Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

A Hidden Pulse: Uncovering a New Timing Signal in Cygnus X-1 with AstroSat

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper reports the discovery of a narrow dip in the 3–5 keV versus 6–40 keV coherence function at about 0.05 Hz in Cygnus X-1, identifying a faint quasi-periodic variability component that is nearly invisible in the power spectrum but…

desk verdict A genuinely new 0.05 Hz coherence dip in Cyg X-1, strong in one observation but resting on an unvalidated cross-detector estimator; worth serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13884 v2 pith:D5KUPYIP submitted 2025-07-18 astro-ph.HE

Sandeep K. Rout , Federico Garcia , Mariano Mendez , Abhay Kumar , Santosh Vadawale , David M. Russell , Pei Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords CygnusX-1coherencediphiddenquasi-periodicoscillationX-raytimingcrossspectrumphaselagshard-intermediatestateAstroSatLAXPC
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 aims to establish that Cygnus X-1, a black hole binary that has never shown clear quasi-periodic oscillations in its power spectrum, nevertheless contains a narrow, weakly coherent variability component near 0.05 Hz. This component shows up as a sharp dip in the X-ray coherence function and a drop in phase lags, rather than as a peak in the power spectrum. Using ten AstroSat/LAXPC observations covering the source's 2017 hard-to-soft transition, the authors fit a multi-Lorentzian model simultaneously to the power spectra, cross spectra, and low-frequency coherence. The coherence dip appears only in the hard-intermediate state, the same phase in which the source shows its strongest radio variability and a high hard X-ray polarization degree attributed to jet synchrotron emission. If correct, the result shows that coherence spectra can expose variability components that power spectra miss, and it connects such hidden components to jet activity and the geometry of the Comptonizing medium.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of six Fourier statistics relating two energy bands: the power spectrum in each band, the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum, the phase lags, and the coherence function. Under the assumption that each Lorentzian variability component is coherent across bands but incoherent with the other components, the cross spectrum becomes a linear combination of the same Lorentzians with linked normalizations, so phase lags and coherence can be predicted rather than freely fitted. The new procedure is a frequency-segmented simultaneous fit: the subject-band power spectrum is fitted only above 0.3 Hz, the coherence only below 0.3 Hz, and the reference-band power spectrum plus both cross-spectrum parts over the full range, which maximizes sensitivity to weak components that are more visible in coherence than in power. Deadtime is handled by forming all Fourier products as cross statistics between LAXPC units 10 and 20, so uncorrelated Poisson noise and deadtime-induced correlations cancel in the cospectrum.

What would settle it

Re-analyse observation 1210 with the roles of LAXPC units 10 and 20 swapped and with simulated light curves that include detector deadtime but no intrinsic 0.05 Hz signal; if a coherence dip of similar depth appears in the deadtime-only simulations, or if the true uncertainty on $\gamma^2$ at 0.05 Hz turns out to be large enough to make the observed dip consistent with unity, the discovery would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using cross spectra computed between two LAXPC detector units to remove deadtime effects, the authors find that in two hard-intermediate-state observations the coherence between 3–5 keV and 6–40 keV drops from near unity to about 0.8 (observation 1180) and about 0.6 (observation 1210) in a narrow feature at roughly 0.047–0.053 Hz, accompanied by a phase-lag fall to about −0.4 rad. A simultaneous frequency-segmented fit with Lorentzians shows that this feature is produced by a narrow component with an rms amplitude of about 1% in the 6–40 keV band, significant at about 5–10 sigma in the subject band but not in the 3–5 keV reference band: a QPO-like component that is almost invisible in the power spectrum. This is the first coherence dip detected in Cygnus X-1 with both energy bands above 3 keV; earlier dips observed with NICER required a band below 2 keV and appeared at about 1–6 Hz. The authors interpret the dip as interference between the ordinary Comptonizing medium and a transient extra component, possibly Comptonization at the base of the jet.

