction as v2.5, the good fit of relxillA could in principle rely on a cancellation between the corrected radial weighting and the new angle binning. The authors should identify which spectral regions drive the v2.5 residuals, explain why the r_e correction has such a large effect for these particular parameters, and demonstrate that relxillA's performance is robust rather than coincidental.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 1] The color bar and zone boundaries in Fig. 1 would be easier to interpret if the contour between zones were overlaid on the blackray panels, so the reader can directly see how well the piecewise-constant emission-angle zones match the true map.
  2. [Table 1] The column header 'N ENER CONV' is unclear; it should be written as 'N_ENER_CONV' with a definition in the caption, and the table would benefit from a row for relxilllpA at N_ENER_CONV = 32768 if available.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (5)-(10)] The notation theta_bar_e is defined only parenthetically; the authors should state explicitly whether the representative angle is the midpoint in theta_e or in mu, and should include a footnote that the choice is tested as part of the convergence study.
  4. [Section 3, text after Eq. (10)] The sentence 'we can use theta_bar_e = (theta_i + theta_{i+1})/2, but its exact value has no significant impact on the final result' is a strong claim that should be supported by a numerical test, especially because the choice of representative angle interacts with the bin-width inconsistency noted above.
  5. [Section 4, Fig. 4] The y-axis label '2/' in the residual panels should read 'chi^2' or 'Delta chi', and the three panels should use a common y-axis scale to make the residual amplitudes directly comparable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: relxillA is a fixed 10-bin discretization of the exact transfer-function integral with no fitted parameters; the mild self-reference is in using the authors' own blackray code and Liu et al. (2025) simulated data as the accuracy benchmark.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract and Section 4 (first paragraph), with accuracy ground truth from blackray (Abdikamalov et al. 2024)]
    "In a recent paper, we showed that these approximations are unsuitable to fit high-quality black hole spectra expected from the next generation of X-ray missions. Here, we present a reflection model with improved calculations of the emission angle that solves this problem. ... Fig. 4 shows that relxillA solves this problem. We use a simulated observation from Liu et al. (2025)."

    The motivating premise (old models cannot fit next-generation spectra) is imported from Liu et al. (2025) with overlapping authorship, the simulated spectra used for the headline fit are from that same paper, and the accuracy ground truth is the same group's ray-tracing code blackray (Abdikamalov et al. 2024), so the validation loop is internal to the group. It is not a definitional reduction: relxillA adds no fitted parameters, the 10-bin zonation is a fixed discretization of the exact integral, and blackray resolves the emission angle per point and discriminates between models (relxill v2.4 deviates by up to ~10%), making the agreement genuine numerical evidence. The independent NuSTAR fit of EXO 1846-031 (Section 5) provides external support, so this remains a minor self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Eq. (10), the defining formula of relxillA, is obtained from the exact integral (1) by replacing the emission-angle-dependent specific intensity I_e(E_e, r_e, theta_e) with a piecewise-constant 10-bin approximation; since the Heaviside factors form a partition of unity, Eq. (10) is a Riemann-style discretization of the exact integral, not a fit. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction: the paper explicitly states ('the new model does not introduce any new parameter', Section 6) that relxillA changes only the emission-angle treatment. The accuracy claim is checked against blackray, which computes the exact emission angle per disk point; blackray is the same group's code, and the Section 4 benchmark uses simulated data from the group's prior Liu et al. (2025) paper, a mild self-reference in the validation loop, but blackray is code-reproduced, parameter-free, and its assumptions (Kerr metric, ISCO inner edge) do not include the target result, so the comparison is real evidence that does not raise the circularity score on its own. Two caveats are correctness risks, not circularity. (i) The paper is internally inconsistent about the binning: Section 1 says the zones are uniform in mu = cos theta_e ('divided into 10 equal-width intervals, ranging from 0 to 1 in steps of 0.1'), while Eqs. (5) and (10) define theta_i = i*pi/20, i.e. equal-width bins in theta_e; uniform-mu and uniform-theta differ substantially near grazing angles, so the method as written is ambiguous. (ii) The claim in Eq. (5) that the representative angle 'has no significant impact on the final result' is asserted without a convergence test in bin count, and the validation covers only alpha = 0.998 at three inclinations with one parameter set, while the headline simulated fit uses theta_obs = 15 deg, q = 5, log xi = 1.0, outside the validated grid; the unexplained degradation of relxill v2.5 (chi^2/dof = 2.71 vs 1.45 for v2.4) shows the r_e bug fix can interact counterintuitively with angle averaging. These are robustness and reproducibility concerns; they do not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the mu-binning approximation and on the fidelity of the blackray benchmark. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the number of bins (10). No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of emission-angle bins (N_zones) = 10 (delta_mu = 0.1)
    The model's accuracy depends on how finely the disk is divided in mu = cos theta_e. The paper chooses 10 equal-width intervals by hand and does not perform a convergence test across spins, so this hand-chosen numerical parameter directly affects the central accuracy claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The accreting disk is geometrically thin, lies in the equatorial plane of a Kerr spacetime, and emits no radiation inside the ISCO.
    This is the standard disk model used throughout the relxill family and in the ray-tracing code blackray; the paper relies on it without restating a justification (Secs. 1 and 2).
  • domain assumption blackray correctly computes the true relativistic reflection spectrum, serving as the accuracy benchmark for relxillA.
    All accuracy claims are relative differences from blackray, so the validity of the paper's conclusions depends on blackray being an accurate solver of the radiative transfer and ray-tracing problem (Sec. 3, Figs. 2 and 3).
  • ad hoc to paper Within each of the 10 mu bins, the specific intensity I_e(E_e, r_e, theta_e) is constant in angle and equals its value at the bin midpoint theta_bar_e.
    This is the core approximation of relxillA in Eq. (10). The error introduced by this binning is asserted to be small but is not derived or convergence-tested over the parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray reflection spectroscopy with improved calculations of the emission angle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3KLLY2R

