Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Temporal evolution of quasi-periodic oscillations in an accreting black hole Swift J1727.8-1613: coevolution of the disk-corona during the state transition

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first clear negative correlation between the unscattered disk luminosity and the low-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) frequency in the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613, and shows the correlation…

desk verdict The two-branch ν–L_us-disk correlation is a plausible new result, but the break statistics are overclaimed and the opposite Compton trend is model-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21131 v3 pith:SWJCMSRK submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.HE

Sai-En Xu , Bei You , Yi Long , Han He This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationsblackholeX-raybinariesdisk-coronageometrystatetransitionLense-Thirringprecessioncoveringfractionenergy-dependentfractionalrmsSwiftJ1727.8-1613
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

Using high-energy X-ray timing and spectral observations of the accreting black hole Swift J1727.8-1613 during its 2023 outburst, the paper finds that the relation between the quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) frequency and the light coming directly from the accretion disk is not a single trend. Below about 3 Hz, higher disk luminosity accompanies lower QPO frequency; above about 3 Hz, the relation reverses and higher disk luminosity accompanies higher frequency. The Comptonized (corona) luminosity shows the opposite two-branch pattern, with the same breakpoint near 3 Hz. The authors interpret this sign flip as a change in the disk-corona geometry: the fraction of disk seed photons intercepted by the hot flow, which they call the covering fraction, rises then falls as the state transition proceeds. During the same flare state, the QPO's fractional root-mean-square variability is nearly constant above 15 keV and increases with energy below that threshold, with a slope that steepens as the spectrum softens.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the covering fraction c_f, the fraction of thin-disk seed photons that are Comptonized by the inner hot flow in the thcomp convolution model; the unscattered disk luminosity is (1 - c_f) L_disk and the Compton luminosity is L_thcomp - (1 - c_f) L_disk. The paper shows that ν versus c_f has the same two-branch shape with a breakpoint at 2.92 ± 0.03 Hz, which is what ties the luminosity correlations to a geometric quantity. The interpretive engine is the Lense-Thirring precession of the hot flow, where the QPO frequency is set by the outer radius R_o of the precessing flow; the paper reads the sign flip near 3 Hz as the point where the geometry changes from inward truncation of the disk to contraction of the hot flow.

What would settle it

A model comparison that fits a single power law or smooth curve to the full ν–L_us-disk data and finds it statistically preferred over the piecewise fit, or a permutation test over breakpoint choices that fails to exceed the reported significances, would falsify the claimed two-branch structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a two-branch correlation between the QPO centroid frequency ν and the unscattered disk luminosity L_us-disk = (1 - c_f) L_disk, defined so that only disk photons that escape without Compton scattering are counted. For ν below 3.03 ± 0.03 Hz the relation is negative (Spearman r_S = -0.794, 4.4σ); above that frequency it is positive (r_S = 0.910, 8.7σ). The Compton luminosity L_Comp shows the mirror-image pattern, positive below 2.97 ± 0.09 Hz and negative above, with the same ~3 Hz break. The intrinsic disk luminosity is essentially flat below ~1.7 Hz and then rises nearly linearly with ν (exponent 0.967 ± 0.023). The paper ties these to a coevolution of the thin disk and the inner hot flow within the Lense-Thirring precession picture: at low frequencies the hot flow's outer radius shrinks as the disk truncation radius moves inward, raising the covering fraction and suppressing the unscattered disk emission; at high frequencies the truncation radius stays roughly constant and the hot flow contracts under enhanced cooling, so disk luminosity rises with frequency while the Compton luminosity decouples.

