Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 90 references

Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This chapter establishes that the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer, the first mission designed for systematic 2–8 keV X-ray polarimetry, delivered calibrated polarization measurements across a wide range of cosmic sources, and that those

desk verdict A solid, informative IXPE mission review that does what it claims—the one genuine soft spot is the unquantified in-flight stability of the spurious modulation that underpins the low-polarization upper limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17375 v1 pith:VM3WYWBA submitted 2026-07-19 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Brian Ramsey (1) , Paolo Soffitta (2) , Martin C. Weisskopf (1) ((1) NASA-MSFC , (2) INAF-IAPS) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarimetryIXPEgaspixeldetectorphotoelectrontrackimagingmodulationfactorpulsarwindnebulaeblack-holebinariesactivegalacticnuclei
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 argues that IXPE is the first mission designed to carry out a systematic study of X-ray polarization in the 2–8 keV band, and that after three and a half years it has done so for roughly 110 targets. The load-bearing point is a calibration result: the telescope's mirrors do not alter the detectors' polarization response, and the detectors' small position-dependent spurious modulation (about 0.2%) is stable and can be subtracted. If that calibration holds, the mission's polarization measurements are reliable, and the science results — ordered magnetic fields in pulsar wind nebulae, disk-parallel coronae around black holes, low polarization in accreting pulsars, torus geometry in active galaxies — stand. The chapter is a status report that makes the case that X-ray polarimetry has moved from a photon-starved technique to a working survey tool.

What carries the argument

The key object is the gas pixel detector (GPD), a proportional counter that images photoelectron tracks produced when X-ray photons are absorbed in dimethyl ether. Because the initial photoelectron direction tracks the photon's electric-field vector, each event carries a polarization measurement; event moments estimate emission direction, impact point, and energy. The modulation factor quantifies the detector's response to 100% polarized light, and the minimum detectable polarization scales inversely with it. The calibration chain is the other load-bearing element: mirror-module and detector calibrations were shown at telescope level to combine without altering the polarization response, and

What would settle it

Repeated in-flight measurements of the unpolarized flood calibration source, extracted as Stokes Q and U maps, should show no drift beyond the calibrated uncertainty. If the spurious-modulation pattern changes by more than about 0.2% over time, or if an independently predicted unpolarized source (e.g., a thermal-dominated soft state) shows residual polarization above statistics after subtraction, the calibration assumption fails and the low-polarization results are biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The chapter's central claim is that IXPE's three imaging telescopes, each combining a Wolter-1 mirror module with a gas pixel detector that images photoelectron tracks, deliver calibrated 2–8 keV polarization measurements across many source classes. The telescope-level calibration showed that the mirror modules leave the detector polarization response unchanged, so the extensive component calibrations can be combined to describe the flight telescopes, and the detector's position-dependent spurious modulation — typically 0.2%, of undetermined exact origin — is stable and removed via Stokes-parameter subtraction. On this basis, the paper reports the first systematic survey results: high polari

