Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Discovery and Identification of MAXI J1621-501 as a Type I X-ray Burster with a Super-Orbital Period

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MAXI J1621-501 is identified as a neutron-star X-ray burster whose ~78-day recurring brightening matches the predicted ~82-day radiative precession period of its warped accretion disk.

desk verdict A well-observed new Type I burster with a credible but not yet statistically secured ~78-day super-orbital period claim; the paper deserves peer review, but the referee should demand a formal significance test. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03590 v2 pith:4NUOGZZJ submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.HE

Nicholas M. Gorgone , Chryssa Kouveliotou , Hitoshi Negoro , Ralph A. M. J. Wijers , Enrico Bozzo , Sylvain Guiriec , Peter Bult , Daniela Huppenkothen
show 21 more authors
Ersin Gogus Arash Bahramian Jamie Kennea Justin D. Linford James Miller-Jones Matthew G. Baring Paz Beniamini Deepto Chakrabarty Jonathan Granot Charles Hailey Fiona A. Harrison Dieter H. Hartmann Wataru Iwakiri Lex Kaper Erin Kara Simona Mazzola Katsuhiro Murata Daniel Stern John A. Tomsick Alexander J. van der Horst George A. Younes
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords MAXIJ1621-501TypeIX-raybursterlow-massbinaryneutronstarsuper-orbitalperiodradiativeprecessiontransientsaccretiondiskwarping
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 reports the discovery and identification of MAXI J1621-501, an X-ray transient found by MAXI on 2017 October 19, as a neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary: 24 Type I X-ray bursts from NuSTAR, MAXI, INTEGRAL, and NICER unambiguously show thermonuclear burning on a neutron star. Its persistent X-ray spectrum is a three-component absorbed model (blackbody at $kT\approx2.3$ keV, cutoff power law with photon index $\Gamma\approx0.7$, and an iron line near 6.3 keV), and no pulsations or orbital period are found. The central new claim is that the source's light curve is episodic, with six brightening peaks separated on average by $\approx78$ days, which matches the ~82-day radiative precession period predicted by the Wijers & Pringle disk-warping model for the estimated system parameters. If true, J1621 joins a small group of X-ray binaries with super-orbital periods, making it a test case for how irradiated warped disks precess and modulate accretion. The paper supports the intrinsic nature of the modulation by showing that nearby field sources lack it and that several independent instruments track the episodes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radiative precession formula from Wijers & Pringle (1999), $$P_\Gamma = 82\,\mathrm{d}\,\alpha_{-1}^{-4/5}(\epsilon/0.2)^{-1} L_{X,36.5}^{-0.3}(P_{\rm orb}/12\,\mathrm{h})^{2/3}(M_T/2\,M_\odot)^{1/3},$$ which gives the retrograde precession period of an accretion disk tilted and warped by irradiation from the central X-ray source and driven by the companion's tidal torque. The paper compares this predicted period to the average spacing of local maxima in the MAXI light curve, finding $\sim78$ days versus $\sim82$ days. A second load-bearing piece is the MAXI image-fit background subtraction, which removes a 72.14-day sinusoidal component attributed to ISS orbital precession and checks the two nearby sources for the same modulation to rule out an instrumental origin.

What would settle it

Compute a trial-corrected periodogram of the full MAXI/GSC light curve with a more flexible background model: if no significant peak near 78 days survives, or the peak shifts to the 72.14-day ISS precession period after improved background subtraction, the super-orbital interpretation fails. A future outburst sequence whose episode spacing is clearly inconsistent with the radiative-precession prediction would also test the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MAXI J1621-501 is a neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary: 24 Type I X-ray bursts detected over 15 months prove the accretor is a neutron star, with the first two bursts seen by NuSTAR. The persistent 2–10 keV spectrum is best described by an absorbed blackbody plus a cutoff power law plus a Lorentzian iron line near 6.3 keV, with no coherent pulsations and no measured orbital period. The MAXI/GSC light curve shows six distinct activity episodes whose local maxima are separated on average by $\sim78$ days. Because the neighboring sources 4U 1624–490 and 4U 1608–52 do not show a similar modulation, and because Swift/XRT, NICER, NuSTAR, and INTEGRAL independently track the same episodes, the paper argues the modulation is intrinsic to J1621. Using the radiative-precession model of Wijers & Pringle with an orbital period of 3–20 h, a companion mass of 0.3–1 $M_\odot$, a distance upper limit of 5 kpc, and a 1.4 $M_\odot$ neutron star, the predicted precession period is $\sim82$ days, close to the observed $\sim78$ days. Thus the paper identifies J1621 as a new member of the small class of X-ray binaries with super-orbital periods.