Load-bearing premise

The central discovery rests on the assumption that deadtime and Poisson noise in LAXPC units 10 and 20 are uncorrelated, so the cross-detector coherence estimator is unbiased; the formal properties, uncertainties, and possible residual deadtime coupling of this estimator are not derived in the paper and are left to a future publication.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dip is real, Cygnus X-1 hosts a hidden QPO-like component at about 0.05 Hz that standard power-spectrum searches would miss, so the absence of QPO peaks in the power spectrum does not rule out coherent narrow oscillations.
  • The component appears only in the hard-intermediate state, where radio variability and hard X-ray polarization peak, empirically tying the feature to jet activity and suggesting the jet base can act as an additional Comptonizing medium.
  • Because the component is significant only in the 6–40 keV band and its rms increases with energy, any model must place the extra variability in the harder, Comptonized emission rather than in the disk seed photons.
  • The frequency-segmented cross-spectral fitting method can be applied to other sources and to existing archival data to search for low-frequency signals that are visible in coherence but not in power.
  • The roughly 0.05 Hz LAXPC dip and the roughly 2 Hz NICER dip, occurring at the same position in the hardness-intensity diagram, imply two hidden QPO-like components at different frequencies, which would argue against a single broadband process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the coherence dip is a genuine oscillation, it may become detectable in the power spectrum with much longer uninterrupted exposures, since a 1% rms component accumulates signal while broadband noise averages down.
  • Beyond the paper: the same cross-detector cospectrum technique could be applied to other multi-module X-ray instruments to search for hidden low-frequency components in other persistent black hole binaries.
  • Beyond the paper: an independent check would be to observe the same state with a different instrument or a different pair of LAXPC units and verify that the 0.05 Hz coherence dip persists when the assumed uncorrelated-deadtime hypothesis is varied.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes ten AstroSat/LAXPC observations of Cygnus X-1 covering the 2016-2017 hard-to-soft transition, using a frequency-segmented multi-Lorentzian fitting technique applied simultaneously to power spectra, cross-spectra, coherence, and phase-lag spectra. It identifies five main variability components whose frequencies and rms amplitudes evolve with spectral state, and additional components in the hard-intermediate (HI) state. The principal claim is the discovery of a narrow dip in the 3-5 keV vs. 6-40 keV coherence function at about 0.05 Hz, most prominently in observation 1210 and more weakly in observation 1180, accompanied by a broad drop in the phase-lag spectrum at the same frequency. The authors interpret this as a previously unseen, QPO-like variability component with rms of about 1% in the subject band, present only in the HI state, and discuss possible links to jet emission and the Comptonizing medium.