Load-bearing premise

The entire science case rests on the detector's small built-in polarization response—roughly 0.2%, of unknown exact origin—staying constant enough that it can be measured before launch and subtracted from every observation; if it changed, the faintest signals would be false.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured polarization fractions in the Vela, Crab, and MSH 15–52 nebulae approach the synchrotron limit, implying magnetic fields in these nebulae are far more ordered than turbulence-dominated models predicted.
  • Black-hole X-ray binaries in the hard state show polarization angles parallel to their radio jets, supporting slab-like coronae over lamppost geometries; similar alignment in Seyfert galaxies suggests accretion geometry scales with black-hole mass.
  • For accreting X-ray pulsars, IXPE finds polarization degrees of order 10–15%, far below the predicted 80–100%, indicating the accretion environment is more complex than idealized models.
  • The 31%±11% polarization of the Sgr A* molecular-cloud complex, with an angle consistent with Sgr A* as the illuminator, implies a past flare of Seyfert-level luminosity roughly 200 years ago if the geometry is right.
  • IXPE's upper limits on low-synchrotron-peaked blazars, together with optical flares reaching 45%, favor leptonic over hadronic models of jet emission in those sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration assumption holds, then the same subtraction logic could be applied to future missions, but the unknown physical origin of the ~0.2% spurious modulation, attributed tentatively to the gas electron multiplier, suggests that future polarimeters should instrument or screen the GEM to eliminate or model this term at the hardware level.
  • Beyond the paper, the calibration result that mirror reflection does not perturb polarization at IXPE's graze angles is a license for future missions to calibrate optics and detectors separately, but it also sets a floor on how well the systematic must be known before percent-level astrophysics can be claimed.
  • If the spurious-modulation map were to drift over the extended mission, the lowest-signal results — sub-3% polarization degrees and upper limits — would need to be re-derived; a public re-analysis using on-board unpolarized flood sources would settle this directly.
  • The gap between predicted and measured polarization in accreting pulsars invites a testable extension: phase-resolved spectropolarimetry at higher energies should show whether the reduction comes from atmospheric temperature inversions or beam-pattern complexity.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This is a status-review chapter for the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE). It describes the mission's scientific motivation; the top-level MDP99 and angular-resolution requirements; the payload (three nickel/cobalt Wolter-I mirror module assemblies, gas-pixel detector units, a deployable boom, and a tip/tilt/rotate stage); the ground calibration program; launch and commissioning; science operations; a digest of science highlights through mid-2025; and the current observatory status. The chapter's central claims are that IXPE is the first mission designed for systematic 2-8 keV X-ray polarimetry, that the ground calibration successfully synthesizes the flight telescope response (specifically, that the mirror module assembly does not alter the detector's polarization response), and that the calibrated data support the results summarized in Section 1.7.

Significance. The chapter is an overview rather than an original derivation, and its strength lies in being a compact, authoritative reference: it collects the design requirements, the calibration philosophy, target lists, and a wide selection of published IXPE results, each traceable to peer-reviewed papers. The MDP99 formula is the standard sensitivity expression, and the science tables largely carry uncertainties and limits from the cited literature. The absence of a new derivation makes circularity concerns inapplicable. If the calibration caveats are addressed, the chapter will be a reliable citable reference for IXPE's design, operations, and results. The principal risk is calibration-stability support: several low-polarization measurements and upper limits depend on subtracting an imperfectly understood spurious modulation, and the text does not yet quantify the in-flight stability of that map.

major comments (1)
  1. [1.3.1.4 and 1.6.2] The spurious-modulation stability is load-bearing but unquantified. Section 1.3.1.4 asserts that the position-dependent spurious modulation (typically about 0.2%) is 'very stable' and fully calibrated out for later removal from flight data, while Section 1.6.2 states that the Level-2 pipeline subtracts 'percent-level' spurious modulation maps and that the exact cause 'has never been accurately determined.' These statements underpin the reliability of the low-PD values and upper limits in Tables 1.5-1.9 and Section 1.7 (e.g., GX 339-4 SS <=1.2%, Swift J1727.8-1613 SS <1.2%, LMC X-1 <2.5%, and the AGN limits). The chapter only says that the on-board flood sources 'permit checks for any changes' in spurious modulation, but no in-flight drift limit, monitoring cadence, or statistical precision is reported. Because a drift as small as ~0.1% is comparable to several of the quoted limits, the a
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1.1)] The MDP expression is typeset ambiguously; the standard form is MDP = (4.29/(mu * R_s * t)) * sqrt((R_s + R_b) * t). Please add parentheses and avoid the unusual '4.29 x 10^2%' notation.
  2. [1.3.1.1] The text refers to 'Table??' for the key parameters of the optical configuration, but no such table is present. In addition, Tables 1.2 and 1.3 both have the title 'GPD Parameters'; one of them appears to be the missing mirror-module table.
  3. [1.8 / final note] The text says 'at the time of writing (Summer 2025)' but the final note mentions an award in November 2025. Please harmonize the dates or label the final note as a later addendum.
  4. [Table 1.4] The target list contains duplicate or inconsistent entries: 1ES 1959+650 appears twice, Swift J1727.8-1613 appears twice, PSR J1023 is listed in two forms, and 1E 2259+586 (a magnetar) appears in the blazar list. Please clean up the table.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'selection selection', 'Insituto', 'Calibraton', 'changed particle background', 'BeforeIXPE', and 'that that'. A full editorial pass is needed.
  6. [1.7.4.2] The Sgr A* complex result, PD = 31% +/- 11%, is only a ~3-sigma detection and the subsequent observation adds complexity. Please present this as a candidate result rather than a firm measurement, or clearly cite the later re-interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the chapter is an instrument review; its only equation is the standard MDP formula, and its calibration/science claims rest on independent measurements and peer-reviewed analyses rather than on inputs that define the conclusions.