Load-bearing premise

The ~78-day spacing is real source modulation rather than a by-product of the subtracted 72.14-day background sinusoid, sampling gaps, or an unknown instrumental effect; the paper gives no formal significance for the period.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ~78-day period is radiative precession, J1621 becomes a new member of the small class of X-ray binaries with super-orbital periods, supporting the warped-disk precession picture.
  • The six recurring activity episodes imply that, while the source is active, further brightening episodes can be anticipated roughly every 50–90 days rather than at a strictly fixed phase.
  • The 24 Type I X-ray bursts firmly establish a neutron star accretor, making J1621 a target for burst-based distance measurements and neutron-star equation-of-state studies.
  • The spectral softening near episodic minima and the hard-to-soft evolution across episodes tie spectral state to super-orbital phase, offering a way to test the precession geometry.
  • The agreement of MAXI, Swift/XRT, NICER, NuSTAR, and INTEGRAL light curves indicates the modulation is intrinsic to the source rather than an artifact of any single instrument.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 78-day rhythm is confirmed with more data, J1621 offers a rare chance to constrain binary parameters without pulsations or eclipses: inverting the precession formula yields joint constraints on orbital period, X-ray luminosity, and companion mass.
  • The apparent similarity of episodes 1 and 4 and of episodes 2 and 5 hints at a possible ~304-day secondary cycle; a longer monitoring campaign could test whether the super-orbital modulation is itself amplitude-modulated.
  • Because MAXI covers the whole sky every ~90 minutes, the same background-subtracted search could uncover further super-orbital modulations in other faint Galactic-plane transients, turning a single-object claim into a population test.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery and multi-wavelength follow-up of the X-ray transient MAXI J1621-501. The authors identify the source as a neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary based on the detection of 24 Type I X-ray bursts by MAXI, INTEGRAL, NuSTAR, and NICER. Persistent emission is characterized spectrally with a blackbody, cutoff power law, and an iron emission feature, and timing searches find no coherent pulsations and only a marginal QPO candidate. The paper's central new claim is a roughly 78-day modulation in the MAXI light curve, which the authors interpret as a super-orbital period and compare with an approximately 82-day radiative-precession period predicted from the Wijers and Pringle (1999) model. The Type I burst identification and source classification rest on robust multi-instrument evidence, but the super-orbital period claim is supported mainly by an arithmetic mean of six episode spacings with no formal periodicity significance.

