Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Flip-flop QPO changes during state transitions: a case study of GX339-4 and theoretical discussion

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the black hole binary GX339-4, the bright and dim flip-flop states share nearly identical X-ray spectra while swapping between a 5-6 Hz QPO and strong broadband noise, implying the corona does not change between states.

desk verdict A careful, useful observational case study of GX339-4 flip-flops; the spectral-invariance conclusion is underconstrained, but the timing results stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08718 v1 pith:57DJE4LI submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.HE

D. J. K. Buisson , G. Marcel , V. López-Barquero , S. E. Motta , S. G. D. Turner , F. M. Vincentelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinariesquasi-periodicoscillationsflip-flopsstatetransitionsaccretiondiskcoronaGX339-4broadbandnoiseNICER
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper analyzes NICER observations of the black hole X-ray binary GX339-4 during its 2021 hard-to-soft transition, where the source flip-flops between a bright state and a dim state. The central claim is that the two states have almost identical X-ray spectra (changes of at most about 10% in the soft blackbody) yet completely different variability: a 5-6 Hz Type-B QPO with low broadband noise in the bright state, and strong low-frequency broadband noise with no QPO (upper limit 3-30 times lower in power) in the dim state. The authors further find that the QPO frequency increases with count rate and hardness, and that flip-flops can occur in tens of seconds or persist for over 1000 seconds. If correct, this shows that the corona's emission properties stay fixed while its variability configuration switches, meaning the QPO turns on and off without a spectral change in the corona. The paper argues this is consistent with the corona's accretion speed crossing the sound speed, though the exact flip-flop trigger remains unknown.

What carries the argument

The central observational tool is the dynamical power spectrum computed from 8.192-second light-curve segments and sorted by time, soft count rate, or hardness; this sorting exposes the smooth QPO frequency evolution and the mutual exclusion of QPO and broadband noise. The central theoretical mechanism is the comparison between the accretion speed |u_r| and the sound speed c_s in the hot flow: QPO models based on radially propagating waves (oscillating corona models and Lense-Thirring solid-body precession) require sub-sonic flow, so a transition from |u_r| < c_s to |u_r| > c_s could switch the QPO off without changing the coronal spectrum. The paper also uses the spectral energy distribution ratio between states as the evidence that coronal properties do not change.

What would settle it

Point a hard X-ray instrument with sensitivity above 10 keV (for example NuSTAR or Insight-HXMT) at GX339-4 during a flip-flop and extract separate spectra for the bright and dim intervals: if the power-law photon index or high-energy cutoff differs between the two states, the corona has changed and the paper's central conclusion fails. Alternatively, find a single 8-second segment with both a strong 5-6 Hz QPO and strong low-frequency broadband noise at high signal-to-noise, which would break the claimed mutual exclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the 2021 outburst of GX339-4, the paper establishes that the bright and dim flip-flop states have nearly identical spectral energy distributions, with the power-law (coronal) component unchanged up to at least 10 keV and only minor soft-band blackbody differences, while their fast variability is opposite: the bright state shows a narrow 5-6 Hz Type-B QPO with low broadband noise, and the dim state shows strong low-frequency broadband noise with no QPO, at an upper limit 3-30 times lower in power