full rationale

This is an instrument-and-mission review chapter, not a derivation chain, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The only formula, Eq. (1.1) for MDP, is the standard sensitivity expression and is not used to derive any of the quoted source polarizations. The calibration claim that 'the presence of the MMA in no way altered the polarization response of the detectors' (Sec. 1.3.1.4) is presented as an empirical comparison between telescope-level and detector-level measurements, with details cited to Ramsey et al. (2025); even though that reference shares authors with this chapter, it is a peer-reviewed calibration measurement that is externally checkable, not a self-referential proof. The science highlights in Sec. 1.7 cite a large body of independent, peer-reviewed IXPE data papers; their conclusions are observations of flight data, not outputs of a model fitted inside this chapter. The noted caveat about the ~0.2% spurious modulation being 'very stable' and calibrated out while its 'exact cause... has never been accurately determined' (Secs. 1.3.1.4, 1.6.2) is a legitimate support gap that could affect low-polarization measurements, but it is an empirical risk, not a circularity: no quoted result is equal by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-cited theorem. Accordingly, the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The chapter introduces no new physics. Its central facts rest on standard polarimetry formulas, the physical principle of photoelectron-track polarimetry, and calibration assumptions validated by the mission team. The main burden is the stability and correct subtraction of spurious modulation.

free parameters (3)
  • Quantum efficiency drift rate = approximately -2% per year (linear)
    Derived from on-board calibration source rates and Monte Carlo; used to correct flight data (Section 1.6.2, item 1).
  • Modulation factor drift rate = approximately +0.3% per year
    Derived from the same calibration data; used to track polarization sensitivity over the mission (Section 1.6.2, item 1).
  • Spurious modulation level = ~0.2%, position-dependent
    Measured in ground calibration and subtracted in the Stokes pipeline; its stability is load-bearing for all low-polarization measurements (Sections 1.3.1.4 and 1.6.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The MDP formula (Eq. 1.1) correctly gives the 99% minimum detectable polarization for a Poisson source/background process.
    Standard result in X-ray polarimetry; used to set the top-level sensitivity requirement (Section 1.2.1).
  • domain assumption The initial direction of the photoelectron is the direction of the electric field of the absorbed photon, so measuring tracks gives the polarization.
    Physical basis of the gas pixel detector; invoked in Section 1.3.1.2 without derivation.
  • domain assumption K-shell photoelectric interactions provide the high modulation required, and DME's K-shell edge below the band makes it the chosen fill gas.
    Design logic in Section 1.2.2.2.
  • domain assumption The spurious modulation is stable in time and can be fully removed by calibration.
    Explicitly stated as stable but with unknown cause in Section 1.3.1.4; load-bearing for all polarization science.
  • domain assumption The mirror module assembly does not alter the detector polarization response.
    Validated with the flight-spare telescope calibration (Section 1.3.1.4); treated as valid for the flight units.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VM3WYWBA

@misc{pith2026260717375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VM3WYWBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17375}
}
read the original abstract