Significance. If the 78-day modulation is real and source-intrinsic, MAXI J1621-501 would be a valuable addition to the small class of neutron-star LMXBs with super-orbital periods, and the comparison with radiative precession would be an interesting test of disk-warping models. The paper's strengths include a well-documented multi-instrument campaign, a solid identification of the source as a Type I X-ray burster via 24 bursts detected with four instruments, and careful treatment of spectral systematics through extensive simulations. The thermonuclear burst interpretation is credible, with plausible blackbody temperatures and radii. However, the super-orbital period claim is currently not established at the level implied by the title and abstract: the quoted 78-day period lacks a significance estimate and is derived from a small number of variable episode spacings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2] The claimed ~78-day super-orbital period is derived as the unweighted arithmetic mean of the intervals between six local maxima in Fig. 1, with no quoted uncertainty, no periodogram, no epoch-folding analysis, and no false-alarm probability. Since Section 5 states that individual modulations vary from ~50 to ~90 days and the MAXI data span only ~470 days, a mean of six spacings does not by itself establish a coherent periodicity. This is load-bearing because the title and abstract present the ~78-day period as a measured quantity that agrees very well with the predicted 82-day precession period. Please add a formal period search on the background-subtracted MAXI light curve, with a trial-corrected significance and a period uncertainty, or explicitly rephrase the claim as a tentative quasi-periodicity.
  2. [Section 2.1] The MAXI background model removes a 72.14-day sinusoidal component attributed to ISS orbital precession before the ~78-day modulation is identified; the closeness of these periods means the quoted period could be partly shaped by the assumed background subtraction. The nearby-source comparison in Fig. 2 is a useful check, but it does not exclude source-dependent sampling, imperfect subtraction of the 72.14-day component, or a spurious grouping of quasi-independent outbursts. Please demonstrate robustness of the 78-day feature, for example by repeating the period search with the 72.14-day component left in the data and with its amplitude and phase perturbed within plausible uncertainties.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (2)] The predicted 82-day radiative-precession period is evaluated at middle-of-range parameter values, but the text quotes wide ranges: P_orb = 3-20 h, L_X = 0.45-5.98 x 10^36 erg/s, and a total mass from a 0.3-1 solar-mass companion plus a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star. Propagating these ranges through Eq. (2) yields a predicted interval of roughly 55-100 days, which overlaps the observed 50-90 day spread of episode spacings. The paper should quote the propagated uncertainty on the predicted period and compare the full predicted range with the observed distribution of spacings, rather than comparing only the mean observed value with a single predicted value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] There is a typo in the description of the JEM-X burst search: 'the bust was identified' should read 'the burst was identified.'
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption reads 'do not display the ∼ 78 days modulation'; the grammar should be 'do not show the ~78-day modulation.'
  3. [Section 3.4] The candidate QPO at 113 seconds has a trial-corrected significance of only p = 0.05 and is not confirmed in Swift data; the text handles this appropriately, but the candidate could be described even more clearly as a non-detection for the purposes of the paper's conclusions.
  4. [Section 5] The 'hot free-electron halo' invoked to explain the INTEGRAL hard X-ray behavior is not independently constrained by the data presented here; if this interpretation is retained, it should be explicitly labeled as speculative rather than presented as a derived component.
  5. [Section 2.5] The sentence 'We used ciao v4.9.3 repro and dmstat commands to centroid the source with a 20 pixel radius' is missing a verb and should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ~78-day period is measured from the light curve, and the ~82-day precession period is an independent evaluation of the WP99 formula using IR-derived system parameters, not a fit to the observed period.

full rationale

The paper's central new result is the identification of a ~78-day modulation in MAXI J1621-501 and its interpretation as a radiative-precession super-orbital period. The observed period is derived in Section 3.2 as the arithmetic mean of intervals between local maxima in the MAXI light curve, which is an independent measurement; it is not taken from the precession formula. The predicted period is computed in Section 5 from Eq. 2 of WP99, using system parameters (orbital period 3-20 h, companion mass 0.3-1 Msun, neutron star mass 1.4 Msun, distance upper limit 5 kpc and corresponding luminosity range) that come from IR data and standard assumptions. The observed 78 days is never inserted into Eq. 2, and no parameter is adjusted to force agreement. Although WP99 is co-authored by R. Wijers, a member of the present team, it is a published, externally testable theoretical model whose assumptions do not include the 78-day period; self-citation alone is not circularity. The nearby-source comparison in Figure 2 and the multi-instrument consistency in Figure 3 further support that the modulation is source-intrinsic rather than an artifact of the 72.14-day ISS background sinusoid subtracted in Section 2.1, which was estimated from pre-outburst data (MJD 57000-57999). The absence of a formal significance estimate for the 78-day modulation is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity. The claim would be stronger with a periodogram or epoch-folding test, but the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main observational identification, Type I bursts from a neutron star, rests on standard physics and is strongly supported by data. The super-orbital period claim and its theoretical interpretation carry more assumptions: a specific background subtraction, unpublished orbital and distance inputs, and the WP99 precession model with chosen central parameter values.

