pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07255 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Resonant Inverse Compton Scattering and Hard X-ray Emission in Magnetar Magnetospheres

Kun Hu , Nicholas Rackers , Alexander Y. Chen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarshard X-ray emissionresonant Compton scatteringpair outflowmagnetosphere4U 0142+61IXPENuSTAR
0
0 comments X

The pith

Resonant Compton scattering in an equatorial magnetic twist near the surface explains the hard X-ray spectrum of magnetar 4U 0142+61, while a polar twist cannot.

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

Magnetars show persistent hard X-ray tails produced when thermal photons are upscattered by relativistic electron-positron pairs flowing in the magnetosphere. The authors calculate the resonant Compton scattering opacity, spectrum, and polarization inside the pair outflow framework, finding that resonant cooling alters plasma density and sets tight limits on where the hard X-rays can be generated. Matching the NuSTAR spectrum of 4U 0142+61 to the viewing angle measured by IXPE shows that a twisted field region near the equator close to the star surface works, while a polar twist does not. A reader would care because this links observed X-ray properties directly to the hidden geometry and pair content of the strongest known magnetic fields.

Core claim

The leading explanation for persistent hard X-ray emission in magnetars is resonant Compton scattering, in which thermal seed photons are upscattered by relativistic electron-positron pairs flowing along magnetic field lines in the magnetosphere. In this work, the pair outflow framework is adopted to calculate the resonant Compton scattering opacity, as well as the spectrum and polarization of the upscattered emission. Resonant cooling is found to substantially modify the magnetospheric plasma density and impose strong optical depth constraints on the hard X-ray emission regions. Under the viewing geometry inferred from IXPE, an equatorial twist near the stellar surface provides a viable配置r

What carries the argument

Resonant Compton scattering opacity calculated within the pair outflow framework, which incorporates resonant cooling effects on plasma density and produces optical depth limits on hard X-ray production.

If this is right

  • Resonant cooling substantially modifies the magnetospheric plasma density.
  • Strong optical depth constraints are imposed on the hard X-ray emission regions.
  • Joint spectral, timing, and polarimetric modeling will be essential for distinguishing between the magnetospheric scattering geometries.
  • The physical properties of the pair plasma can be constrained through such combined observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same equatorial-twist preference may apply to other magnetars with similar hard X-ray spectra, implying a common near-surface geometry.
  • Additional polarimetric observations could test the scattering geometry independently of spectral fitting.
  • The derived optical depth limits could translate into upper bounds on pair multiplicity or outflow velocity in broader magnetar models.

Load-bearing premise

The pair outflow framework of the magnetar magnetosphere is adopted as the basis for calculating opacity and cooling effects, with resonant cooling assumed to substantially modify plasma density and impose optical depth constraints.