Significance. If the detection is robust, the result is a genuinely interesting new timing feature: a coherence dip at energies above 3 keV and at a lower frequency than the previously reported NICER dips, observed during a state with high radio variability and significant hard X-ray polarization. The main detection in observation 1210 is statistically strong (F-statistic ~16.3, p ~ 1.4e-15; ~10 sigma rms in the subject band), and the paper takes care to address deadtime by using cross-detector products between LAXPC units 10 and 20. The frequency-segmented fitting approach is a useful methodological contribution, and the paper explicitly identifies which quantities are fitted and which are predicted. However, the central discovery rests on a cross-detector coherence estimator whose bias and variance properties are not derived or simulated, and the second detection (1180) is marginal. The result is potentially important but not yet independently secured.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B; Section 2] The central discovery rests on the cross-detector coherence estimator defined in Appendix B. The paper assumes that deadtime and Poisson noise in LAXPC units 10 and 20 are uncorrelated and therefore eliminated from the cospectrum-based products, but it provides no derivation, bias bound, or simulation for this estimator. The uncertainties are taken from Equation 9 of Vaughan & Nowak (1997), which was derived for the conventional single-detector coherence estimator. If inter-unit deadtime correlations, background differences, or the ratio form of the estimator introduce a frequency-dependent bias, the reported coherence dip at ~0.05 Hz could be spurious. The authors should provide either a formal derivation of the estimator's bias and variance or Monte Carlo simulations with injected known coherence levels and realistic LAXPC deadtime, including different effective areas or background levels between units, demonstrating that no narrow spurious dip is produced.
  2. [Section 2; Appendix A] The phase-lag drop at ~0.05 Hz is described as predicted, but it is not out-of-sample. The real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum are fitted over the full 0.002-100 Hz range (Eq. A2), and the phase-lag spectrum is then computed from those fitted quantities (Eq. A3). The phase-lag feature at the dip frequency is therefore a deterministic function of the fitted cross-spectrum parameters rather than an independent confirmation. The genuinely out-of-sample quantities are the subject-band power spectrum below 0.3 Hz and the coherence above 0.3 Hz. The authors should reframe the phase-lag agreement as a consistency check, or alternatively fit the model while excluding the narrow-Lorentzian contribution to the cross spectrum and verify that the phase-lag drop is nevertheless predicted.
  3. [Section 3.3; observation 1180] The second detection in observation 1180 is marginal: the F-statistic is ~3.2 with p ~ 6.2e-3, and the component is not significant in the 3-5 keV reference band (1 sigma). Because the analysis searches over ten observations, multiple Lorentzians, two energy bands, and a range of frequencies, this p-value is unlikely to survive a multiple-trials correction. The paper should explicitly characterize the 1180 feature as tentative, non-independent support rather than a second significant detection, or provide a trial-corrected significance level.
  4. [Appendix A; Section 4] The interpretation that the coherence dip requires a new hidden Lorentzian component relies on the model assumption that each additive variability component is perfectly coherent between the two energy bands and has a constant phase lag gi = 2*pi*ki. A frequency-dependent partial coherence of an existing broad component could in principle produce a similar narrow coherence dip without requiring a new additive component. The authors test a partially coherent single-component model only for the soft-state observation 1592 (Appendix D), not for the 0.05 Hz dip in the HI state. A robustness test allowing frequency-dependent phase lags or free partial coherence for the five main components, applied to observation 1210, would substantially strengthen the claim that the dip is caused by a distinct QPO-like component.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The phrase "the phase lags reaches ~ -0.4 rad" should be corrected to "the phase lag reaches" or "the phase lags reach."
  2. [Appendix B] The definition of cross-coherence is ambiguous as to whether the two detector permutations are averaged before or after forming the ratio of squared cross-spectrum to the product of cospectra; the exact estimator should be written explicitly (e.g., average of numerators divided by average of denominators, or average of ratios).
  3. [Section 2] The phrase "for the first time" in describing the frequency-segmented fitting approach should be softened, since Mendez et al. (2024) already fit combinations of the six spectra and predict the remaining spectra; the specific segmentation of frequency ranges is the new element, not the general simultaneous-fitting idea.
  4. [Section 3.3; observation 1210] For the narrow Lorentzian producing the coherence dip, the paper reports only nu_max and rms; reporting the FWHM and quality factor would help readers assess how narrow the proposed component is and how it relates to the observed dip width.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the 'predicted' phase-lag spectrum reduces to the fitted cross-spectrum parameters (Eq. A3 from Eq. A2), while the coherence dip and out-of-sample PS/coherence predictions remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2; Appendix A, Eq. A3 (with Eq. A2)]
    "The strength of this technique is that the fitted Lorentzians can be used to predict the phase-lags and coherence spectra (Appendix A). Since the six spectra - the PS in two energy bands, the real and imaginary parts of the CS, the phase lags, and the coherence function - are not all independent, we fit only four spectra and predict the other two. ... Using the same parameters of the fitted multi-Lorentzian model, the phase lags in the 0.002−100 Hz range ... were compared with the predictions of Equations A3, A4 and A1, respectively."

    The phase-lag 'prediction' is not out-of-sample: Eq. A3 defines the total phase lag as atan2 of the sums of sqrt(AiBi) Li cos(gi) and sqrt(AiBi) Li sin(gi), exactly the two fitted expressions in Eq. A2 for Re Gxy and Im Gxy. Because the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum are fitted over the full 0.002-100 Hz range, the model phase-lag in that range is algebraically forced by the fitted CS parameters; any drop at ~0.05 Hz accompanying the fitted coherence dip is a transform of those fitted values, not an independent prediction. The paper's genuinely independent checks are the subject-band PS at 0.002-0.3 Hz and the coherence at 0.3-100 Hz, which are not fitted; the central coherence dip itself is fitted in 0.002-0.3 Hz.

full rationale

The paper's central discovery, the narrow coherence dip at ~0.05 Hz in Cyg X-1, is obtained by directly fitting the coherence function in the 0.002-0.3 Hz range together with the cross-spectrum real and imaginary parts; it is not claimed as an out-of-sample prediction. The frequency-segmented method does contain a genuinely independent component: the subject-band power spectrum at 0.002-0.3 Hz and the coherence at 0.3-100 Hz are predicted from the fitted Lorentzian model and compared with data. However, the phase-lag spectrum, which the paper also describes as predicted, is mathematically determined by the fitted real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum (Eq. A3 from Eq. A2), so the 'prediction' of the phase-lag drop at the coherence-dip frequency reduces to the fitted cross-spectrum parameters by construction. The reliance on Mendez et al. (2024) for the Lorentzian-coherence model is a self-citation, but it is a stated modeling assumption already applied to other sources, not a uniqueness theorem used to forbid alternatives, so it is not itself circular. The unvalidated cross-LAXPC deadtime estimator is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, one derived quantity is presented as a prediction, but the central claim and the out-of-sample predictions retain independent content; a moderate circularity score is appropriate.