free parameters (5)
  • Orbital period P_orb = 12 h = 12 h (assumed central value)
    Used in Eq. 2 to compute the predicted 82-day precession period. The paper cites an unpublished IR analysis giving a 3-20 hour range and adopts 12 h as the middle value.
  • X-ray luminosity L_X = 10^36.5 erg/s = 10^36.5 erg/s (assumed central value)
    Used in Eq. 2. Derived from a distance upper limit of 5 kpc that comes from Bahramian et al., in preparation; the quoted range spans 0.45-5.98e36 erg/s.
  • Total mass M_T = 2 solar masses = 2 solar masses (assumed central value)
    Used in Eq. 2, assuming a 1.4 solar mass neutron star plus a companion in the 0.3-1 solar mass range.
  • Disk viscosity parameter alpha = 0.1 = alpha_-1 = 1
    Normalization choice in Eq. 2; not measured in this paper.
  • Accretion efficiency epsilon = 0.2 = 0.2
    Standard neutron-star value used in Eq. 2 to convert X-ray luminosity to mass accretion rate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wijers and Pringle radiative precession model, including its outer disk radius prescription, describes super-orbital periods in LMXBs.
    Equation 2 is taken from WP99 and is used to predict the 82-day period. If this model does not apply to J1621, the super-orbital interpretation is unsupported.
  • domain assumption The orbital period range of 3-20 hours and the distance upper limit of 5 kpc from Bahramian et al., in preparation, are correct.
    These unpublished values set the normalization of Eq. 2 and are not independently verifiable from the present preprint.
  • ad hoc to paper A 72.14-day sinusoidal component in the MAXI background is entirely due to ISS orbital precession and was correctly subtracted.
    Section 2.1 subtracts this component. The claim that the residual 78-day modulation is intrinsic depends on this subtraction being valid.
  • domain assumption Type I X-ray bursts are thermonuclear flashes on the surface of a neutron star.
    Standard astrophysical interpretation used to classify J1621 as a neutron-star LMXB.
  • domain assumption The neutron star has a canonical mass of 1.4 solar masses and radius of 10 km.
    Used in Eq. 2 and in the burst radius estimate from INTEGRAL data.
invented entities (1)
  • Hot free-electron halo around the neutron star
    purpose: Invoked in Section 5 to explain the rapid hard X-ray rise and drop seen by INTEGRAL during one episode.
    The paper attributes the hard X-ray behavior to inverse Compton scattering in a hot electron halo, but no independent detection or direct constraint is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery and Identification of MAXI J1621-501 as a Type I X-ray Burster with a Super-Orbital Period." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4NUOGZZJ

@misc{pith2026190803590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery and Identification of MAXI J1621-501 as a Type I X-ray Burster with a Super-Orbital Period},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4NUOGZZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03590}
}
abstract

MAXI J1621-501 is the first Swift/XRT Deep Galactic Plane Survey transient that was followed up with a multitude of space missions (NuSTAR, Swift, Chandra, NICER, INTEGRAL, and MAXI) and ground-based observatories (Gemini, IRSF, and ATCA). The source was discovered with MAXI on 2017 October 19 as a new, unidentified transient. Further observations with NuSTAR revealed 2 Type I X-ray bursts, identifying MAXI J1621-501 as a Low Mass X-ray Binary (LMXB) with a neutron star primary. Overall, 24 Type I bursts were detected from the source during a 15 month period. At energies below 10 keV, the source spectrum was best fit with three components: an absorbed blackbody with kT = 2.3 keV, a cutoff power law with index $\Gamma{}$ = 0.7, and an emission line centered on 6.3 keV. Timing analysis of the X-ray persistent emission and burst data has not revealed coherent pulsations from the source or an orbital period. We identified, however, a super-orbital period $\sim{}$78 days in the source X-ray light curve. This period agrees very well with the theoretically predicted radiative precession period of $\sim{}$82 days. Thus, MAXI J1621-501 joins a small group of sources characterized with super-orbital periods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z I#jc <+iV_N?Y t= yi)