@misc{pith2026250600946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray reflection spectroscopy with improved calculations of the emission angle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3KLLY2R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00946}
}
read the original abstract

The reflection spectrum produced by a cold medium illuminated by X-ray photons is not isotropic and its shape depends on the emission angle. In the reflection spectrum of an accretion disk of a black hole, the value of the emission angle changes over the disk and, in general, is different from the value of the inclination angle of the disk because of the light bending in the strong gravitational field of the black hole. Current reflection models make some approximations, as calculating a reflection spectrum taking the correct emission angle at every point of the disk into account would be too time-consuming and make the model too slow to analyze observations. In a recent paper, we showed that these approximations are unsuitable to fit high-quality black hole spectra expected from the next generation of X-ray missions. Here, we present a reflection model with improved calculations of the emission angle that solves this problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Emission angle map as calculated by the ray-tracing code blackray (left panels) and by relxillA (right panels) when the black hole spin parameter is α = 0.998 and the inclination angle of the disk with respect to the line of sight of the observer is θobs = 20◦ (top panels), 45◦ (central panels), and 80◦ (bottom panels). The projection of the observer in the XY plane is at X = 0 and Y < 0. The black circle at the cen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relativistic reflection spectra as calculated by blackray, relxill v2.4, relxill v2.5, and relxillA (upper panels) and ratios between the spectra of blackray and the spectra of the other models (bottom panels) when the black hole spin parameter is α = 0.998, and the angle of the observer is θobs = 20◦ (left panels), 45◦ (central panels), and 80◦ (right panels). Spectra are normalized at the peak of the iron line to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relativistic reflection spectra as calculated by blackray, reltrans v1.0.1, reltrans v2.0, relxilllp v2.4, relxilllp v2.5, and relxilllpA (upper panels) and ratios between the spectra of blackray and the spectra of the other models (bottom panels) when the black hole spin parameter is α = 0.998, and the angle of the observer is θobs = 20◦ (left panels), 45◦ (central panels), and 80◦ (right panels). Spectra are norma… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residuals of the best-fit models of relxill v2.4, relxill v2.5, and relxillA of a simulated NewAthena/X￾IFU+LAD spectrum of a bright black hole X-ray binary with spin parameter α = 0.998 and inclination angle of the disk θobs = 15◦ . The black color is used for the New…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fit model and fitting residuals for Model 1 (left panel), Model 2 (central panel), and Model 3 (right panel). In the upper quadrants, we show the total model and different model components in different colors. In the lower quadrants, we show the fitting residuals …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., et al

    Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f89 —. 2020, ApJ, 899, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba625

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f89 2019

  2. [2]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103023

    Zhang, Y. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.103023 2021

  3. [3]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., et al

    Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., et al. 2024, blackray, v1.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10673859

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10673859 2024

  4. [4]

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

    1996

  5. [5]

    2017, Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, doi: 10.1103/revmodphys.89.025001

    Bambi, C. 2017, Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, doi: 10.1103/revmodphys.89.025001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.025001 2017

  6. [6]

    2018, Black Holes: A Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity (Springer Singapore), doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4524-0