than the bright-state QPO. The QPO frequency rises with both count rate and hardness, and the QPO is locally narrower (Q ~ 17) than in time-averaged spectra, indicating that its frequency drifts. The states can alternate almost 50 times in ~1200 s or remain stable for at least 1000 s, and sorting segments by count rate or hardness reveals a smooth evolution in which the QPO appears to emerge from the broadband noise. The authors conclude that the QPO and broadband noise are two rapidly interchangeable configurations of a spectrally stable corona, and that the most plausible switch is the accretion speed crossing the sound speed, because QPO models requiring wave propagation in the hot flow would fail in a supersonic regime.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the corona does not change between the bright and dim states rests on the measured 0.3-10 keV spectra being nearly identical; if the corona changed in ways that leave this band unchanged, for example through compensating changes or changes only above 10 keV, the claim that the QPO switches on and off without a coronal change would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In GX339-4, the Type-B QPO can appear and disappear in tens of seconds while the X-ray spectrum stays nearly unchanged, so the trigger for the QPO is not a spectral state change.
  • The QPO frequency is not constant but tracks count rate and hardness on short timescales, so any viable QPO model must couple the oscillation frequency to the same accretion-flow parameters that set the spectrum.
  • The dim and bright flip-flop states connect smoothly to the preceding hard and following soft-intermediate states when ordered by rate or hardness, suggesting the observational division into intermediate states may be artificial rather than physical.
  • The QPO and broadband noise are mutually exclusive during the flip-flops, and the QPO appears to emerge from the noise when segments are sorted by rate, supporting a common origin for the two variability components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed in other sources, sorting dynamical power spectra by count rate or hardness could become a diagnostic for uncovering hidden state transitions in sparse or unevenly sampled observations.
  • The sound-speed crossing scenario predicts a specific threshold: the QPO should switch off when the mass accretion rate (or a related parameter) crosses a critical value; simultaneous X-ray and radio monitoring across several outbursts could test whether this threshold is universal across black hole X-ray binaries.
  • A coronal geometry that preserves the 0.3-10 keV spectral ratio while changing its wave-propagation properties, for example a change in vertical scale height or viscosity parameter that leaves the emitted spectrum nearly fixed, would reconcile the near-identical SEDs with the variability switch; this is a testable model extension the paper does not pursue.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes NICER observations of the black hole X-ray binary GX339-4 during its 2021 outburst, focusing on the hard-to-soft transition where the source exhibits rapid flip-flops between a bright and a dim state. The main observational claims are: (i) the bright state shows a narrow 5-6 Hz Type-B QPO with weak broadband noise, while the dim state shows strong low-frequency broadband noise and no QPO, with an upper limit 3-30 times lower in QPO power; (ii) the two states have very similar SEDs, differing by at most about 10% up to 10 keV; (iii) the QPO frequency increases with count rate and hardness; and (iv) flip-flops can occur on timescales of tens of seconds, with nearly 50 state changes within ~1200 s, while both states can also remain stable for over 1000 s. The paper discusses theoretical implications, proposing that the corona's accretion speed relative to the sound speed may switch QPOs on and off, and reviews several QPO models in this context.