In 1971 a group from Columbia University detected polarized X rays from the Crab Nebula at about 3 sigma level during a short sounding rocket flight (Novick et al. (1972)). This measurement, later confirmed to high precision (greater than 20 sigma) by the OSO-8 satellite in 1976/77 (Weisskopf et al. (1978)) marks the real beginning of astrophysical X-ray polarimetry. Since then and before the launch of IXPE, surprisingly few additional measurements had been made. X-ray polarimetry is a demanding field of study. To achieve per-cent-level polarization sensitivity, the collection of more than 1E6 photons in a polarization-sensitive detector is required. As most cosmic X-ray sources are much fainter than the Crab, to do a systematic study of the X-ray sky demands a highly-sensitive payload and a dedicated mission. Further, as the expected polarization will vary with location in extended sources, such as supernovae and pulsar wind nebula, it is vital that the polarimeter should be imaging. First proposed in its current form in 2007, and selected for funding in 2017, the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) fits this bill. In this chapter we describe: the design and construction of the IXPE payload and spacecraft; its testing and launch; commissioning activities; science operations and; a high-level overview of IXPE science to date. Finally, we conclude with the current status of the Observatory (as of 2025) and prospects for continued operations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJ, 985, L15, doi:10

    Agudo, I., Liodakis, I., Otero-Santos, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, L15, doi:10. 3847/2041-8213/adc572

    2025

  2. [2]

    2021, Astroparticle Physics, 133, 102628, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys

    Baldini, L., Barbanera, M., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2021, Astroparticle Physics, 133, 102628, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys. 2021.102628

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    2003, in Proc

    Bellazzini, R., Angelini, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2003, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 4843, 383

    2003

  4. [4]

    V., Di Marco, A., et al

    Bobrikova, A., Forsblom, S. V., Di Marco, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A170, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449318

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449318 2024

  5. [5]

    D., Kolodziejczak, J

    Bongiorno, S. D., Kolodziejczak, J. J., Kilaru, K., et al. 2021, in Optics for

    2021

  6. [6]

    EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy X, ed. S. L. O’Dell, J. A. Gaskin, & G. Pareschi, Vol. 11822, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 189 – 200, doi:10.1117/12.2594316

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2594316

  7. [7]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    Bucciantini, N., Ferrazzoli, R., Bachetti, M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8 2023

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 89, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade87d 1 Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer 41

    Chakraborty, S., Ratheesh, A., Tagliacozzo, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 89, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade87d 1 Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer 41

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade87d 2025

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Stark, R

    Connors, P . A., & Stark, R. F. 1977, Nature, 269, 128, doi:10.1038/ 269128a0

    1977

  2. [10]

    D., Kalinowski, W., Head, M., et al

    Deininger, W. D., Kalinowski, W., Head, M., et al. 2022, in 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO), 1–16, doi:10.1109/AERO53065.2022. 9843233 Di Marco, A., La Monaca, F., Bobrikova, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, L47, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada7f8

    2022

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 677, A57, doi:10

    Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., Heyl, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A57, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202347088 Dovˇciak, M., Podgorn´y, J., Svoboda, J., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 54, doi:10. 3390/galaxies12050054

    2023

  4. [12]

    2015, A&A Rev., 23, 3, doi:10.1007/ s00159-015-0083-5

    Dubner, G., & Giacani, E. 2015, A&A Rev., 23, 3, doi:10.1007/ s00159-015-0083-5

    2015

  5. [13]

    1935, Naturwissenschaften, 23, 246, doi:10.1007/ BF01493898

    Euler, H., & Kockel, B. 1935, Naturwissenschaften, 23, 246, doi:10.1007/ BF01493898

    1935

  6. [14]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 1774, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf859

    Ewing, M., Parra, M., Mastroserio, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1774, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf859

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R

    Fabian, A. C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R. R., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 540, doi:10. 1038/nature08007

    2009

  8. [16]