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    K., Westergaard , N

    An , H., Madsen , K. K., Westergaard , N. J., et al. 2014, in , Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 91441Q

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    No Time for Dead Time: Use the Fourier Amplitude Differences to Normalize Dead-time-affected Periodograms

    Bachetti , M., & Huppenkothen , D. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.09700

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    A., Cook , R., et al

    Bachetti , M., Harrison , F. A., Cook , R., et al. 2015, , 800, 109

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    A., Evans , P

    Bahramian , A., Kennea , J. A., Evans , P. A., et al. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10874

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11067

    Bult , P., Gorgone , N., Younes , G., Kouveliotou , C., & Harrison , F. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11067

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Bult , P., Arzoumanian , Z., Cackett , E. M., et al. 2018 a , , 859, L1

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    2018 b , , 860, L9

    Bult , P., Altamirano , D., Arzoumanian , Z., et al. 2018 b , , 860, L9

    work page 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    V., Grebenev , S

    Chelovekov , I. V., Grebenev , S. A., Mereminskiy , I. A., & Prosvetov , A. V. 2017, Astronomy Letters, 43, 781

    2017

  3. [11]

    A., et al

    Chenevez , J., Alizai , K., Lepingwell , V. A., et al. 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11272

    2018

  4. [12]

    J., & Swank , J

    Christian , D. J., & Swank , J. H. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 109, 177

    1997

  5. [13]

    2003, , 411, L53

    Courvoisier , T., Walter , R., Beckmann , V., et al. 2003, , 411, L53

    2003

  6. [14]

    2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 1

    Done , C., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Kubota , A. 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 1

    2007

  7. [15]

    S., Elston , R., Raines , S

    Eikenberry , S. S., Elston , R., Raines , S. N., et al. 2004, in , Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 1196--1207

    2004

  8. [16]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2009, , 397, 1177

    2009

  9. [17]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  10. [18]

    K., & Keek , L

    Galloway , D. K., & Keek , L. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1712.06227

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2014, , 782, 76

    Garc \' a , J., Dauser , T., Lohfink , A., et al. 2014, , 782, 76

    2014

  12. [20]

    C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P

    Gendreau , K. C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P. W., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 99051H

    2016

  13. [21]

    Gerend , D., & Boynton , P. E. 1976, , 209, 562

    1976

  14. [22]

    S., & Nagata , T

    Glass , I. S., & Nagata , T. 2000, Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa, 59, 110

    2000

  15. [23]

    R., Tyler , L

    Goad , M. R., Tyler , L. G., Beardmore , A. P., et al. 2007, , 476, 1401

    2007

  16. [24]

    2017 a , in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#16, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 105.22

    Gorgone , N., Kouveliotou , C., & Baring , M. 2017 a , in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#16, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 105.22

    2017

  17. [25]

    2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11317

    Gorgone , N., Kouveliotou , C., Younes , G., & Kennea , J. 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11317

    2018

  18. [26]

    2017 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 10969

    Gorgone , N., Younes , G., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2017 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 10969

    2017

  19. [27]

    2013, , 770, 32

    Guiriec , S., Daigne , F., Hasco \"e t , R., et al. 2013, , 770, 32

    2013

  20. [28]

    u ver , T., \

    G \"u ver , T., \"O zel , F., Cabrera-Lavers , A., & Wroblewski , P. 2010, , 712, 964

    2010

  21. [29]

    A., Craig , W

    Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103

    2013

  22. [30]

    2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10869

    Hashimoto , T., Negoro , H., Ueno , S., et al. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10869

    2017

  23. [31]

    L., Migliari , S., & Balm , P

    Huppenkothen , D., Bachetti , M., Stevens , A. L., Migliari , S., & Balm , P. 2016, Stingray: Spectral-timing software , Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1608.001

    2016

  24. [32]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen , D., Bachetti , M., Stevens , A. L., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.07681

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101

    1993

  26. [34]

