Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Timing and spectral studies of SRGA J144459.2$-$604207 with NICER, Einstein Probe, IXPE, NuSTAR, Insight-HXMT and INTEGRAL during its 2024 outburst

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 During thermonuclear X-ray bursts on the accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207, the pulsar's X-ray pulses persist but arrive late, with the phase lag shrinking from about 0.2 cycles at a few keV to near zero at tens of keV.

desk verdict A robust spin-up and a promising burst-phase-lag claim that needs error bars and a better NuSTAR 35-60 keV reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00793 v2 pith:WSSERHGF submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE

Zhaosheng Li , Lucien Kuiper , Yuanyue Pan , Renxin Xu , Yong Chen , Mingyu Ge , Yue Huang , Shumei Jia
show 8 more authors
Xiaobo Li Liming Song Jinlu Qu Shu Zhang Lian Tao Hua Feng Shuang-Nan Zhang Maurizio Falanga
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SRGAJ144459.2-604207accretingmillisecondX-raypulsartypeIburstspulsationspulsephaselagneutronstartimingbinaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper analyzes the 2024 outburst of the newly confirmed accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 using observations from NICER, Einstein Probe, IXPE, Insight-HXMT, NuSTAR, and INTEGRAL. Its central result is that during type I X-ray bursts the pulsar's rotationally modulated X-ray emission survives, but the stacked burst pulse profiles arrive measurably later than the pre- and post-burst profiles, with the lag shrinking as photon energy rises. The authors interpret this energy-dependent phase lag as evidence that the burst does not destroy the hot spot or accretion column, but does alter the effective emission geometry near the neutron star surface, most strongly at low energies. A sympathetic reader would care because the effect provides a new way to watch thermonuclear bursts perturb the accretion flow and to locate where the pulsed emission is produced.

What carries the argument

The measurement is carried by stacking many bursts per instrument and energy band, folding the burst, pre-burst, and post-burst event times with a common orbital and spin ephemeris, and fitting each folded profile with a truncated Fourier series $F(\phi)=A_0+\sum_{k=1}^{2}A_k\cos[2\pi k(\phi-\phi_k)]$. The fundamental phase $\phi_1$ supplies the pulse phase, so the difference between the burst and reference profiles is the reported lag; the first overtone $A_2$ tracks shape changes. The ephemeris itself is built from NICER, Insight-HXMT ME, and IXPE time-of-arrival data with a circular-orbit 4d-SIMPLEX optimization, and it is what makes the burst folding reliable.