    2014, Astronomical X-Ray Polarimetry (Aracne)

    Fabiani, S., & Muleri, F. 2014, Astronomical X-Ray Polarimetry (Aracne)

    2014

  9. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3726

    Farinelli, R., Fabiani, S., Poutanen, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3726

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, Journal of Astronomi- cal Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 048002, doi:10.1117/1

    Ferrazzoli, R., Muleri, F., Lefevre, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomi- cal Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 048002, doi:10.1117/1. JATIS.6.4.048002

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 52, doi:10

    Ferrazzoli, R., Slane, P ., Prokhorov, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 52, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/acb496

    2023

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 967, L38, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4a68

    Ferrazzoli, R., Prokhorov, D., Bucciantini, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, L38, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4a68

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    V., Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S

    Forsblom, S. V., Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, L20, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc391

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Kim, D

    Gianolli, V. E., Kim, D. E., Bianchi, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4468, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1697

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Bianchi, S., Kammoun, E., et al

    Gianolli, V. E., Bianchi, S., Kammoun, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A29, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451645 Gonz´alez-Caniulef, D., Heyl, J., Fabiani, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A152, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451815 Gonz´alez-Caniulef, D., Zane, S., Turolla, R., & Wu, K. 2019, MNRA...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, MNRAS, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stad3680

    Heyl, J., Taverna, R., Turolla, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stad3680

    2023

  17. [25]

    2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 1047, doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02295-8 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M

    Heyl, J., Doroshenko, V., Gonz´alez-Caniulef, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 1047, doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02295-8 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 147, doi:10.1126/science.aat2890 42 Brian Ramsey, Paolo Soffitta and Mart...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5437, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2625

    Ingram, A., Ewing, M., Marinucci, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5437, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2625

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi:10

    Ingram, A., Bollemeijer, N., Veledina, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    2024

  20. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04862, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.04862

    Khabibullin, I., Churazov, E., Ferrazzoli, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04862, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.04862

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Liodakis, I., Fenu, F., et al

    Kouch, P . M., Liodakis, I., Fenu, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A99, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202453127

    2025

  23. [31]

    2025, A&A, 701, A115, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555411

    Kravtsov, V., Bocharova, A., Veledina, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A115, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555411

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi:10.1126/science.add5399 La Monaca, F., Fabiani, S., Lefevre, C., et al

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dov ˇciak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi:10.1126/science.add5399 La Monaca, F., Fabiani, S., Lefevre, C., et al. 2021, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakaza...

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 095004, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad6edf

    Ling, Y.-S., Xie, F., Ge, M.-Y., & La Monaca, F. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 095004, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad6edf

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    V., Tsygankov, S

    Loktev, V., Forsblom, S. V., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A22, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554151

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, L76, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad148

    Majumder, S., Kushwaha, A., Das, S., & Nandi, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, L76, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad148

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Nature, 619, 41, doi:10

    Marin, F., Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 41, doi:10. 1038/s41586-023-06064-x

    2023

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02061, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.02061

    Marin, F., Marinucci, A., Laurenti, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02061, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.02061

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5907, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2634

    Marinucci, A., Muleri, F., Dovciak, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5907, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2634

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, A&A, 684, A95, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348277

    Marra, L., Brigitte, M., Rodriguez Cavero, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A95, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348277

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    P ., Di Gesu, L., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P ., Di Gesu, L., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 50, doi:10.3390/galaxies12040050

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Ng, M., Rogantini, D., et al

    Marshall, H. L., Ng, M., Rogantini, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 70, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ac98c2

    2022

  34. [42]

    L., Liodakis, I., Marscher, A

    Marshall, H. L., Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 74, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5671

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    C., et al

    Mastroserio, G., De Marco, B., Baglio, M. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, L19, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9913 1 Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer 43

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    A., & Weisskopf, M

    M`esz`aros, P ., Novick, R., Szentgyorgyi, A., Chanan, G. A., & Weisskopf, M. C. 1988, ApJ, 324, 1056, doi:10.1086/165962

    1988 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, ApJ, 942, L10, doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/aca281

    Middei, R., Liodakis, I., Perri, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L10, doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/aca281

    2023

  38. [46]

    K., & Nandi, A

    Mondal, S., Chatterjee, R., Agrawal, V. K., & Nandi, A. 2024, PASA, 41, e072, doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.58

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Muleri, F., Lefevre, C., Piazzolla, R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.- W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 106995C, do...