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

The paper's central claim rests on a small number of fitted Lorentzian parameters (frequency, rms, phase-lag constants) and on the multi-Lorentzian coherence model plus the cross-detector deadtime estimator. The hidden QPO is a model component fitted to the data, not a parameter-free prediction, but it does carry an independently testable timing signature.

free parameters (4)
  • Hidden Lorentzian frequency (nu_max of dip component) = 0.053 +/- 0.001 Hz (obs 1210); 0.047 +/- 0.002 Hz (obs 1180)
    Fitted to the coherence/CS data; the central claim that a new variability component exists at ~0.05 Hz depends on this fitted frequency.
  • Hidden Lorentzian rms in subject band (6-40 keV) = 1.01 (+0.06/-0.04)% (obs 1210); 1.0 +/- 0.1% (obs 1180)
    Fitted amplitude; the weakness (sub-percent to ~1%) of the component in the power spectrum is part of why it was previously undetected.
  • Per-component phase-lag constant ki = not reported (fitted per component)
    Each Lorentzian has a constant phase-lag model gi(nu)=2*pi*ki; the paper states that the results depend on this choice (Appendix A).
  • Number of Lorentzians per observation = 5 to 8 depending on observation
    The number of components is chosen per observation to fit the spectra; the significance of additional components is assessed with F-tests, but the search is post hoc.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Variability components are coherent within each energy band and mutually incoherent, making the cross spectrum a linear sum of Lorentzians with C_i = sqrt(A_i B_i)
    This is the foundation of the multi-Lorentzian model used to fit the PS, CS and predict coherence and phase lags (Section 2, Appendix A, Eqs. A1-A4). If false, the inferred hidden QPO could be an artifact.
  • domain assumption Deadtime and Poisson noise in LAXPC units 10 and 20 are uncorrelated, so cross-spectra between the two units cancel deadtime
    Used in Appendix B; if residual deadtime correlations remain, the coherence can be artificially suppressed at some frequencies, potentially creating spurious dips.
  • ad hoc to paper Phase lags of each component are constant over frequency (gi = 2*pi*ki)
    The simplest functional form; the paper states 'the results depend on the choice' (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Spectral states can be classified with the six accretion modes of Lubinski et al. (2020) using single-powerlaw fits to CZTI 30-100 keV spectra
    Used in Section 3.1 to place observations in the hard-intermediate state; the paper notes the classification has uncertainty for the soft states.
invented entities (1)
  • Hidden QPO-like variability component at ~0.05 Hz independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the narrow coherence dip and phase-lag drop in the hard-intermediate state
    The component is inferred from the data in this paper, but it makes a falsifiable prediction: a narrow hard-band coherence dip at ~0.05 Hz that should appear in future timing observations of Cygnus X-1 during the hard-intermediate state (and possibly other X-ray binaries). The energy-dependent rms is also measurable. However, the current evidence comes from the same data used to define it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hidden Pulse: Uncovering a New Timing Signal in Cygnus X-1 with AstroSat." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5KUPYIP

@misc{pith2026250713884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hidden Pulse: Uncovering a New Timing Signal in Cygnus X-1 with AstroSat},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5KUPYIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13884}
}
read the original abstract