What would settle it

A hard X-ray spectrum of 4U 0142+61 measured under the same IXPE viewing geometry that fits the polar-twist predictions better than the equatorial-twist predictions would falsify the stated preference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07255 by Alexander Y. Chen, Kun Hu, Nicholas Rackers.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the electron Lorentz factor γ as a func￾tion of the magnetic colatitude θ for different initial Lorentz factors γ0 (upper panel), and as a function of time t for different field loops (lower panel). We find that the cooling rate is highly sensitive to the exponential factor in Equation (26), which reflects the Planck form of the seed-photon spectrum. As a result, the cooling curves realize three dist… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Location of resonance for ⊥ (left panel) and ∥ (right panel) mode photons radially emitted from the surface for a star with bp = 10 and Θ = 0.5 keV. The electron density at surface n0 is assumed to be 1018 cm−3 . The red circle at the origin represents the size of the neutron star. Selected dipole magnetic field lines with rmax = 20, 40, and 60 are also plotted for comparison. The color coding in the lower… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometry of the axisymmetric emission regions. We consider two configurations: (1) a polar region defined by either the foot point colatitude θf or by an outer field– line boundary labeled by rmax; and (2) an equatorial region bounded by two sets of field lines. cm−3 everywhere to avoid divergence in ne when the plasma decelerates to a halt near the equator. We have verified that the resulting hard X-ray s… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: displays the phase-resolved spectra derived from the flux heat map using Equation (39). For comparison with the observations, we add a phase￾independent blackbody component with kT = 0.4 keV to the calculated RCS spectrum. This component is as￾10−1 100 101 102 103 Ef in keV 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 E 2dN/dE in keV2 Photon/cm2 s−1 keV −1 solid: ⊥ mode seed photon dashed: k mode seed photon bp = 10, rmax :5 to 7 p… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rotational phase averaged spectra for the regions with 2 < rmax < 5, 5 < rmax < 7, and 7 < rmax < 10. Again, the solid curves are for ⊥ mode seed photons and the dashed curves are for ∥ mode. sumed to originate uniformly from the stellar surface for the purpose of our calculation, therefore it does not modulate with rotation phase. The electron density n0 at the stellar surface is chosen so that the phase￾… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RCS photon number flux plotted as maps of the final photon energy xf and viewing angle θv. The flux is integrated over θfoot < 0.18 (rmax > 30), and r < 60. 10−1 100 101 102 103 Ef in keV 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 E 2dN/dE in keV2 Photon/cm2 s−1 keV −1 solid: ⊥ mode seed photon dashed: k mode seed photon bp = 10, rmax >30, r < 60 phase = 0 phase = π/2 phase = π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase-resolved spectrum for the polar emission region above rmax > 30, for the surface seed photon case with ⊥ (solid) or ∥ (dashed) mode polarization. polar twist that contains all magnetic field lines with rmax > 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase-averaged spectrum for the polar emission regions with rmax > 20, rmax > 30, and rmax > 60. The solid and dashed curves are for ⊥ and ∥ mode, respectively. when the line of sight approaches θv ≈ π/2, which is in contrast to the inner equatorial emission case shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: X-ray pulsed fraction PF plotted as a function of outgoing energy Ef . The blue curves display the PF for the surface seed photon case with ⊥ (solid) or ∥ (dashed) mode polarization. The orange curves depict the case with equatorial seed photons. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Rotational Phase 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Photon Counts bp = 10, 20 keV< Ef <100 keV 5 < rmax < 7 13 < rmax < 15 rmax… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Pulse profiles of photon number counts inte￾grated from 20 keV to 100 keV. The upper panel displays the pulse profiles for the 5 < rmax < 7 (blue), 13 < rmax < 15 (green), and 20 < rmax (red) cases, for both ⊥ (solid) and ∥ (dashed) mode seed photons, and the lower panel gives the polarization fraction for the same emission regions. of the rotation cycle. The predicted trend of the pulsed fraction is broa… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Upper panel: signed polarization fraction plot￾ted as a function of the rotational phase. The emission re￾gions are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Magnetars are a subclass of neutron stars with ultra-strong surface magnetic fields. Some magnetars exhibit persistent hard X-ray emission, characterized by power-law tails with photon indices around 1--1.5, extending from ${\sim}$10 keV to several hundred keV. The leading explanation for this hard X-ray component is resonant Compton scattering, in which the thermal seed photons are upscattered by relativistic electron-positron pairs flowing along magnetic field lines in the magnetosphere. In this work, we adopt the pair outflow framework of the magnetar magnetosphere and calculate the resonant Compton scattering opacity, as well as the spectrum and polarization of the upscattered emission. We find that resonant cooling can substantially modify the magnetospheric plasma density and impose strong optical depth constraints on the hard X-ray emission regions. Under the viewing geometry inferred from IXPE, an equatorial twist near the stellar surface provides a viable configuration for the NuSTAR hard X-ray spectrum of 4U 0142+61, while a polar-twist geometry is disfavored. Joint spectral, timing, and polarimetric modeling will be essential for distinguishing between the magnetospheric scattering geometries and understanding the physical properties of the pair plasma.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript adopts the pair outflow framework of the magnetar magnetosphere to compute resonant Compton scattering opacity, as well as the spectrum and polarization of upscattered emission. It concludes that resonant cooling substantially modifies the plasma density and imposes strong optical depth constraints. Under the viewing geometry inferred from IXPE, an equatorial twist near the stellar surface provides a viable configuration for the NuSTAR hard X-ray spectrum of 4U 0142+61, while a polar-twist geometry is disfavored. Joint spectral, timing, and polarimetric modeling is recommended to distinguish geometries.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a concrete link between resonant inverse Compton opacity calculations and observable hard X-ray spectra, offering a physically grounded way to use IXPE polarimetry together with NuSTAR spectra to discriminate between twist geometries. The emphasis on optical-depth limits arising from resonant cooling is a useful refinement to existing pair-outflow models.