    2018

  40. [48]

    A., Suleimanov, V

    Mushtukov, A. A., Suleimanov, V. F., Tsygankov, S. S., & Poutanen, J. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1847, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2484

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Tsygankov, S

    Mushtukov, A. A., Tsygankov, S. S., Poutanen, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2004, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1961

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Berthelsdorf, R., Linke, R., & Wolff, R

    Novick, R., Weisskopf, M. C., Berthelsdorf, R., Linke, R., & Wolff, R. S. 1972, ApJ, 174, L1

    1972

  43. [51]

    S., Chatterjee, R., & Agrawal, V

    Pal, I., Stalin, C. S., Chatterjee, R., & Agrawal, V. K. 2023, Journal of Astro- physics and Astronomy, 44, 87, doi:10.1007/s12036-023-09981-5

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, A&A, 697, A182, doi:10

    Pal, I., Marchesi, S., Torres-Alb`a, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A182, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202453641

    2025

  45. [53]

    2025, A&A, 694, A37, doi:10

    Papitto, A., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A37, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202451775 Podgorn´y, J., Marra, L., Muleri, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5964, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stad3103 Podgorn´y, J., Svoboda, J., Dovˇciak, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L12, doi:10. ...

    2025

  46. [54]

    2020, A&A, 641, A166, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202038689

    Poutanen, J. 2020, A&A, 641, A166, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202038689

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    S., & Forsblom, S

    Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S. S., & Forsblom, S. V. 2024a, Galaxies, 12, 46, doi:10.3390/galaxies12040046

    doi

  48. [56]

    S., Doroshenko, V., et al

    Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S. S., Doroshenko, V., et al. 2024b, A&A, 691, A123, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450696

    doi

  49. [57]

    A., Yang, Y.-J., Ferrazzoli, R., et al

    Prokhorov, D. A., Yang, Y.-J., Ferrazzoli, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A59, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452062

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

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

    1969

  51. [59]

    D., Bongiorno, S

    Ramsey, B. D., Bongiorno, S. D., Kolodziejczak, J. J., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 024003, doi:10. 1117/1.JATIS.8.2.024003

    2022

  52. [60]

    D., Kolodziejczak, J

    Ramsey, B. D., Kolodziejczak, J. K., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 5, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add327

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    F., et al

    Rankin, J., Muleri, F., Tennant, A. F., et al. 2021, arXiv, arXiv:2111.14867. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.14867

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    2021, A&A, 655, A96, doi:10

    Ratheesh, A., Matt, G., Tombesi, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A96, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202140701 44 Brian Ramsey, Paolo Soffitta and Martin C. Weisskopf

    2021

  55. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 77, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad226e

    Ratheesh, A., Dov ˇciak, M., Krawczynski, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 77, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad226e

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    2025, ApJ, 985, L34, doi:10

    Rigoselli, M., Taverna, R., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, L34, doi:10. 3847/2041-8213/adbffb Rodriguez Cavero, N., Marra, L., Krawczynski, H., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.10630, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.10630

    2025 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    W., Wong, J., Di Lalla, N., et al

    Romani, R. W., Wong, J., Di Lalla, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 23, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/acfa02 Słowikowska, A., Kanbach, G., Kramer, M., & Stefanescu, A. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 103, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14935.x

    2023

  58. [66]

    2021, AJ, 162, 208, doi:10.3847/ 1538-3881/ac19b0

    Soffitta, P ., Baldini, L., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 208, doi:10.3847/ 1538-3881/ac19b0