Load-bearing premise

The two-branch structure is treated as real based on a piecewise linear fit with a free breakpoint near 3 Hz; the paper does not test whether a single monotonic or smoothly curved relation describes the same data equally well.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below about 3 Hz, the QPO frequency tracks the Compton luminosity positively and the unscattered disk luminosity negatively, so the QPO frequency cannot be used as a simple monotonic tracer of disk accretion rate in this source.
  • Above about 3 Hz, the near-linear ν ∝ L_disk^0.967 scaling provides a quantitative coupling between disk photon flux and QPO frequency, consistent with the hot flow contracting under enhanced Compton cooling.
  • The shared breakpoint near 3 Hz across ν–L_us-disk, ν–L_Comp, and ν–c_f suggests the covering fraction is the physical variable that controls the correlation signs, giving a timing-based probe of disk-corona geometry changes during state transitions.
  • The energy-dependence of the fractional rms — flat above 15 keV, rising below, with a slope that steepens as the spectrum softens — implies that the high-energy hot flow emission is relatively stable while the low-energy variability is governed by the softer disk component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ~3 Hz breakpoint is a generic feature rather than specific to Swift J1727.8-1613, some of the scatter in previously reported QPO-disk correlations across sources could reflect sources sampled on only one side of the break.
  • A re-analysis that compares the piecewise linear fit against a single power law or smooth curve, or that locates the breakpoint by cross-validation rather than by eye, would test whether the two branches are discrete states or a continuous rollover.
  • X-ray polarimetry of the same source during a future outburst could test the geometric interpretation directly: the Lense-Thirring picture predicts that the polarization angle and its phase-resolved modulation should change as the source crosses the ~3 Hz transition.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a timing and spectral analysis of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613 using Insight-HXMT observations from the 2023 outburst. The authors report a two-branch correlation between the low-frequency QPO centroid frequency and the unscattered disk luminosity, with a transition near 3 Hz: negative at lower frequencies and positive at higher frequencies. They also report an opposite two-branch trend for the Compton luminosity, which is positive at lower frequencies and negative at higher ones. These correlations are interpreted as evidence for coevolution of the inner hot flow and the thin disk within a Lense-Thirring precession framework. In addition, the paper analyzes the energy dependence of the QPO fractional rms during the flare state, finding a roughly constant rms above 15 keV and a rising rms with energy below that threshold.