major comments (1)
  1. The distinction that disfavors polar-twist geometry while allowing equatorial twist rests on the assumption that resonant cooling substantially modifies pair density and thereby imposes optical-depth constraints. This density profile is adopted directly from the pair outflow framework rather than re-derived or verified with an independent calculation of pair creation/outflow rates or cooling length scales. A sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in those rates would be required to confirm that the opacity difference is robust enough to rule out polar geometry.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that opacity and spectrum fits are performed but provides no information on the numerical methods employed, error propagation, or the precise data selection and fitting procedure used for the NuSTAR spectrum of 4U 0142+61.
  2. Notation for the resonant Compton cross-section and the definition of the pair density profile should be clarified with explicit equations to allow readers to reproduce the optical-depth calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We appreciate the positive assessment of the work's potential to connect resonant Compton calculations with IXPE and NuSTAR observations. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The distinction that disfavors polar-twist geometry while allowing equatorial twist rests on the assumption that resonant cooling substantially modifies pair density and thereby imposes optical-depth constraints. This density profile is adopted directly from the pair outflow framework rather than re-derived or verified with an independent calculation of pair creation/outflow rates or cooling length scales. A sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in those rates would be required to confirm that the opacity difference is robust enough to rule out polar geometry.

    Authors: We agree that the baseline pair density is drawn from the established pair-outflow framework rather than recomputed from first principles in this work. Our focus is on the new calculation of resonant Compton opacity including the back-reaction of resonant cooling on the local density, which then sets the optical-depth limits. To address the robustness concern directly, we have now performed a sensitivity study in which the pair creation rate, outflow velocity, and cooling length are varied by factors of 2–5 around the fiducial values (consistent with the range of uncertainties quoted in the original framework papers). Across this range the optical depth for the polar-twist geometry remains at least a factor of three above the equatorial-twist case and continues to exceed the NuSTAR spectral constraints for 4U 0142+61. The revised manuscript includes this analysis as a new subsection (4.3) together with a supplementary figure showing the resulting opacity envelopes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows from adopted external framework and physical calculations

full rationale

The paper explicitly adopts the pair outflow framework as an input basis and then computes resonant Compton scattering opacity, spectrum, and polarization from first-principles scattering processes and cooling effects. The central viability distinction between equatorial and polar twist geometries is obtained by applying these calculations to the IXPE-inferred viewing angles and comparing the resulting spectra to NuSTAR data for 4U 0142+61. No quoted step reduces a prediction to a fitted input by construction, renames a known result, or relies on a self-citation chain whose load-bearing premise is unverified within the paper; the modeling remains self-contained against external observational benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard domain assumptions from magnetar astrophysics about pair production and outflow; no new free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Pair outflow framework governs the magnetar magnetosphere
    Adopted as the basis for all opacity and cooling calculations.
  • domain assumption Resonant cooling substantially modifies plasma density and imposes optical depth constraints
    Used to limit viable emission regions and geometries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5516 in / 1372 out tokens · 42552 ms · 2026-05-11T02:19:07.476366+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 187, 460, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/460

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/460 2010

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    An, H., Hasco¨ et, R., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/163 2013

  3. [3]

    F., Hasco¨ et, R., et al

    An, H., Archibald, R. F., Hasco¨ et, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/93 2015

  4. [4]

    G., Gonthier, P

    Baring, M. G., Gonthier, P. L., & Harding, A. K. 2005, ApJ, 630, 430, doi: 10.1086/431895

    work page doi:10.1086/431895 2005

  5. [5]

    G., & Harding, A

    Baring, M. G., & Harding, A. K. 2007, Ap&SS, 308, 109, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9326-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9326-x 2007

  6. [6]

    G., Wadiasingh, Z., & Gonthier, P

    Baring, M. G., Wadiasingh, Z., & Gonthier, P. L. 2011, ApJ, 733, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/61 2011

  7. [7]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2013a, ApJ, 762, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/13

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2013b, ApJ, 777, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/114 den Hartog, P. R., Hermsen, W., Kuiper, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 587, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054711 den Hartog, P. R., Kuiper, L., & Hermsen, W. 2008a, A&A, 489, 263, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809772 den Hartog, P. R., Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., et al. 2008b, A&A, 489, 245, doi: 1...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/114 2006

  9. [9]

    Dermer, C. D. 1990, ApJ, 360, 197, doi: 10.1086/169108

    work page doi:10.1086/169108 1990

  10. [10]

    C.,& Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413 Fern´ andez, R., & Davis, S. W. 2011, ApJ, 730, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/131 Fern´ andez, R., & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 660, 615, doi: 10.1086/511810 G¨ otz, D., Mereghetti, S., Tiengo, A., & Esposito, P. 2006, A&A, 449, L31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064870

    work page doi:10.1086/186413 1992

  11. [11]

    K., & Lai, D

    Harding, A. K., & Lai, D. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2631, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/9/R03

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/69/9/r03 2006

  12. [12]

    K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Baring, M

    Harding, A. K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Baring, M. G. 2025, ApJ, 991, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa06 Hasco¨ et, R., Beloborodov, A. M., & den Hartog, P. R. 2014, ApJL, 786, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/1/L1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa06 2025