What would settle it

Stack the same bursts with reference windows placed much farther from the burst, for example $t_{\mathrm{start}}-1000$ s to $t_{\mathrm{start}}-300$ s, and check whether the reported lag of about 0.15 cycles at 2--8 keV still appears; if the lag vanishes or changes sign, it is an artifact of the chosen reference intervals rather than a property of the burst emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the stacked pulse profiles of X-ray bursts, detected across 2--60 keV by IXPE, Insight-HXMT, and NuSTAR, are broadly similar in shape to the persistent emission but shifted in phase: the burst profiles lag the pre- and post-burst profiles by $\Delta\phi\approx0.15$, $0.11$, and $0.02$ in the IXPE 2--8 keV, HXMT ME 5--30 keV, and HXMT HE 20--60 keV bands, and by $\Delta\phi\approx0.21$, $0.10$, and $0.07$ in the NuSTAR 3--10, 20--35, and 35--60 keV bands. This decreasing lag with increasing energy is the paper's central timing discovery, and it is interpreted as evidence that burst radiation interacts with the inner accretion disk, temporarily changing where accreting material strikes the neutron star, while higher-energy Comptonized emission originates in regions less affected by the surface impact geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 150-second windows just before and just after each burst show the pulsar's normal, burst-free pulse phase; if the burst's cooling tail or a burst-induced change in accretion is still present in those windows, the measured lag would be distorted, and in the NuSTAR 35--60 keV band the pre- and post-burst phases already disagree.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A burst does not extinguish the pulsar's hot spot or accretion column: pulsations remain detectable across 2--60 keV while the burst is ongoing.
  • The same phase-lag phenomenon seen in GRO J1744--28's type II bursts appears here in type I bursts, suggesting that radiation from the burst itself, not only an accretion-rate change, can shift the accretion footprint.
  • The refined spin-up rate $\dot{\nu}=(3.15\pm0.36)\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ and the swing near MJD~60377, accompanied by a roughly threefold increase in pulsed fraction, imply an accretion state change that timing models of future outbursts should treat as a separate epoch.
  • Because the lag decreases with energy, broadband burst timing can map the vertical structure of the emission region: low-energy thermal emission tracks the surface footprint, while harder Comptonized emission originates higher in the accretion column.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's Poynting-Robertson interpretation predicts that stronger bursts should produce larger phase lags; stacking bursts by peak flux or fluence would test this correlation directly.
  • IXPE's polarization data during burst intervals could be re-analyzed with the same pre/post windows: if the hot spot shifts, the polarization angle during bursts should rotate by an amount tied to the phase lag.
  • The pre- and post-burst phase disagreement in the NuSTAR 35--60 keV band warns that the hardest-band lag is the least secure; a dedicated observation with more bursts would settle whether $\Delta\phi$ there is really about $0.07$.
  • If the swing at MJD~60377 marks a change in accretion geometry, burst phase lags measured before and after the swing should differ; the existing burst sample could be split at that date to check.
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. This paper presents a multi-instrument timing and spectral study of the newly confirmed accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 during its 2024 outburst. Using NICER, Insight-HXMT, IXPE, NuSTAR, INTEGRAL, and Einstein Probe data, the authors refine the orbital and spin ephemeris, detect a spin-up episode at 8.7 sigma significance, measure energy-dependent pulse-profile shifts in the persistent emission, and construct stacked pulse profiles for pre-burst, burst, and post-burst intervals. They report that burst pulse profiles lag the persistent profiles by amounts that decrease with energy, and they perform joint NICER/NuSTAR/Insight-HXMT spectral fits with thermal Comptonization plus relativistic reflection. The central new claim is the energy-dependent burst phase lag, which is used to argue for a stratified emission region and burst-induced changes in the accretion geometry.

Significance. The spin-up measurement is a strong result (8.7 sigma likelihood ratio) from three instruments and a carefully refined timing solution, and the broadband pulse-profile study up to about 90 keV is a useful resource for AMXPs. The paper also provides a joint spectral fit with reflection that is broadly consistent with independent work. The burst pulse-profile analysis addresses a relatively unexplored phenomenon: whether thermonuclear bursts preserve rotational modulation and shift its phase. If the energy-dependent lag is robust, it would constrain how bursts alter the hotspot/column geometry. However, the central lag trend currently rests on a reference-phase choice in the NuSTAR 35-60 keV band that is not quantitatively justified, and the reported lag values lack uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, NuSTAR 35-60 keV band] The pre-burst and post-burst fundamental phases in the 35-60 keV band differ by about 0.38 cycles (phi1 = 0.43 +/- 0.11 versus 0.81 +/- 0.04, a roughly 3 sigma discrepancy), and the post-burst value is adopted because it 'seems more consistent' with the persistent profile. No quantitative cross-correlation with the Sect. 3.2 persistent profile is shown. If the pre-burst phase is used as the reference, the inferred lag becomes about 0.45 cycles and the claimed monotonic energy dependence is destroyed. This is load-bearing because the energy-dependent lag is the paper's central new claim; please provide a quantitative comparison with the persistent profile, report the lag relative to both references, and justify the adopted reference with a statistical test.
  2. [Section 3.3, quoted lag values] None of the quoted Delta-phi values (0.15, 0.11, 0.02, 0.21, 0.10, and 0.07/0.08) carry uncertainties. Since the central claim is a systematic trend across energy bands, the reader cannot assess whether the hard-band lags (0.02-0.07) are significant. Please report bootstrap or propagation uncertainties from the Fourier fits for each band, and test the significance of the trend, for example with a weighted fit of Delta-phi versus log E.
  3. [Section 3.3, pre/post-burst reference windows] The pre-burst [t_start - 200 s, t_start - 50 s] and post-burst [t_stop + 50 s, t_stop + 200 s] windows are assumed to be uncontaminated by burst cooling or burst-induced accretion changes. In the IXPE band the post-burst count rate is about 8% higher than the pre-burst rate, and in the NuSTAR 35-60 keV band the pre- and post-burst phases differ substantially, suggesting contamination or variability. Please test sensitivity to the window boundaries (for example, using shorter windows at different distances from the burst) and check whether a cooling-tail component is present in the post-burst interval.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The abstract lists the NuSTAR lag bands as 3-10, 20-35, and 35-60 keV, while Section 3.3 uses 3-10, 10-35, and 35-60 keV and quotes 0.08 for the highest band instead of the abstract's 0.07; please unify the energy definitions and values.
  2. [Section 3.3] The notation t_start = t - 15 s and t_stop = t + 35 s reuses t for both the burst peak time and the interval boundary; please define the peak time explicitly as t_peak to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 5.2] The phrase 'Componization component' should read 'Comptonization component'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The 8.7 sigma significance of the spin-up model over the constant-frequency model is quoted without the underlying likelihood-ratio statistic or Delta-chi-squared value; please state this explicitly, as the Table 1 chi-squared values alone do not immediately give the significance.
  5. [Figures 5 and 6] The right-hand panels of Figures 5 and 6 are not individually labeled with their energy bands; adding labels to each panel would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-up rate, pulse-profile phase lags, and spectral parameters are direct measurements from data, not quantities derived from models that already encode them.