Significance. If the two-branch ν-L_us-disk correlation is real, it is a novel observational constraint that challenges the single positive correlation seen in other BHXRBs and provides a potential test for geometric QPO models. The paper makes good use of public data and includes an alternative spectral model (diskbb+xillver) as a robustness check, which is commendable. The rms-energy analysis is a useful addition. However, the statistical evidence for the two-branch structure is not currently convincing, and the opposite trend for the Compton luminosity is not reproduced by the alternative model. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (1)] The existence of the two-branch correlation is not statistically demonstrated. The breakpoint ν_tr is a free parameter fitted to the same data used to define the two subsets, and the reported Spearman significances are computed after the split, conditional on the fitted breakpoint. The manuscript never compares Eq. (1) against a single linear or smoothly varying relation, so the apparent sign change could reflect overfitting of a monotonic curve or noise. Please provide a formal model comparison (e.g., an F-test or information criterion) between the piecewise model and a single-relation model, and quantify the uncertainty in the breakpoint and in the slope change. In addition, the data in Fig. 1 are a time series with strong autocorrelation; the effective number of independent epochs is much smaller than the total number of points, so the reported significances (4.4σ, 8.7σ) are likely overestimated. Please account for time-series autocorrelation or justify the independence of the epochs.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (3) and Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The claimed opposite trend for the Compton luminosity is not robust to the choice of spectral model. With the alternative diskbb+xillver model, Eq. (B2) gives a positive slope (1.10±0.13) for the high-frequency branch, whereas the primary model gives a negative slope (-7.48±1.46) in Eq. (3). The abstract and conclusion state that ν-L_Comp is positive at lower frequencies and negative at higher ones, but the alternative model does not reproduce this sign change; the Appendix text saying the correlations 'generally align' is inconsistent with the reversed sign of the high-frequency slope. Please address this discrepancy directly, either by explaining why the sign is model-dependent or by removing the opposite-trend claim from the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [§4.2, Fig. 3(a) and Section 4.2] The geometric interpretation in terms of coevolution of the inner hot flow and thin disk rests on the two-branch correlations. Since the statistical case for the break is incomplete (see the first comment), the scenario in Fig. 5 should be presented as a qualitative suggestion rather than a firm conclusion. In particular, the statement that at high QPO frequencies 'the disk truncation radius remains approximately constant' is based on visual inspection and is not quantified; please provide a quantitative analysis or explicitly label this as an observational impression without a formal correlation claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] There are typos in this section: 'two-banch' should be 'two-branch' and 'simlar' should be 'similar'.
  2. [§4.1] The notation is inconsistent: the text uses 'L_us-disk' and 'L_Comp' while equations use subscripts; please unify the notation throughout the manuscript.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is written with L as a function of ν, but Eqs. (2)-(4) are written with ν as a function of L; please clarify which variable is treated as independent in the fits and why this choice was made.
  4. [§3.1] The free parameters in the spectral fit are not fully specified: the text states the photon index and electron temperature in relxillCp were tied to thcomp, and later lists Tin, cf, log ξ, and the normalization of relxillCp as free; please provide a complete list of all free parameters and their allowed ranges.
  5. [§4.3] The analysis of the energy dependence of the fractional rms is based on only three selected observations; while the trend is plausible, the small sample size and the selection of specific peaks and dips should be acknowledged as a limitation.
  6. [Figures 2 and 11] The two-branch fits are shown as dashed curves, but the location of the fitted breakpoint is not marked; adding a vertical line at the fitted ν_tr would help the reader evaluate the two branches visually.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-branch ν–luminosity correlations are empirical and cross-checked with an alternate spectral model; the only self-citation (He et al. 2025) supplies spectral fits but does not by itself force the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central correlation is between QPO centroid frequencies measured by timing analysis and luminosities derived from independent spectral fits. The QPO frequency is not an input to either spectral model, and the luminosities are not fitted to the QPO frequency. The unscattered disk luminosity is defined as L_us-disk = (1-c_f)L_disk, so the interpretation that the covering fraction 'plays a key role' is partly a restatement of that construction, but the paper does not use the definition to derive the QPO frequency; it reports an empirical two-branch relation. The self-citation to He et al. (2025) provides the spectral fitting parameters, which is load-bearing for the luminosity values, but the paper independently repeats the analysis with an alternate spectral model (diskbb+xillver) in Appendix B and finds the same two-branch shapes, so the central correlation is not forced by the self-citation chain. The free-breakpoint piecewise fit and post-split Spearman significances are a model-selection and autocorrelation concern, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to its own input. Overall circularity is therefore low, with a minor score adjustment for the close coupling between the c_f-based luminosity decomposition and the interpretive narrative.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted luminosities from a specific spectral model and on a piecewise break that is itself fitted to the data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • breakpoint frequency ν_tr = 3.03 ± 0.03 Hz (ν-L_us-disk); 2.97 ± 0.09 Hz (ν-L_Comp)
    The two-branch correlation is defined by this transition frequency. It is fitted to the data using a piecewise linear function, and all branch-specific Spearman coefficients are computed relative to this fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The spectral decomposition into disk, Compton, and reflection components using constant*tbabs*(thcomp⊗diskbb+relxillCp) with tied photon index and kTe is physically meaningful.
    The luminosities used in the correlations are derived from this model (Section 3.1). The alternative model (diskbb+xillver) is used as a cross-check, but it changes the Compton correlation sign, so the decomposition is not fully model-independent.
  • domain assumption The distance to the source is 3.7 kpc (Mata Sánchez et al. 2025); luminosities scale as distance squared.
    Used to convert fluxes to luminosities (Section 3.1). A different distance would rescale all luminosities but would not change the sign of correlations.
  • domain assumption The QPO frequency measured in the LE band (2-10 keV) is representative; QPO frequencies are nearly identical across bands.
    The paper states this in Section 4.1 and uses LE-band frequencies for all correlations. The analysis does not use combined-band PDS.
  • domain assumption Fixed spectral parameters (N_H, inclination 40°, iron abundance 1.0, reflection fraction -1) are correct.
    These are set to literature values and not varied. They affect absolute luminosities and possibly the inferred covering fraction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal evolution of quasi-periodic oscillations in an accreting black hole Swift J1727.8-1613: coevolution of the disk-corona during the state transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWJCMSRK

@misc{pith2026250621131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal evolution of quasi-periodic oscillations in an accreting black hole Swift J1727.8-1613: coevolution of the disk-corona during the state transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWJCMSRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21131}
}
read the original abstract

Low-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) are commonly observed in black hole X-ray binaries, and their frequency has been found to correlate with various spectral properties. In this work, we present a detailed timing analysis of Swift J1727.8-1613, revealing a novel two-branch correlation between the QPO frequency and the observed disk emission, which differs from previous findings of a single correlation. Specifically, at QPO frequencies below 3 Hz, the QPO frequency is negatively correlated with the observed disk emission. This negative relation transitions to a positive one, as the QPO frequency exceeds approximately 3 Hz. The correlation between QPO frequency and Compton flux exhibits an opposite trend, with a positive correlation at lower frequencies and a negative correlation at higher ones. We interpret these behaviors as signatures of an evolving disk-corona geometry, within the framework of a Lense-Thirring precessing hot flow. Additionally, we find that during the flare state, the QPO fractional root-mean-square (rms) remains nearly constant above 15 keV, but increases with energy below this threshold. The slope of the rms-energy relation increases as the energy spectrum softens.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The correlations between QPO frequency and (a) unscattered disk luminosity, (b) Compton luminosity, and (c) intrinsic disk luminosity during flare state. The MJD is mapped to the colors of the points. The dashed curves indicate the best-fit results. (ν ≥ 1.68 Hz), the correlation becomes strongly positive, with a Spearman coefficient of rS = 0.914 and a signifi￾cance of 10.4 σ. The best-fitting results are as follow… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The QPO frequency as a function of (a) disk truncation radius and (b) covering fraction. The radius Rtr is normalized by the gravitational radius Rg. The dashed curves represent the best-fitting results. The MJD is mapped to the colors of the points. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Linter (10 38 erg s 1 ) 2 4 6 8 Frequency (Hz) 60195 60200 60205 60210 60215 60220 60225 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The correlations between QPO frequency and intercepted disk luminosity during flare state. The MJD is mapped to the colors of the points. The dashed curve indi￾cates the best-fitting result. generacy between the reflection and convolution compo￾nents. Furthermore, we a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fractional rms as a function of energy. The three observations are colored with skyblue, orange, and pink, respectively, corresponding to the highlighted regions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Unfolded spectra obtained from the first GTI of Exposure ID P061433801402, P061433802003 and P061433802703. Results from the spectral model (thcomp⊗diskbb+relxillCp) are shown in the left column, and those from the spectral model (diskbb+xillver) in the right column. I…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Key fitting parameters of thcomp and relxillCp which are taken from the spectral fits in He et al. (2025). (a): The power-law photon index. (b): The electron temperature. (c): The covering fraction. (d): The ionization of the accretion disk. (e): The normalization of r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Derived component luminosities in 0.01-1000 keV and the covering fraction cf based on the spectral model constant*tbabs*(thcomp⊗diskbb+relxillCp). The data points are taken from the spectral fits in He et al. (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Derived component luminosities in 0.01-1000 keV based on the spectral model constant*tbabs(diskbb+xillver). The relationships discussed above generally align with the results presented in Section 4.1. There are also two￾branch correlations with a transition frequency …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The correlation between QPO frequency and unscattered disk, and Compton luminosity during flare state. The MJD is mapped to the colors of the points. The dashed curves indicate the best-fitting results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Energy-dependent Optical/Near-infrared and X-ray Correlations in Swift J1727.8-1613