The study of fast variability properties in X-ray binaries advances our understanding of the physical processes and geometric properties of the accretion flow around the compact object. In this work, we study the evolution of the timing properties of Cygnus X-1 with AstroSat/LAXPC, during the transition of the source from the hard to soft state in 2017. We use a novel frequency-segmented technique to fit simultaneously the cross spectra and parts of the power spectra and coherence function with a multi-Lorentzian model and predict the phase-lags and the complementary parts of the power spectra and coherence function. We study the evolution of the frequency and power of the main variability components that are present throughout all the states. In particular, we identify previously undetected variability components, one of which manifests as a narrow dip in the coherence function and a broad drop in the phase-lag spectrum at the same frequency. This dip in coherence, which we detected for the first time in Cygnus X-1 at energies above 3 keV, appears in a state in which the source shows high-amplitude radio variability and significant hard X-ray polarization. While the contribution of the compact jet in X-rays is debated in the literature, this study provides a new avenue for investigating jet properties as well as the geometry of the Comptonizing medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top left panel shows the 2−20 keV lightcurve of Cyg X-1 with MAXI. The bottom left panel shows the hardness ratio (HR) curve of Cyg X-1 with LAXPC data, defined as the ratio of count rates in the 15 − 30 keV and 3 − 5 keV bands. The right plot shows the hardness-intensity diagram of Cyg X-1 derived from MAXI lightcurve. The MAXI points closest to the epochs of AstroSat observations are highlighted. the backgroun… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The phase lag frequency spectra (black) and coherence spectra (red) for all the ten observations of Cyg X-1 used in this work. The respective observation IDs are mentioned inside the panels. Observations 1180 and 1210 show the narrow drop in coherence, at frequencies marked by a dashed vertical line, accompanied by the fall in phase lag spectrum. pure soft (PS) states, respectively, although with some uncertainty. 3… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The squares show the 22 − 100 keV flux plotted against the photon index (30 − 100 keV) obtained from fit￾ting the CZTI spectra for all the 10 observations of Cyg X-1. The circles are from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The time evolution of the characteristic frequencies of the five main variability components in the ten observations of Cyg X-1. Right: The characteristic frequencies of the five variability components as a function of the HR, defined by the ratio of count rates …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fractional rms amplitude (in percentage) in the 3 − 5 keV (Left) and 6 − 40 keV (Right) bands as a function of HR for the five main Lorentzians in the ten observations of Cyg X-1. bands. Here also the component is significant (∼ 10σ) only in the 6 − 40 keV band. The mo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data and the best-fitting multi-Lorentzian model, with residuals, for observation 1210 of Cyg X-1. The top left panels show the power spectra in the reference (3−5 keV; red) and subject (6−40 keV; blue and green) bands. The bottom left panels show the real (red) and im…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The phase-lag frequency spectra and coherence function for observation 1210 of Cyg X-1, showing the narrow dip in the coherence at ∼ 0.05 Hz, for two different subject bands, 6 − 10 keV and 10 − 18 keV, taking the 3 − 5 keV band as the reference band. 1592, have a smal…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The joint SXT (red), LAXPC (green) and CZTI (blue) spectra and best-fitting model for observation 1210 of Cyg X-1. The individual model components are shown with dotted (disk), dashed (Comptonization) and dot-dashed (reflection) lines. on coherence were evaluated from …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada7f9 Ar´ evalo, P., & Uttley, P

    Alabarta, K., M´ endez, M., Garc ´ ıa, F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada7f9 Ar´ evalo, P., & Uttley, P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 801, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09989.x

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Arur, K., & Maccarone, T. J. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1720, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1463

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1463 2022

  4. [4]

    2005, A&A, 438, 999, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042362

    Axelsson, M., Borgonovo, L., & Larsson, S. 2005, A&A, 438, 999, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042362

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042362 2005

  5. [5]

    A., Cook, R., et al

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Cook, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/109 2015

  6. [6]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12283, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12283

    Bellavita, C., M´ endez, M., Garc ´ ıa, F., Ma, R., & K¨ onig, O. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12283, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12283

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.12283 2025

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042457 2005

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Belloni, T. M. 2010, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries, ed. T. Belloni, Vol. 794 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), 53, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8 3

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    M., & Motta, S

    Belloni, T. M., & Motta, S. E. 2016, Transient Black Hole Binaries, ed. C. Bambi, Vol. 440 (Springer), 61, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4 2

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    S., & Piersol, A

    Bendat, J. S., & Piersol, A. G. 2011, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley))

    2011

  4. [12]

    2004, A&A, 426, 587, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041231

    Casella, P., Belloni, T., Homan, J., & Stella, L. 2004, A&A, 426, 587, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041231

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Chattopadhyay, T., Kumar, A., Rao, A. R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad118d

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    N., Focke, W., & Swank, J

    Cui, W., Zhang, S. N., Focke, W., & Swank, J. H. 1997, ApJ, 484, 383, doi: 10.1086/304341

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L157, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad182

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    B., Wilms, J., Maisack, M., & Begelman, M

    Dove, J. B., Wilms, J., Maisack, M., & Begelman, M. C. 1997, ApJ, 487, 759, doi: 10.1086/304647

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    Begelman, M. C. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 729, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01673.x

    1998

  12. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03078

    Wilms, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03078. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03078 Garc ´ ıa, F., M´ endez, M., Karpouzas, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3944

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2014, A&A, 565, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322969

    Grinberg, V., Pottschmidt, K., B¨ ock, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322969

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    1997, ApJL, 482, L57, doi: 10.1086/310695

    Hua, X.-M., Kazanas, D., & Titarchuk, L. 1997, ApJL, 482, L57, doi: 10.1086/310695

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    R., & Motta, S

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

    2019

  18. [27]