Significance. If correct, the central result—that the QPO and broadband noise can exchange rapidly while the 0.3-10 keV spectral energy distribution stays nearly constant—provides a strong new constraint on models of low-frequency QPOs in black hole X-ray binaries. The analysis is careful in several respects: the periodogram fitting uses a statistically appropriate exponential likelihood, includes posterior predictive checks, and the upper-limit calculation on QPO power in the dim state is well documented. The use of rate- and hardness-sorted dynamical power spectra is a useful visualization tool. However, the spectral inference is limited to the 0.3-10 keV band, and the conclusion that the corona is physically unchanged depends on the absence of degeneracy in the Comptonized emission, which is not demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 3; invoked in §4.1 and §4.3] The conclusion that the corona is spectrally unchanged between the bright and dim states rests on the near-equality of the 0.3-10 keV SEDs (Figure 3, bottom panel). However, the Comptonized power-law component in this band is degenerate under simultaneous changes of electron temperature, optical depth, and seed-photon flux: a higher kTe with lower tau can keep the 2-10 keV ratio constant to within 10% while the coronal properties change substantially. The citation to Yang et al. (2023) for harder-band coverage (footnote 4) is not sufficient, because that work uses a different flip-flop definition and does not model this degeneracy for the present state pair. Since the model discussion in Section 4.3 (especially 4.3.1 and 4.3.3) assumes unchanged coronal temperature, density, and geometry, this is a load-bearing inference. I recommend either (a) fitting a physical Comptonization model (e.g., nthcomp or eqpair) to time-resolved spectra of the two states, including any available harder X-ray data, and showing the allowed parameter ranges, or (b) explicitly weakening the conclusion to 'no spectral change detectable in the 0.3-10 keV band' and discussing the degeneracy.
  2. [§3.1, §3.4, and Fig. 5] The division of the light curve into five sections, and in particular the bright/dim classification during the transition, is performed manually and is partly informed by the same count-rate and hardness properties that are later used to sort the dynamical power spectra. This does not invalidate the observed dichotomy in the average power spectra, which is clear from the single-snapshot analysis (Fig. 6), but it does weaken the quantitative statements about 'almost 50 state changes within ~1200 s' (abstract, §3.4) and about the smooth evolution seen in the rate- and hardness-sorted dynamical power spectra (§3.3.2, §3.3.3), since a reordering by the defining variable will necessarily produce adjacency of similar states. The authors acknowledge the lack of physical grounds for the sorting, but a robustness test (e.g., varying the rate threshold, or using an objective segmentation algorithm such as a hidden Markov model) would strengthen these particular claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.2–3.3.3] The phrase 'the QPO ... emerges from the BBN' (Section 3.3.2) is a visual impression based on re-ordered data; the authors correctly label it as not a direct demonstration, but the wording in the conclusion ('These states are clearly distinguishable, as illustrated by the dynamical power spectrum sorted by soft count rate') should clarify that this is an empirical reordering rather than a physical causal sequence.
  2. [§3.4] Please state the criterion used to identify individual state changes (e.g., a count-rate threshold) and provide the light curve with the identified intervals marked; this would make the 'almost 50 state changes' claim verifiable and reproducible.
  3. [§3.7] The upper-limit calculation assumes Q=6; given that the fitted QPO width depends on hardness and rate (Section 3.6, Table B3), the factor of 3-30 in the limit could vary with the assumed Q. Please state how the limit would change for the range of fitted Q values.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. after 'Lorentzian'] The notation for the Lorentzian width is inconsistent in a few places: '𝜈w' is used in the definition, while '𝜈_w' appears in the surrounding text. Also, in Figures 4 and 6, the axis label 'Frequency × Power' should be accompanied by the normalization (rms/mean)² explicitly on the axis, not only in the caption.
  5. [§4.3.3, footnote 10] The dismissal of Marcel & Neilsen (2021)'s argument against Lense-Thirring solid-body precession is important for the viability of the proposed model; consider moving this caveat into the main text rather than a footnote, since it directly affects the interpretation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential sorting in Section 3.3; otherwise the observational chain is self-contained and the theoretical discussion is explicitly speculative.