    P., Lavocat , P., et al

    Lebrun , F., Leray , J. P., Lavocat , P., et al. 2003, , 411, L141

    2003

  27. [35]

    A., Fiocchi , M., Chenevez , J., et al

    Lepingwell , V. A., Fiocchi , M., Chenevez , J., et al. 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11252

    2018

  28. [36]

    Lewin , W. H. G., van Paradijs , J., & Taam , R. E. 1993, , 62, 306

    1993

  29. [37]

    J., et al

    Lund , N., Budtz-J rgensen , C., Westergaard , N. J., et al. 2003, , 411, L231

    2003

  30. [38]

    2009, , 61, 999

    Matsuoka , M., Kawasaki , K., Ueno , S., et al. 2009, , 61, 999

    2009

  31. [39]

    2011, , 63, S623

    Mihara , T., Nakajima , M., Sugizaki , M., et al. 2011, , 63, S623

    2011

  32. [40]

    1989, , 41, 97

    Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., Nakamura , N., & Tanaka , Y. 1989, , 41, 97

    1989

  33. [41]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, S11

    Morii, M., Yamaoka, H., Mihara, T., Matsuoka, M., & Kawai, N. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, S11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psw007

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Austin , G

    Murray , S. S., Austin , G. K., Chappell , J. H., et al. 2000, in , Vol. 4012, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III, ed. J. E. Truemper & B. Aschenbach , 68--80

    2000

  35. [43]

    1999, in Star Formation 1999, ed

    Nagashima , C., Nagayama , T., Nakajima , Y., et al. 1999, in Star Formation 1999, ed. T. Nakamoto , 397--398

    1999

  36. [44]

    2003, in , Vol

    Nagayama , T., Nagashima , C., Nakajima , Y., et al. 2003, in , Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 459--464

    2003

  37. [45]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, S1

    Negoro, H., Kohama, M., Serino, M., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, S1. + http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psw016

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    2012, in , Vol

    Prigozhin , G., Gendreau , K., Foster , R., et al. 2012, in , Vol. 8453, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V, 845318

    2012

  39. [47]

    A., & McClintock , J

    Remillard , R. A., & McClintock , J. E. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 49

    2006

  40. [48]

    2006, , 456, 917

    Romano , P., Campana , S., Chincarini , G., et al. 2006, , 456, 917

    2006

  41. [49]

    Roming , P. W. A., Hunsberger , S. D., Nousek , J. A., et al. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 727, Gamma-Ray Bursts: 30 Years of Discovery, ed. E. Fenimore & M. Galassi , 651--654

    2004

  42. [50]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  43. [51]

    J., Teuben , P

    Sault , R. J., Teuben , P. J., & Wright , M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw , H. E. Payne , & J. J. E. Hayes , 433

    1995

  44. [52]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  45. [53]

    2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1528

    Sood , R., Farrell , S., O'Neill , P., & Dieters , S. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1528

    2007

  46. [54]

    1994, , 434, 570

    Titarchuk , L. 1994, , 434, 570

    1994

  47. [55]

    2011, , 63, 397

    Tomida , H., Tsunemi , H., Kimura , M., et al. 2011, , 63, 397

    2011

  48. [56]

    2003, , 411, L131

    Ubertini , P., Lebrun , F., Di Cocco , G., et al. 2003, , 411, L131

    2003

  49. [57]

    1989, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, ed

    van der Klis , M. 1989, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, ed. H. \"O gelman & E. P. J. van den Heuvel , Vol. 262, 27

    1989

  50. [58]

    2010, , 402, 307

    Vaughan , S. 2010, , 402, 307

    2010

  51. [59]

    A., Ferland , G

    Verner , D. A., Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., & Yakovlev , D. G. 1996, , 465, 487

    1996

  52. [60]

    Wijers , R. A. M. J., & Pringle , J. E. 1999, , 308, 207

    1999

  53. [61]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/542/i=2/a=914

    2000

  54. [62]

    E., Ferris , R

    Wilson , W. E., Ferris , R. H., Axtens , P., et al. 2011, , 416, 832

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.