    F., Zhang, S

    Ji, J. F., Zhang, S. N., Qu, J. L., & Li, T. P. 2003, ApJL, 584, L23, doi: 10.1086/368269

    2003 doi

  19. [28]

    P., Chauvin, M., & Clark, D

    Jourdain, E., Roques, J. P., Chauvin, M., & Clark, D. J. 2012, ApJ, 761, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/27

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    Kalemci, E., Kara, E., & Tomsick, J. A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer Nature Reference), 9, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 100-1

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    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

  22. [31]

    M., et al

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

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac045 K¨ onig, O., Mastroserio, G., Dauser, T., et al

    Kawamura, T., Axelsson, M., Done, C., & Takahashi, T. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac045 K¨ onig, O., Mastroserio, G., Dauser, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A284, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449333

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    M., & Charles, P

    Kotze, M. M., & Charles, P. A. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20146.x 17

    2012

  25. [34]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    K., & Nandi, A

    Kushwaha, A., Agrawal, V. K., & Nandi, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2258

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    D., Reig, P., & Papadakis, I

    Kylafis, N. D., Reig, P., & Papadakis, I. 2020, A&A, 640, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038468 Lubi´ nski, P., Filothodoros, A., Zdziarski, A. A., & Pooley, G. 2020, ApJ, 896, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9311

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    Makishima, K., Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    1986 doi

  29. [38]

    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

  30. [39]

    E., Shafee, R., Narayan, R., et al

    McClintock, J. E., Shafee, R., Narayan, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 518, doi: 10.1086/508457 M´ endez, M., & Belloni, T. M. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    2006 doi

  31. [40]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 263–331, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 6 M´ endez, M., Karpouzas, K., Garc ´ ıa, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 577, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01617-y M´ endez, M., Peirano, V., Garc ´ ıa, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9405, doi: 10.1093/...

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

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

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

    1991 doi

  34. [43]

    Nowak, M. A. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 361, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03668.x

    2000

  35. [44]

    Begelman, M. C. 1999, ApJ, 510, 874, doi: 10.1086/306610

    1999 doi

  36. [45]

    A., et al

    Pottschmidt, K., Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., et al. 2003, A&A, 407, 1039, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030906

    2003 doi

  37. [46]

    K., M´ endez, M., Belloni, T

    Rout, S. K., M´ endez, M., Belloni, T. M., & Vadawale, S. 2021a, MNRAS, 505, 1213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1341

    doi

  38. [47]

    K., M´ endez, M., & Garc ´ ıa, F

    Rout, S. K., M´ endez, M., & Garc ´ ıa, F. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2321

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    K., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Homan, J., et al

    Rout, S. K., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Homan, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919f

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    K., Vadawale, S

    Rout, S. K., Vadawale, S. V., Aarthy, E., et al. 2021b, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 39, doi: 10.1007/s12036-021-09696-5

    doi

  41. [50]

    P., Stewart, G

    Singh, K. P., Stewart, G. C., Chandra, S., 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, 99051E, do...

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    1972, ApJL, 177, L5, doi: 10.1086/181042

    Jones, C. 1972, ApJL, 177, L5, doi: 10.1086/181042

    1972 doi

  43. [52]

    V., Rao, A

    Vadawale, S. V., Rao, A. R., Bhattacharya, D., 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, 99051G...

    2016

  44. [53]

    A., & Nowak, M

    Vaughan, B. A., & Nowak, M. A. 1997, ApJL, 474, L43, doi: 10.1086/310430

    1997 doi

  45. [54]

    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

  46. [55]

    Walborn, N. R. 1973, ApJL, 179, L123, doi: 10.1086/181131

    1973 doi

  47. [56]

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

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

    2000 doi

  48. [57]

    A., Pottschmidt, K., Pooley, G

    Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., Pottschmidt, K., Pooley, G. G., & Fritz, S. 2006, A&A, 447, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053938

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    S., Misra, R., Verdhan Chauhan, J., et al

    Yadav, J. S., Misra, R., Verdhan Chauhan, J., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 833, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/27

    doi

  50. [59]

    S., Agrawal, P

    Yadav, J. S., Agrawal, P. C., Antia, H. M., et al. 2016b, 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, 99051D, ...

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    Giles, A. B. 1995, ApJ, 449, 930, doi: 10.1086/176111

    1995 doi

  52. [61]

    C., et al

    Zhou, M., Grinberg, V., Bu, Q. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244240 ˙Zycki, P. T., Done, C., & Smith, D. A. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 561, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x

    2022

Pith tools

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