  1. other [Section 3.3.2 (Rate sorting), Figure 5 middle panel]
    "Following the idea that QPO properties are tightly linked to the count rate of the source (e.g. Nespoli et al. 2003), we sort segments by soft(2-4keV) rate... More importantly, this figure illustrates a major characteristic of the flip-flops: when ordered by count rate, the dynamical power-spectrum draws a smooth picture of the variability."

    The sorting variable is the same soft 2-4 keV count rate that is used to separate the dim and bright states. Placing all bright, QPO-bearing segments together and all dim, BBN-dominated segments together makes the sorted dynamical power spectrum appear continuous and makes the QPO frequency appear to increase smoothly with the x-axis coordinate. The apparent QPO-rate correlation is therefore partly a restatement of the state classification rather than an independent measurement. The paper acknowledges this limitation, noting that the re-organization 'is not a direct demonstration,' and it provides independent support via single-snapshot power spectra, upper limits, and a Taylor-expansion fit of the QPO parameters, so the effect is minor and not central to the main results.

full rationale

The core observational results — the bright state showing a 5-6 Hz Type-B QPO with weak broadband noise, the dim state showing strong low-frequency BBN with no QPO (upper limit 3-30 times lower in power), nearly identical SEDs across flip-flops, and rapid state switching within a single NICER snapshot — are derived directly from the data and do not depend on any fitted theoretical model. The main self-referential element is the rate/hardness sorting in Section 3.3, where the ordering variable is the same soft count rate used to separate the dim and bright states; this makes the sorted dynamical power spectra appear artificially smooth and makes the QPO-frequency trend partly a restatement of the classification. The paper explicitly flags this as a re-organization rather than a direct demonstration, and the independent checks in Sections 3.4-3.5, 3.7, and Appendix B establish the timing dichotomy and frequency evolution without relying on the sorting. The theoretical discussion in Section 4 is clearly speculative; the appeal to Marcel & Neilsen (2021) for near-sound-speed accretion is a co-authored citation used as input to a plausibility argument, not as the basis of the reported measurements, so it is not load-bearing. Overall the central claim is self-contained against the data, and the only circularity-like element is minor and acknowledged by the authors.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational results rest on relatively few free parameters, mainly the manual state divisions and the fitted Lorentzian PSD parameters. The theoretical pressure and sound-speed arguments add several assumed disk parameters and an explicitly provisional acceptance of a co-authored model. No new particles, forces, or geometric entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Manual state-section boundaries = not quantified
    The light curve is divided into hard, bright, dim, soft-intermediate, and soft sections by eye (Section 3.1); all state-resolved results inherit this choice.
  • Type-B QPO centroid at median hardness = 5.12 Hz
    From Table B3 (hardness sorting); fitted along with width, normalization, and Taylor derivatives in the empirical PSD model.
  • Type-B QPO width at median hardness = 0.419 Hz
    Fitted Lorentzian width used in Q-factor statements and upper-limit comparisons.
  • QPO normalization at median hardness = 4.34e-4 (rms/mean)^2
    Fitted Lorentzian normalization in Table B3.
  • Broadband noise normalization at median hardness = 1.25e-4 (rms/mean)^2
    Fitted zero-centred Lorentzian noise normalization in Table B3.
  • Assumed QPO width for dim-state upper limit = Q=6
    Chosen as a round number near the fitted bright-state value to compute dim-state QPO upper limits; the limit depends on this choice.
  • Disk aspect ratio H/R = 1e-2
    Assumed lower bound in Appendix A to estimate P_rad/P_gas; affects the factor 30 but not the qualitative dominance.
  • Disk density and optical depth = n~1e22 cm^-3, tau~400
    Assumed values in Appendix A; the pressure ratio scales inversely with tau^(1/4).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption NICER default screening yields clean data without instrumental features
    Section 2 states the default screening gives a high data yield with no apparent instrumental features, but no detailed background or artifact search is presented.
  • domain assumption GX339-4 is a 10 solar mass black hole with spin a=0.94
    Appendix A relies on Heida et al. 2017, Parker et al. 2016, and Jiang et al. 2019 for mass and spin, used in ISCO and pressure estimates.
  • domain assumption The 2-10 keV band is adequate to characterize the coronal power-law component
    Section 3.2 uses NICER data up to 10 keV and cites harder-band data from Yang et al. 2023 and Liu et al. 2023 to support the coronal invariance claim.
  • domain assumption Similarity of the 0.3-10 keV SED between states implies coronal properties are unchanged
    Section 3.2 draws this inference, which drives the QPO model discussion; SED degeneracies are not modeled.
  • domain assumption Flip-flop states are intrinsic accretion states rather than variable absorption or instrument effects
    Section 4.1 distinguishes flip-flops from dips qualitatively, but no absorption model is fitted to the dim state.
  • standard math Periodogram points are exponentially distributed and independent for the PSD fits
    Appendix B assumes this likelihood and checks the empirical distribution after fitting, finding agreement within about 5%.
  • ad hoc to paper The corona's accretion speed is near the sound speed, as argued in Marcel and Neilsen 2021
    Section 4.3.1 uses this co-authored result without a new calculation to propose that QPOs vanish when the flow becomes supersonic.
  • ad hoc to paper Lense-Thirring precession configurations can produce the QPO despite Marcel and Neilsen's concerns
    Section 4.3.3 states 'we will set aside these concerns and assume that a QPO is indeed possible under these assumptions'.
  • domain assumption Radiation pressure dominates over gas pressure by a factor greater than 30 in both flip-flop states
    Appendix A estimate with assumed M, spin, H/R, density, and accretion rate; supports the instability discussion but is not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flip-flop QPO changes during state transitions: a case study of GX339-4 and theoretical discussion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57DJE4LI

@misc{pith2026250208718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flip-flop QPO changes during state transitions: a case study of GX339-4 and theoretical discussion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57DJE4LI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08718}
}
read the original abstract