    2021

  59. [67]

    F., & Connors, P

    Stark, R. F., & Connors, P . A. 1977, Nature, 266, 429

    1977

  60. [68]

    F., Nathan, E., Hu, K., et al

    Steiner, J. F., Nathan, E., Hu, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, L30, doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/ad58e4

    2024

  61. [69]

    A., Harding, A

    Stewart, R., Younes, G. A., Harding, A. K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, L35, doi:10. 3847/2041-8213/adbffa

    2025

  62. [70]

    F., et al

    Svoboda, J., Dov ˇciak, M., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 960, 3, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ad0842 —. 2024b, ApJ, 966, L35, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad402e

    doi

  63. [71]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4735, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2627

    Tagliacozzo, D., Marinucci, A., Ursini, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4735, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2627

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    2022, Science, 378, 646, doi:10

    Taverna, R., Turolla, R., Muleri, F., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 646, doi:10. 1126/science.add0080

    2022

  65. [73]

    E., Baumgartner, W

    Thomas, N. E., Baumgartner, W. H., Bongiorno, S. D., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12679, Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI, ed. S. L. O’Dell, J. A. Gaskin, G. Pareschi, & D. Spiga, 126790U, do...

    2023

  66. [74]

    Thompson, C., Lyutikov, M., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2002, ApJ, 574, 332, doi:10. 1086/340586

    2002

  67. [75]

    2024, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1069, 169881, doi:10.1016/ j.nima.2024.169881

    Tomaiuolo, C., Manfreda, A., Orsini, L., & Tugliani, S. 2024, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1069, 169881, doi:10.1016/ j.nima.2024.169881

    2024

  68. [76]

    S., Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., et al

    Tsygankov, S. S., Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, L14, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca486

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    S., Doroshenko, V., Mushtukov, A

    Tsygankov, S. S., Doroshenko, V., Mushtukov, A. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A48, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346134

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    L., et al

    Turolla, R., Taverna, R., Israel, G. L., et al. 2023, ApJ Accepted, arXiv:2308.01238, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.01238

    2023 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 50, doi:10

    Ursini, F., Marinucci, A., Matt, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 50, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stac3189

    2023

  72. [80]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 43, doi:10

    Ursini, F., Gnarini, A., Capitanio, F., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 43, doi:10. 3390/galaxies12040043 1 Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer 45

    2024

  73. [81]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01174, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.01174 —

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01174, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.01174 —. 2024a, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi:10.1038/ s41550-024-02294-9

    2023 doi arXiv

  74. [82]

    2024b, A&A, 688, L27, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

    Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., Bocharova, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 688, L27, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

    doi

  75. [83]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 40, doi:10

    Vink, J., Prokhorov, D., Ferrazzoli, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 40, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ac8b7b

    2022

  76. [84]

    C., Silver, E

    Weisskopf, M. C., Silver, E. H., Kestenbaum, H. L., Long, K. S., & Novick, R. 1978, ApJ, 220, L117, doi:10.1086/182648

    1978 doi

  77. [85]

    W., & Dinsmore, J

    Wong, J., Romani, R. W., & Dinsmore, J. T. 2023, ApJ, 953, 28, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/acdc1d

    2023

  78. [86]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 172, doi:10

    Wong, J., Mizuno, T., Bucciantini, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 172, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ad6309

    2024

  79. [87]

    2022, Nature, 612, 658, doi:10

    Xie, F., Di Marco, A., La Monaca, F., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 658, doi:10. 1038/s41586-022-05476-5

    2022

  80. [88]

    2023, ApJ, 944, L27, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb703

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

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 18, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 774/1/18

    Zhang, H., & B ¨ottcher, M. 2013, ApJ, 774, 18, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 774/1/18

    2013 doi

  82. [90]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 55, doi:10

    Zhou, P ., Prokhorov, D., Ferrazzoli, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 55, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/acf3e6

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.