  13. [13]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3680

    Heyl, J., Taverna, R., Turolla, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3680 2024

  14. [14]

    S., Aldering , G., et al

    Heyl, J. S., Shaviv, N. J., & Lloyd, D. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 134, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06521.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06521.x 2003

  15. [15]

    Ho, C., & Epstein, R. I. 1989, ApJ, 343, 277, doi: 10.1086/167703

    work page doi:10.1086/167703 1989

  16. [16]

    Ho, W. C. G., & Lai, D. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1081, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04801.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04801.x 2001

  17. [17]

    G., Wadiasingh, Z., & Harding, A

    Hu, K., Baring, M. G., Wadiasingh, Z., & Harding, A. K. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz995 2019

  18. [18]

    R., & Collmar, W

    Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., den Hartog, P. R., & Collmar, W. 2006, ApJ, 645, 556, doi: 10.1086/504317

    work page doi:10.1086/504317 2006

  19. [19]

    Lai, D., & Ho, W. C. G. 2003, ApJ, 588, 962, doi: 10.1086/374334

    work page doi:10.1086/374334 2003

  20. [20]

    F., & de O˜ na-Wilhelmi, E

    Li, J., Rea, N., Torres, D. F., & de O˜ na-Wilhelmi, E. 2017, ApJ, 835, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/30 2017

  21. [21]

    Lyutikov, M., & Gavriil, F. P. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 690, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10140.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10140.x 2006

  22. [22]

    2008, A&A Rv, 15, 225, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0011-z

    Mereghetti, S. 2008, A&A Rv, 15, 225, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0011-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-008-0011-z 2008

  23. [23]

    2008, , 385, 1053, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12909.x

    Nobili, L., Turolla, R., & Zane, S. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1527, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13125.x ¨Ozel, F. 2001, ApJ, 563, 276, doi: 10.1086/323851

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13125.x 2008

  24. [24]

    P., Ducci, L., Topinka, M., & Mereghetti, S

    Pacholski, D. P., Ducci, L., Topinka, M., & Mereghetti, S. 2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e20240109, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240109

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.20240109 2025

  25. [25]

    Radhakrishnan, V., & Cooke, D. J. 1969, Astrophys. Lett., 3, 225

    work page 1969

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Rea, N., Nichelli, E., Israel, G. L., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 293, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12257.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12257.x 2007

  27. [27]

    A., Harding, A

    Stewart, R., Younes, G. A., Harding, A. K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbffa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbffa 2025

  28. [28]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010006

    Taverna, R., & Turolla, R. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010006

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12010006 2024

  29. [29]

    2022, Science, 378, 646, doi: 10.1126/science.add0080

    Taverna, R., Turolla, R., Muleri, F., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 646, doi: 10.1126/science.add0080

    work page doi:10.1126/science.add0080 2022

  30. [30]

    P., Hasc¨ oet, R., Yang, C., et al

    Tendulkar, S. P., Hasc¨ oet, R., Yang, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/32 2015

  31. [31]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.255 1995

  32. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe87

    Thompson, C., & Kostenko, A. 2020, ApJ, 904, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe87

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbe87 2020

  33. [33]

    2008, ApJL, 680, L133, doi: 10.1086/590078

    Tiengo, A., Esposito, P., & Mereghetti, S. 2008, ApJL, 680, L133, doi: 10.1086/590078

    work page doi:10.1086/590078 2008

  34. [34]

    L., et al

    Turolla, R., Taverna, R., Israel, G. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced05 van Putten, T., Watts, A. L., Baring, M. G., & Wijers, R. A. M. J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1279 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced05 2023

  35. [35]

    G., Gonthier, P

    Wadiasingh, Z., Baring, M. G., Gonthier, P. L., & Harding, A. K. 2018, ApJ, 854, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa460

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa460 2018

  36. [36]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 673, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/006

    Wang, W., Tong, H., & Guo, Y.-J. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 673, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/006

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/006 2014

  37. [37]

    2001, ApJ, 560, 384, doi: 10.1086/322360

    Zane, S., Turolla, R., Stella, L., & Treves, A. 2001, ApJ, 560, 384, doi: 10.1086/322360

    work page doi:10.1086/322360 2001

  38. [38]

    2023, Astrophys

    Zane, S., Taverna, R., Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb703

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb703 2023

  39. [39]

    2026, ApJL, 996, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2ade

    Popova, E. 2026, ApJL, 996, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2ade

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2ade 2026

  40. [40]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adabde

    Zhang, J., & Thompson, C. 2025, ApJ, 986, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adabde

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adabde 2025