We analyse the 2021 outburst from the black hole X-ray binary GX339-4 observed by NICER around the hard to soft transition, when the system exhibits flip-flops between two distinct luminosity states: a bright state with a 5-6 Hz quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) and a dim state showing only strong broadband noise. Despite the marked differences in variability patterns between these states, the spectral energy distributions remain strikingly similar, with only minor changes in the black body component in the soft X-ray range. We find that the QPO frequency correlates with the X-ray count rates and hardness, suggesting a tight coupling between the QPO mechanism and the accretion disc's spectral properties. Additionally, we demonstrate that flip-flops can occur on very short timescales, with almost 50 state changes within ~1200 s, while both states can also remain stable over longer periods (at least 1000 s). We explore various QPO models to explain these observations, including the possibility that the corona's accretion speed is near the sound speed, affecting the presence of QPOs. However, the exact mechanism driving the flip-flops and the QPOs remains unclear. Our findings emphasize the complexity of these phenomena and the necessity for further theoretical and observational studies to unravel the intricacies of QPO and flip-flop behaviours in X-ray binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves of GX339–4: Top: the long term 2-20 keV light curve from MAXI, showing several large and several smaller outbursts. The time interval in the left panels is shown shaded here. Left: The MAXI light curves (upper, coloured by energy band) and hardness ratio (lower) of the outburst considered here. The times of the forward transition shown in the right panels and the reverse transition described in the text… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The hardness-intensity diagram of the NICER data covering the forwards state transition. Colours mark the divisions described in the text. All four segments are well separated in hardness-intensity space, despite the middle two being well mixed in time. 2 3 4 6 10 E f(E) (10 ¡9e r g c m ¡2 s ¡1) 1 2 3 4 6 10 Energy (keV) 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Ratio 1 2 3 4 6 E f(E) (k e V c m ¡2 s ¡1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Mean spectral energy distributions of each state (not corrected for foreground absorption). Bottom: Ratio of given state compared to the mean of the bright and soft-intermediate states (cyan and blue, see text). In both figures, the states are shown in their usual colours: red for hard-state, orange for dim state, cyan for bright state, blue for soft-intermediate, and violet for soft-state. 10 1 10 0 10 1 Frequ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamical power-spectrum of the observations chosen in this paper. Top: sorted by time, with time gaps removed. Middle: sorted by observed soft (2 − 4 keV) count rate. Bottom: sorted by softness, i.e. ratio of soft (2 − 4 keV) to hard (4 − 10 keV) count rates. On all p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean (top, split by state) and dynamical (bottom) power spectrum of a single NICER snapshot (around NICER second 228474000). The colour scale of the lower panel is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Power spectra of two adjacent snapshots (MJDs 59302.12, cyan, and 59302.25, yellow), each in a single state. Each power spectrum is similar to the mean for its respective state but the QPO is narrower. Indices Pure bright state 28 Pure dim state 24, 29, 32 → 35, 42, 43…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper limit (black solid) on power of a QPO in the mean power spectrum of the dim state, which is always significantly below the QPO power measured during the bright state (teal). For reference, we also show the integrated broadband power during the dim state (gold hor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., Czerny B., Lasota J

    Abramowicz M. A., Czerny B., Lasota J. P., Szuszkiewicz E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..646A 332, 646

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  3. [3]

    Alabarta K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5507A 507, 5507

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2241 2021

  4. [4]

    H., Purton C

    Andrew B. H., Purton C. R., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1038/218855a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Natur.218..855A 218, 855

    work page doi:10.1038/218855a0 1968

  5. [5]

    Bellavita C., Garc \' a F., M \'e ndez M., Karpouzas K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.2099B 515, 2099

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922 2022

  6. [6]

    M., Motta S

    Belloni T. M., Motta S. E., 2016, in Bambi C., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Latest Developments. p. 61 ( @eprint arXiv 1603.07872 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_2

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Belloni T., van der Klis M., Lewin W. H. G., van Paradijs J., Dotani T., Mitsuda K., Miyamoto S., 1997a, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...322..857B 322, 857

  8. [8]

    R., van der Klis M., van Paradijs J., 1997b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479L.145B 479, L145

    Belloni T., M \'e ndez M., King A. R., van der Klis M., van Paradijs J., 1997b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479L.145B 479, L145

    doi:10.1086/310595

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Belloni T., Psaltis D., van der Klis M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572..392B 572, 392

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    Bogensberger D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.101B 641, A101

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    T., Chubb T

    Bowyer S., Byram E. T., Chubb T. A., Friedman H., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1038/2011307a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964Natur.201.1307B 201, 1307

    1964 doi

  4. [13]

    Casella P., Belloni T., Homan J., Stella L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...426..587C 426, 587

    2004 doi

  5. [14]

    Casella P., Belloni T., Stella L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..403C 629, 403

    2005 doi

  6. [15]

    E., Belloni T

    De Marco B., Motta S. E., Belloni T. M., 2022, in , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. p. 58, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_129-1

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    Done C., Gierli \'n ski M., Kubota A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&ARv..15....1D 15, 1

    2007 doi

  8. [17]

    Dunn R. J. H., Fender R. P., K \"o rding E. G., Belloni T., Cabanac C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16114.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403...61D 403, 61