    Bambi, C. 2018, Black Holes: A Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity (Springer Singapore), doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4524-0

    doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4524-0 2018

  7. [7]

    2024, Black hole X-ray spectra: notes on the relativistic calculations

    Bambi, C. 2024, Black hole X-ray spectra: notes on the relativistic calculations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12262

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A., & Nampalliwar, S

    Bambi, C., C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, A., Dauser, T., Garc ´ ıa, J. A., & Nampalliwar, S. 2017, ApJ, 842, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74c0 2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    W., Dauser, T., et al

    Bambi, C., Brenneman, L. W., Dauser, T., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 65, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00841-8

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    W., & Reynolds, C

    Brenneman, L. W., & Reynolds, C. S. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1028, doi: 10.1086/508146

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Cao, Z., Nampalliwar, S., Bambi, C., Dauser, T., & Garc ´ ıa, J. A. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.051101

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    T., & Bardeen, J

    Cunningham, C. T., & Bardeen, J. M. 1973, ApJ, 183, 237, doi: 10.1086/152223

    1973 doi

  5. [13]

    S., & Brenneman, L

    Dauser, T., Wilms, J., Reynolds, C. S., & Brenneman, L. W. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1534, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17393.x Dovˇ ciak, M., Karas, V., & Yaqoob, T. 2004, ApJS, 153, 205, doi: 10.1086/421115

    2010

  6. [14]

    A., Miller, J

    Draghis, P. A., Miller, J. M., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba2ec

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Miller, J

    Draghis, P. A., Miller, J. M., Costantini, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad43ea

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Rees, M

    Fabian, A. C., Rees, M. J., Stella, L., & White, N. E. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/238.3.729 Garc ´ ıa, J., & Kallman, T. R. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 695–706, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/718/2/695 Garc ´ ıa, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al. 2014, The A...

    1989 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1720

    Ingram, A., Mastroserio, G., Dauser, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1720

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    F., & Zhang, Z

    Li, S., Liu, H., Bambi, C., Steiner, J. F., & Zhang, Z. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 043021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043021

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Mirzaev, T., et al

    Liu, H., Abdikamalov, A. B., Mirzaev, T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2722

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Forster, K., Grefenstette, B., Harrison, F

    Madsen, K. K., Forster, K., Grefenstette, B., Harrison, F. A., & Miyasaka, H. 2022, Journal of Astronomical

    2022

  13. [21]

    Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 034003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.3.034003

    doi

  14. [22]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2056

    Mastroserio, G., Ingram, A., Wang, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2056

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Parker, M

    Middleton, M. J., Parker, M. L., Reynolds, C. S., Fabian, A. C., & Lohfink, A. M. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw035

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Zoghbi, A., Gandhi, P., & Paice, J

    Miller, J. M., Zoghbi, A., Gandhi, P., & Paice, J. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13012, 1 13

    2019

  17. [25]

    C., Goyder, R., & Lasenby, A

    Miniutti, G., Fabian, A. C., Goyder, R., & Lasenby, A. N. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L22, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06988.x

    2003

  18. [26]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    1984

  19. [27]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307

    2013 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12968, 1

    Negoro, H., Nakajima, M., Sugita, S., et al. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12968, 1

    2019

  21. [29]

    N., & White, N

    Parmar, A. N., & White, N. E. 1985, IAUC, 4051, 1

    1985

  22. [30]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 49–92, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 183, 277–294, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-0006-6

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., et al

    Riaz, S., Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3827

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    C., et al

    Tanaka, Y., Nandra, K., Fabian, A. C., et al. 1995, Nature, 375, 659, doi: 10.1038/375659a0

    1995 doi

  26. [34]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., & Liu, H

    Tripathi, A., Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., & Liu, H. 2021a, ApJ, 913, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6c5

    doi

  27. [35]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2618

    Tripathi, A., Liu, H., & Bambi, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2618

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    B., et al

    Tripathi, A., Nampalliwar, S., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e7e

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    B., et al

    Tripathi, A., Zhang, Y., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 913, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6cd

    doi

  30. [38]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Fabian, A

    Wilkins, D. R., & Fabian, A. C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1269, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18458.x

    2011

  32. [40]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    B., et al

    Xu, Y., Nampalliwar, S., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9d

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    N., Feroci, M., Santangelo, A., et al

    Zhang, S. N., Feroci, M., Santangelo, A., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051Q, doi...

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., & Nampalliwar, S

    Zhang, Y., Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., Bambi, C., & Nampalliwar, S. 2019, ApJ, 884, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4271

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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