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Swift J1727.8–1613, the optical–X-ray correlation flips sign with X-ray energy, and the QPO lag is flat (~60–80 ms) from 2 to 150 keV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    Bellavita, C., Garc ´ ıa, F., M´ endez, M., & Karpouzas, K. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922 2022

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  4. [4]

    M., & Motta, S

    Belloni, T. M., & Motta, S. E. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Latest Developments, ed. C. Bambi, 61, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4 2

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4 2016

  5. [5]

    1994, A&A, 292, 175

    Berger, M., & van der Klis, M. 1994, A&A, 292, 175

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    2025, MNRAS, 540, 1394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf750

    Bollemeijer, N., Uttley, P., & You, B. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf750

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf750 2025

  7. [7]

    C., Zhang, S

    Bu, Q. C., Zhang, S. N., Santangelo, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac11f5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac11f5 2021

  8. [8]

    O., et al

    Cabanac, C., Henri, G., Petrucci, P. O., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 738, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16340.x

    arXiv 2010

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05411, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05411

    Cao, J.-Y., Liao, J.-Y., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05411, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05411

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Agrawal, V. K. 2022, ApJ, 933, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7154

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Connors, R. M. T., Garc ´ ıa, J. A., Tomsick, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd2c

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Curran, P. A. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1411.3816, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1411.3816

    2014 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Dauser, T., Garc ´ ıa, J., Walton, D. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628135 De Marco, B., Zdziarski, A. A., Ponti, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140567

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Kallman, T

    Ding, Y., Garcıa, J. A., Kallman, T. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a1

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´ nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Miller, J

    Draghis, P. A., Miller, J. M., Homan, J., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16219, 1

    2023

  9. [17]

    A., McClintock, J

    Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865, doi: 10.1086/304829

    1997 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad434 Garc ´ ıa, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al

    Gao, C., Yan, Z., & Yu, W. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad434 Garc ´ ıa, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/76

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, Daily fluctuations propagate damply through a black hole accretion disk

    He, H., Long, Y., You, B., et al. 2025, Daily fluctuations propagate damply through a black hole accretion disk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01384

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2001, ApJS, 132, 377, doi: 10.1086/318954

    Homan, J., Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., et al. 2001, ApJS, 132, 377, doi: 10.1086/318954

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L101, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x

    2009

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    Ingram, A., Bollemeijer, N., Veledina, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  16. [24]

    Kalemci, E., Kara, E., & Tomsick, J. A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 9, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 100-1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Fabian, A

    Kara, E., Steiner, J. F., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0803-x

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    M., et al

    Karpouzas, K., M´ endez, M., Ribeiro, E. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3502

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    1998, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 50, 667, doi: 10.1093/pasj/50.6.667

    Kubota, A., Tanaka, Y., Makishima, K., et al. 1998, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 50, 667, doi: 10.1093/pasj/50.6.667

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 070, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/70

    Liu, H.-X., Huang, Y., Xiao, G.-C., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 070, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/70

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679

    1997 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2284

    Ma, R., M´ endez, M., Garc ´ ıa, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2284

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    Ma, X., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Swank, J

    Markwardt, C. B., Swank, J. H., & Taam, R. E. 1999, ApJL, 513, L37, doi: 10.1086/311899 Mata S´ anchez, D., Torres, M. A. P., Casares, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451960

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.06697, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.06697

    Mereminskiy, I., Lutovinov, A., Molkov, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.06697, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.06697

    2023 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    J., Eikenberry, S

    Mikles, V. J., Eikenberry, S. S., & Rothstein, D. M. 2006, ApJ, 637, 978, doi: 10.1086/498494

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

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

    1984

  28. [36]

    1991, ApJ, 383, 784, doi: 10.1086/170837

    Ebisawa, K. 1991, ApJ, 383, 784, doi: 10.1086/170837

    1991 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    Homan, J. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    2011