    2010

  9. [18]

    A., Narayan R., Ostriker E., Yi I., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465..312E 465, 312

    Esin A. A., Narayan R., Ostriker E., Yi I., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465..312E 465, 312

    1996 doi

  10. [19]

    Ferreira J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A..66F 660, A66

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    J., Fenton A

    Francey R. J., Fenton A. G., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1038/216773a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967Natur.216..773F 216, 773

    1967 doi

  13. [22]

    R., Lasota J

    Frank J., King A. R., Lasota J. P., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&A...178..137F 178, 137

    1987

  14. [23]

    J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

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

    2002

  15. [24]

    Garc \' a F., Karpouzas K., M \'e ndez M., Zhang L., Zhang Y., Belloni T., Altamirano D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.4196G 513, 4196

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CAMCS...5...65G 5, 65

    2010 doi

  17. [26]

    G., Torres M

    Heida M., Jonker P. G., Torres M. A. P., Chiavassa A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa85df , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..132H 846, 132

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    M., Wade C

    Hjellming R. M., Wade C. M., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...168L..21H 168, L21

    1971 doi

  19. [28]

    Homan J., Wijnands R., van der Klis M., Belloni T., van Paradijs J., Klein-Wolt M., Fender R., M \'e ndez M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJS..132..377H 132, 377

    2001 doi

  20. [29]

    Homan J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L..29H 891, L29

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    R., Motta S

    Ingram A. R., Motta S. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NewAR..8501524I 85, 101524

    2019

  22. [31]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397L.101I 397, L101

    Ingram A., Done C., Fragile P. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397L.101I 397, L101

    2009

  23. [32]

    Janiuk A., Czerny B., Siemiginowska A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542L..33J 542, L33

    2000 doi

  24. [33]

    C., Wang J., Walton D

    Jiang J., Fabian A. C., Wang J., Walton D. J., Garc \' a J. A., Parker M. L., Steiner J. F., Tomsick J. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1972J 484, 1972

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Kalamkar M., Homan J., Altamirano D., van der Klis M., Casella P., Linares M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731L...2K 731, L2

    2011 doi

  26. [35]

    Kalamkar M., van der Klis M., Heil L., Homan J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..144K 808, 144

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    M., Altamirano D., Blaes O., Garc \' a F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1399K 492, 1399

    Karpouzas K., M \'e ndez M., Ribeiro E. M., Altamirano D., Blaes O., Garc \' a F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1399K 492, 1399

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Kotov O., Churazov E., Gilfanov M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04769.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.327..799K 327, 799

    2001

  29. [38]

    Kuulkers E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A..32K 552, A32

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    A., Darbro W., Elsner R

    Leahy D. A., Darbro W., Elsner R. F., Weisskopf M. C., Sutherland P. G., Kahn S., Grindlay J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..160L 266, 160

    1983 doi

  31. [40]

    P., Eardley D

    Lightman A. P., Eardley D. M., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187L...1L 187, L1

    1974 doi

  32. [41]

    Liu H., Jiang J., Zhang Z., Bambi C., Ji L., Kong L., Zhang S., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.4308L 513, 4308

    doi

  33. [42]

    X., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..108L 938, 108

    Liu H. X., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..108L 938, 108

    doi

  34. [43]

    Liu H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acca17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950....5L 950, 5

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..679L 292, 679

    Lyubarskii Y. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..679L 292, 679

    1997 doi

  36. [45]

    Marcel G., Neilsen J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcbf9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...906..106M 906, 106

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    Marcel G., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..57M 615, A57

    doi

  38. [47]

    Marcel G., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A..46M 617, A46

    doi

  39. [48]

    Matsuoka M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASJ...61..999M 61, 999

    2009 doi

  40. [49]

    C., Anderson J., Blankenship A., Li H., Nalewajko K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac938b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...31M 939, 31

    Mishra B., Fragile P. C., Anderson J., Blankenship A., Li H., Nalewajko K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac938b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...31M 939, 31

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    Miyamoto S., Kimura K., Kitamoto S., Dotani T., Ebisawa K., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...383..784M 383, 784

    1991 doi

  42. [51]

    C., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140..460M 140, 460

    Morton D. C., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140..460M 140, 460

    1964 doi

  43. [52]

    Motta S., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Casella P., Belloni T., Homan J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2292M 418, 2292