full rationale

The paper's central results are observational measurements: the spin-up rate is obtained by fitting ToA residuals with a spin-up model, the burst phase lags are obtained by fitting truncated Fourier series to stacked folded profiles, and the spectral parameters are fit results from standard models. None of these steps reduces by construction to an assumed input. The magnetic-field estimate uses the measured spin-up and accretion rate in standard torque relations, so it is a derived quantity, not a circular one. The only flagged issue is in Section 3.3, where the NuSTAR 35-60 keV pre-burst and post-burst reference phases disagree and the post-burst phase is adopted because it 'seems more consistent' with the persistent profile. This is an acknowledged selection choice that affects the robustness of the energy-dependent lag trend, but it is not a circular derivation: the phase lag is still measured directly from the data, and the paper transparently reports the discrepancy. Self-citations to earlier work by the same group (e.g., for the distance and for timing methodology) are not load-bearing in the sense of encoding the present claims; they provide external or prior measurements. Therefore no circularity step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical results (spin-up, phase lags) rely on standard timing and spectral methods. The B-field interpretation and reflection-model interpretation adopt literature relations and fixed geometry choices. The burst phase-lag measurement additionally assumes clean pre/post-burst reference intervals and a two-harmonic profile model, both of which could bias the headline Delta phi values if wrong.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_B (disk-field coupling factor) = 0.01 and 1 (bracket values)
    Appears in Eqs. 2 and 3 for Bmin and Bmax; the paper assumes the 0.01-1 range from Psaltis & Chakrabarty (1999). This choice, not data, sets the breadth of the derived field range.
  • Distance D = 10 kpc
    Adopted from Fu et al. (2025) PRE-burst analysis; the mass accretion rate and the B-field estimate scale as D^2, so an error in distance propagates squarely into the field strength.
  • Accretion efficiency eta = 0.1
    Used to convert bolometric luminosity into mass accretion rate in Section 5.1. This is a standard assumption, but the derived B depends strongly on this assumed value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Circular orbit (e=0) for the timing solution
    The 4d-SIMPLEX timing solution in Section 3.1 assumes zero eccentricity; for a 5.2 hr LMXB orbit this is standard, but a small eccentricity would bias the spin frequency and spin-up measurement.
  • domain assumption Spin parameter relation a=0.47/P
    Section 4.2 fixes the dimensionless spin for relxillCp using the relation from Braje et al. (2000); the inferred reflection parameters (inclination, inner radius) are conditional on this assumed spin.
  • domain assumption Accretion torque model
    Equation (4) uses the standard Shapiro-Teukolsky magnetospheric torque formula to convert the observed spin-up and mass accretion rate into a magnetic field; the field estimate is model dependent.
  • domain assumption Newtonian emissivity indices q1=q2=3
    Section 4.2 fixes inner and outer emissivity indices to 3 following Reynolds & Nowak (2003), a typical but not unique choice for the disk emissivity profile in relxillCp.
  • ad hoc to paper Clean pre/post-burst reference windows
    Section 3.3 defines post-burst reference as t_start+85 s to t_start+235 s; no test shows the thermonuclear burst cooling tail has fully decayed by then. Contamination would bias the measured burst phase lags.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-harmonic pulse profile model
    Equation (1) truncates the folded profiles at the first overtone (k=2); the reported phase lags are the phase of the fitted fundamental, so an incomplete harmonic series could mislocate the profile phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timing and spectral studies of SRGA J144459.2$-$604207 with NICER, Einstein Probe, IXPE, NuSTAR, Insight-HXMT and INTEGRAL during its 2024 outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSSERHGF

@misc{pith2026250700793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timing and spectral studies of SRGA J144459.2$-$604207 with NICER, Einstein Probe, IXPE, NuSTAR, Insight-HXMT and INTEGRAL during its 2024 outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSSERHGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00793}
}
abstract

SRGA J144459.2$-$604207 is a newly confirmed accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar and type I X-ray burster. We present the broadband X-ray timing and spectral behaviors of SRGA J144459.2$-$604207 during its 2024 outburst. The data were collected from NICER, Einstein Probe, IXPE, Insight-HXMT, NuSTAR and INTEGRAL observations. X-ray pulsations have been detected for the 1.5--90 keV energy range throughout the `ON' phase of the outburst from MJD $\sim 60355-60385$. We refined the orbital and spin ephemerides assuming a circular orbit, and found that the pulsar was in a spin-up state during MJD $\sim$ 60361--60377 showing a significant spin-up rate $\dot{\nu}$ of $(3.15\pm 0.36)\times10^{-13}~{\rm Hz~s^{-1}}$. Around MJD $\sim 60377$ a swing was detected in the spin evolution accompanied by significantly enhanced pulsed emission. We studied the pulse profile morphology during the X-ray bursts as observed by Insight-HXMT, IXPE and NuSTAR. During the bursts, pulsations were detected across the 2--60 keV with shapes broadly consistent with those observed for the persistent emission. We found, however, that the `burst' pulse profiles exhibit significant phase offsets relative to the pre- and post-burst profiles. These offsets systematically decrease with increasing energy, $\Delta \phi\approx0.15$, 0.11 and 0.02 for IXPE, Insight-HXMT ME and HE in 2--8, 5--30 and 20--60 keV, respectively, and $\Delta \phi \approx 0.21$, 0.10 and 0.07 for NuSTAR in 3--10, 20--35 and 35--60 keV, respectively, compared to the pre- and post-burst profiles. We performed a joint spectral analysis of quasi-simultaneous NICER, NuSTAR, and Insight-HXMT data for two epochs. The resulting spectra from both observations were consistent and well-described by an absorbed thermal Comptonization model, nthcomp, plus relativistic reflection, relxillCp.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curves of SRGA J144459.2−604207 dur￾ing its 2024 outburst. From top to bottom: the background subtracted light curves from MAXI (1 day binned) in units of photons cm−2 s −1 , IXPE (0.2 day binned), NICER (0.2 day binned), NuSTAR/FPMA (1 hr binned), and Insight-HXMT LE/ME/HE (each point represents an exposure observation) are displayed, respectively. The energy range of each light curve is indicated in each… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left panel shows the ToA phase-residuals of NICER (black; 3–10 keV), Insight-HXMT-ME (orange; 5–10 keV) and IXPE (blue; 3–10 keV) measurements after folding on the 4d-SIMPLEX orbital- and timing model (see upper part of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 1.5–90 keV broadband pulse-phase distributions of the persistent emission from SRGA J144459.2−604207 as observed by NICER (panels a–c, 1.5 − 10 keV), IXPE (panels d–f , 1.6 − 10 keV), NuSTAR (panels h–m, 3 − 79 keV), Insight￾HXMT (panels n–p, 5 − 35 keV for ME; panels q–s, 20 − 90 keV for HE), and INTEGRAL/ISGRI (panels t–v, 20 − 90 keV). The data were taken from observations before the ‘swing’ at ∼ MJD 60377.0 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The folded pulse profiles (20 bins) of simulta￾neous observations of NICER (Obs. ids. 6639080112 and 6639080113, top panel) and EP-FXT A/B (MJD 60382.36– 60383.06, middle and bottom panels, respectively) in the 2.5– 10 keV band. to investigate possible morphology chang…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The burst, pre-burst, and post-burst pulse pro￾files from Insight-HXMT and IXPE. Left panels show the burst profiles with 8 bins from IXPE in 2–8 keV (top panel), Insight-HXMT/ME 5–30 keV (middle panel), and Insight￾HXMT/HE 20–60 keV (bottom panel). Right panels show t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The burst, pre-burst, and post-burst pulse pro￾files from NuSTAR. Left panels show the burst profiles with 8 bins from NuSTAR in 3–10 keV (top panel), 10–35 keV (middle panel), and 35–60 keV (bottom panel). Right panels show the pre-burst (blue) and post-burst (green) …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The best-fitted parameters of the NICER spectra from SRGA J144459.2−604207 by using the model tbabs×(gaussian+nthcomp). From top to bottom, the bolo￾metric flux, the hydrogen column density, Γ, the electron temperature, kTe, the blackbody temperature, kTBB, and the red…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Joint NICER, NuSTAR, and Insight-HXMT spec￾tra fitting from SRGA J144459.2−604207 by using the model constant×tbabs×(nthcomp+gaussian+relxillCp)×edge. In the top panel, the spectra are Epoch 1 from NICER (Obs. Id. 6639080103, MJD 60366.22–60366.94, 5.2 ks, black points…