  30. [38]

    E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al

    Motta, S. E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2579 17

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Morgan, E

    Muno, M. P., Morgan, E. H., & Remillard, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 527, 321, doi: 10.1086/308063

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Remillard, R

    Muno, M. P., Remillard, R. A., Morgan, E. H., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 515, doi: 10.1086/321604

    2001 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16205, 1

    Negoro, H., Serino, M., Nakajima, M., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16205, 1

    2023

  34. [42]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 0.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813 O’Connor, B., Hare, J., Younes, G., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16207, 1

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca

    Peng, J.-Q., Zhang, S., Shui, Q.-C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    N., & Li, T

    Rao, F., Belloni, T., Stella, L., Zhang, S. N., & Li, T. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1065, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1065

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    McClintock, J. E. 2002a, ApJ, 564, 962, doi: 10.1086/324276 —. 2002b, ApJ, 564, 962, doi: 10.1086/324276

    doi

  39. [47]

    1995, ApJ, 445, 780, doi: 10.1086/175740

    Shimura, T., & Takahara, F. 1995, ApJ, 445, 780, doi: 10.1086/175740

    1995 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Yin, H

    Shui, Q. C., Yin, H. X., Zhang, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2521

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad676a

    Shui, Q.-C., Zhang, S., Peng, J.-Q., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad676a

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    J., McClintock, J

    Sobczak, G. J., McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, 537, doi: 10.1086/308463

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & ˙Zycki, P

    Sobolewska, M. A., & ˙Zycki, P. T. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 405, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10489.x van den Eijnden, J., Ingram, A., Uttley, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2634

    2006

  44. [52]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58d1

    Wang, X.-L., Yan, Z., Xie, F.-G., Wang, J.-F., & Ma, R.-Y. 2024, ApJ, 969, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58d1

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    D., & Bellm, E

    Wang, Y. D., & Bellm, E. C. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16209, 1

    2023

  47. [55]

    1999, ApJL, 526, L33, doi: 10.1086/312365

    Wijnands, R., Homan, J., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJL, 526, L33, doi: 10.1086/312365

    1999 doi

  48. [56]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 666, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15008.x

    Wilkinson, T., & Uttley, P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 666, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15008.x

    2009

  49. [57]

    You, B., Bursa, M., & ˙Zycki, P. T. 2018, ApJ, 858, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd33

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    T., Ingram, A., Bursa, M., & Wang, W

    You, B., ˙Zycki, P. T., Ingram, A., Bursa, M., & Wang, W. 2020, ApJ, 897, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9838

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 1025, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21169-5

    You, B., Tuo, Y., Li, C., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 1025, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21169-5

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504

    You, B., Cao, X., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae835

    Yu, W., Bu, Q.-C., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae835

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    A., & Gierli´ nski, M

    Zdziarski, A. A., & Gierli´ nski, M. 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 155, 99, doi: 10.1143/PTPS.155.99

    2004 doi

  55. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00623, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00623

    Lancova, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00623, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00623

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Szanecki, M., Poutanen, J., Gierli´ nski, M., & Biernacki, P

    Zdziarski, A. A., Szanecki, M., Poutanen, J., Gierli´ nski, M., & Biernacki, P. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa159

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcf1d

    Zhan, Y., You, B., Ingram, A., Jiang, W., & Wang, F. 2025, ApJ, 985, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcf1d

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    2023a, MNRAS, 526, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3062

    Zhang, L., M´ endez, M., Garc ´ ıa, F., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 526, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3062

    doi

  59. [67]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac690 —

    Zhang, Y., M´ endez, M., Garc ´ ıa, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac690 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 520, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad460

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e6c

    Zhao, Q.-C., Tao, L., Li, H.-C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e6c

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ce4

    Zhu, H., & Wang, W. 2024, ApJ, 968, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ce4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.