    2011

  44. [53]

    M., Hiemstra B., M \'e ndez M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22037.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..595M 427, 595

    Motta S., Homan J., Mu \ n oz Darias T., Casella P., Belloni T. M., Hiemstra B., M \'e ndez M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22037.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..595M 427, 595

    2012

  45. [54]

    E., Franchini A., Lodato G., Mastroserio G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..431M 473, 431

    Motta S. E., Franchini A., Lodato G., Mastroserio G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..431M 473, 431

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NewAR..9301618M 93, 101618

    Motta S. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NewAR..9301618M 93, 101618

    2021

  47. [56]

    M., Lewin W

    Nespoli E., Belloni T., Homan J., Miller J. M., Lewin W. H. G., M \'e ndez M., van der Klis M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...412..235N 412, 235

    2003 doi

  48. [57]

    Nixon C., King A., Price D., Frank J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757L..24N 757, L24

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03668.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.318..361N 318, 361

    Nowak M. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03668.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.318..361N 318, 361

    2000

  50. [59]

    E., Matsumoto R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697...16O 697, 16

    Oda H., Machida M., Nakamura K. E., Matsumoto R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697...16O 697, 16

    2009 doi

  51. [60]

    Papaloizou J. C. B., Pringle J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.202.1181P 202, 1181

    1983 doi

  52. [61]

    Q., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..378P 610, 378

    Park S. Q., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..378P 610, 378

    2004 doi

  53. [62]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821L...6P 821, L6

    Parker M. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821L...6P 821, L6

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    O., Ferreira J., Henri G., Malzac J., Foellmi C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...522A..38P 522, A38

    Petrucci P. O., Ferreira J., Henri G., Malzac J., Foellmi C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...522A..38P 522, A38

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    Psaltis D., Norman C., 2000, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000astro.ph..1391P pp astro--ph/0001391

    2000 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44...49R 44, 49

    2006 arXiv

  57. [66]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  58. [67]

    S a dowski A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.4397S 459, 4397

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    R., Choi C

    Sriram K., Rao A. R., Choi C. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...541A...6S 541, A6

    2012 doi

  60. [69]

    R., Choi C

    Sriram K., Rao A. R., Choi C. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...67S 823, 67

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    Stella L., Vietri M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhRvL..82...17S 82, 17

    1999 doi

  62. [71]

    M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524L..63S 524, L63

    Stella L., Vietri M., Morsink S. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524L..63S 524, L63

    1999 doi

  63. [72]

    Stiele H., Kong A. K. H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522..268S 522, 268

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    Stiele H., Yu W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3666S 452, 3666

    2015 doi

  65. [74]

    Takizawa M., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..272T 489, 272

    1997 doi

  66. [75]

    E., Sivakoff G

    Tetarenko B. E., Sivakoff G. R., Heinke C. O., Gladstone J. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222...15T 222, 15

    2016 doi

  67. [76]

    R., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14336....1T 14336, 1

    Tremou E., Corbel S., Fender R., Woudt P., Miller-Jones J., Motta S., Sivakoff G. R., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14336....1T 14336, 1

    2021

  68. [77]

    Turner S. G. D., Reynolds C. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504..469T 504, 469

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    Turner S. G. D., Reynolds C. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2287T 525, 2287

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    Uttley P., Klein-Wolt M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451..475U 451, 475

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    M., Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08886.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359..345U 359, 345

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08886.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359..345U 359, 345

    2005

  72. [81]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.615...45V 615, 45

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.615...45V 615, 45

    2023 doi

  73. [82]

    E., Swank J

    White N. E., Swank J. H., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253L..61W 253, L61

    1982 doi

  74. [83]

    Wijnands R., Homan J., van der Klis M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526L..33W 526, L33

    1999 doi

  75. [84]

    Xu Y., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879...93X 879, 93

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    Yang Z.-X., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.3570Y 521, 3570

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    Yuan F., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..529Y 52, 529

    2014 doi

  78. [87]

    Zhang L., Wang Y., M \'e ndez M., Chen L., Qu J., Altamirano D., Belloni T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..143Z 845, 143

    2017 doi

  79. [88]

    Zhang L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3823Z 505, 3823

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    Zhang Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5638Z 527, 5638

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    van der Klis M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA&A..27..517V 27, 517

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.