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. Spectral study of the outburst decay of the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The 2024 outburst decay and quiescence of AMXP SRGA J144459.2-604207 are spectrally characterized, and its 45-year quiescent luminosity is found to be consistent with deep crustal heating under assumed outburst recurrences.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K., Garc ´ ıa, J

    Adegoke, O. K., Garc ´ ıa, J. A., Connors, R. M. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e9 2024

  2. [2]

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

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    C., Russell, D

    Baglio, M. C., Russell, D. M., Saikia, P., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16487, 1

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    M., Romani, R

    Braje, T. M., Romani, R. W., & Rauch, K. P. 2000, ApJ, 531, 447, doi: 10.1086/308448

    doi:10.1086/308448 2000

  5. [5]

    F., et al

    Buccheri, R., Bennett, K., Bignami, G. F., et al. 1983, A&A, 128, 245

    1983

  6. [6]

    2020, Science China

    Cao, X., Jiang, W., Meng, B., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  7. [7]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249504, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1 16

    doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1

  8. [8]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249505, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5

    doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2020b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Chen, Y., Cui, W., Han, D., et al. 2020b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114445B, doi: 10.1117/1...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJL, 936, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2c

    Chen, Y.-P., Zhang, S., Ji, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2c

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Gillanders, J

    Cowie, F. J., Gillanders, J. H., Rhodes, L., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16477, 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu125

    Wilms, J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu125

    2014 doi

  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 Falco, V., Kuiper, L., Bozzo, E., et al. 2017a, A&A, 603, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730600 —. 2017b, A&A, 599, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629575 Di Salvo, T., & S...

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2008, A&A, 484, 43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078982

    Falanga, M., Chenevez, J., Cumming, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078982

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, A&A, 545, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219582

    Falanga, M., Kuiper, L., Poutanen, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219582

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2007, ApJ, 661, 1084, doi: 10.1086/514805

    Falanga, M., & Titarchuk, L. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1084, doi: 10.1086/514805

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2005a, A&A, 444, 15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053472

    Falanga, M., Kuiper, L., Poutanen, J., et al. 2005a, A&A, 444, 15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053472

    doi

  10. [18]

    M., Poutanen, J., et al

    Falanga, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J. M., Poutanen, J., et al. 2005b, A&A, 436, 647, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042575

    doi

  11. [19]

    2011, A&A, 529, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016240

    Falanga, M., Kuiper, L., Poutanen, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016240

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition, 398

    2002

  13. [21]

    Hessels, J. W. T. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1433, doi: 10.1086/587832

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adadee

    Fu, T., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adadee

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Galloway, D. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi, 510–518, doi: 10.1063/1.2900286

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., 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, 9905...

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. K. 1978, ApJL, 223, L83, doi: 10.1086/182734

    1978 doi

  18. [27]

    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

  19. [28]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad81

    Illiano, G., Papitto, A., Sanna, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad81

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16510, 1

    Illiano, G., Coti Zelati, F., Marino, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16510, 1

    2024

  21. [30]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c29

    Ji, L., Ge, M., Chen, Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c29

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1031, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811580

    Kuiper, L., & Hermsen, W. 2009, A&A, 501, 1031, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811580

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    S., Falanga, M., et al

    Kuiper, L., Tsygankov, S. S., Falanga, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037812

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    R., in’t Zand, J

    Kuulkers, E., den Hartog, P. R., in’t Zand, J. J. M., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 663, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021781

    2003 doi

  25. [34]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.009

    Li, X., Li, X., Tan, Y., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.009

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    2018, A&A, 620, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833857

    Li, Z., De Falco, V., Falanga, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833857

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0296

    Li, Z., Kuiper, L., Ge, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0296

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    S., Kuiper, L., Falanga, M., et al

    Li, Z. S., Kuiper, L., Falanga, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140360

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    S., Kuiper, L., Pan, Y

    Li, Z. S., Kuiper, L., Pan, Y. Y., et al. 2024b, A&A, 691, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451260

    doi

  30. [39]

    2020, Science China

    Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, X., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  31. [40]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x 17

    doi

  32. [41]

    Ludlam, R. M. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 16, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04281-y

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Cackett, E

    Ludlam, R. M., Cackett, E. M., Garc ´ ıa, J. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab89a6

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08239, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08239

    Malacaria, C., Papitto, A., Campana, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08239, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08239

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    C., et al

    Mariani, I., Motta, S., Baglio, M. C., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16475, 1

    2024

  36. [45]

    M., et al

    Marino, A., Anitra, A., Mazzola, S. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2038

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    2009 doi

  38. [47]

    A., Semena, A

    Mereminskiy, I. A., Semena, A. N., Molkov, S. V., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16464, 1

    2024

  39. [48]

    Miller, G. S. 1996, ApJL, 468, L29, doi: 10.1086/310231

    1996 doi

  40. [49]

    V., Lutovinov, A

    Molkov, S. V., Lutovinov, A. A., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450581

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    S., Sanna, A., et al

    Ng, M., Ray, P. S., Sanna, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4edb

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    Y., Li, Z

    Pan, Y. Y., Li, Z. S., Zhang, C. M., & Zhong, J. X. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 6219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1365

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    2025, A&A, 694, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451775

    Papitto, A., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451775

    2025 doi

  44. [53]

    Patruno, A., & Watts, A. L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    2021

  45. [54]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 143–208, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 4

    doi

  46. [55]

    1999, ApJ, 521, 332, doi: 10.1086/307525

    Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 332, doi: 10.1086/307525

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    S., Strohmayer, T

    Ray, P. S., Strohmayer, T. E., Sanna, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16480, 1

    2024

  48. [57]

    S., & Nowak, M

    Reynolds, C. S., & Nowak, M. A. 2003, PhR, 377, 389, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00584-7

    2003 doi

  49. [58]

    D., Carotenuto, F., Eijnden, J

    Russell, T. D., Carotenuto, F., Eijnden, J. v. d., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16511, 1

    2024

  50. [59]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16485, 1

    Chenevez, J. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16485, 1

    2024

  51. [60]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: the physics of compact objects (New York: Wiley)

    1983

  52. [61]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16476, 1

    Sokolovsky, K., Korotkiy, S., & Zalles, R. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16476, 1

    2024

  53. [62]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16495, 1

    Takeda, T., Ota, N., Watanabe, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16495, 1

    2024

  54. [63]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 517, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/4/005

    Tong, H. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 517, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/4/005

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4250

    Tuo, Y., Li, X., Ge, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4250

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2003, A&A, 411, L131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031224

    Ubertini, P., Lebrun, F., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031224

    2003 doi

  57. [66]

    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

  58. [67]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

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

    2000 doi

  60. [69]

    J.-L., Di Cocco, G., et al

    Winkler, C., Courvoisier, T. J.-L., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031288

    2003 doi

  61. [70]

    G., & Li, B.-A

    Worley, A., Krastev, P. G., & Li, B.-A. 2008, ApJ, 685, 390, doi: 10.1086/589823

    2008 doi

  62. [71]

    L., Zhang, S., Chen, Y

    Yu, Z. L., Zhang, S., Chen, Y. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3696

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    2025, Science China

    Yuan, W., Dai, L., Feng, H., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  64. [73]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3

    doi

  65. [74]

    2020, Science China

    Zhang, S.-N., Li, T., Lu, F., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  66. [75]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    doi

  67. [76]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad981b

    Zhao, X., Cui, W., Wang, H., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad981b

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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