Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 134 references

Optical and hard X-ray emission move in opposite directions in the black hole transient Swift J1727.8–1613, while the QPO delay stays flat at ~60–80 ms across 2–150 keV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:29 UTC pith:BNZCJWJN

load-bearing objection Solid timing work with a new hard-X-ray energy dimension, but the headline optical anti-correlation with hard X-rays is not yet established—it could be an artifact of the soft-hard lag in the time-domain DCF. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28852 v1 pith:BNZCJWJN submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Energy-dependent Optical/Near-infrared and X-ray Correlations in Swift J1727.8-1613

Ruican Ma , Federico Vincentelli , Diego Altamirano , Alexandra Veledina , Poshak Gandhi , Piergiorgio Casella , Tariq Shahbaz , Sian Woahene-Demehin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords black hole X-ray binariesquasi-periodic oscillationsoptical/X-ray cross-correlationComptonisationaccretion flowjetstiming analysisSwift J1727.8-1613
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper analyzes simultaneous optical, near-infrared, and broadband X-ray timing of the black hole transient Swift J1727.8–1613 in its hard-intermediate state. It reports that all three optical/IR bands track the soft X-rays, but the optical bands switch to a strong anti-correlation against the hardest X-rays (27–150 keV) — a sign flip reported here for the first time. At the quasi-periodic oscillation frequency, the optical delay is nearly constant at ~60–80 ms across the entire 2–150 keV band. The authors argue this complex coupling requires multiple Comptonisation regions, with the optical anti-correlation tied to a hot-flow component and the flat QPO delay pointing to a geometric origin rather than energy-dependent Comptonisation.

Core claim

The central claim is that the optical/near-infrared emission of Swift J1727.8–1613 is coupled to at least two distinct X-ray components. Cross-correlation shows the infrared K_s, optical i_s, and optical g_s bands all positively correlated with 2–10 keV X-rays, while i_s and g_s anti-correlate with 27–150 keV X-rays — the first reported hard-X-ray anti-correlation of its kind. Frequency-resolved lags strengthen the point: the broadband noise shows an optical lead that grows with X-ray energy, whereas the QPO lag is flat at ~0.18π rad (~60–80 ms) from 2 to 150 keV. The authors interpret the energy dependence as evidence for multiple Comptonisation regions and the flat QPO lag as a geometric,

What carries the argument

The analysis hinges on discrete correlation functions and Fourier cross-spectra (coherence, phase lag, time lag) computed between optical/IR and X-ray light curves split into narrow energy bands, plus a lag–energy spectrum across 2–150 keV. The key observational identity is the near-constant QPO phase lag of ~0.18π rad across the full X-ray band, which is used to argue that the QPO delay is set by geometry, while the energy-dependent broadband lags trace distinct Comptonisation components.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation rests on the assumption that the hard-X-ray anti-correlation seen in the discrete correlation function is a genuine broadband component and not an artifact created by the mixing of the quasi-periodic oscillation's phase lag with the underlying variability.

What would settle it

Simulate light curves consisting of a coherent QPO with a known phase lag plus broadband noise, run them through the same DCF pipeline, and check whether a spurious hard-X-ray anti-correlation dip appears at the optical lag. Alternatively, filter the X-ray light curve to remove the QPO band and re-compute the DCF: a real anti-correlation should persist.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Optical emission must be driven by at least two separate X-ray components, not a single reprocessing or jet channel.
  • The hard-X-ray anti-correlation, if real, provides a new diagnostic for the hot-flow synchrotron self-Compton component and may be common in other black hole transients observed with hard X-ray coverage.
  • A flat QPO lag up to 150 keV rules out energy-dependent Comptonisation delays as the dominant QPO timing mechanism in this source, favoring precession of a hot flow or jet.
  • The wavelength dependence (infrared positive correlation versus optical anti-correlation at hard X-rays) maps a transition from jet-dominated to hot-flow-dominated OIR emission.
  • The steep high-energy decline of the QPO-modulated absolute rms disfavors a simple unbroken jet synchrotron spectrum, constraining the emitting particle distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the QPO lag is geometric, extending the same lag–energy measurement to different QPO frequencies (and thus different radii) could map the size and precession profile of the inner flow, a testable prediction of Lense-Thirring precession models.
  • The paper's decomposition of the DCF into broadband anti-correlation plus additive QPO modulation could be tested with simulated light curves; if the anti-correlation survives QPO filtering, the multiple-Comptonisation reading is secure.
  • A natural extension is to look for the same optical–hard-X-ray anti-correlation in other black hole transients with simultaneous OIR and hard X-ray coverage; its presence would link the phenomenon to state and spectral hardness rather than to source-specific geometry.
  • The flat QPO lag across energy implies that the optical and hard-X-ray QPO modulations are produced in the same geometric frame; polarimetric QPO-phase measurements could directly check for a precessing emitter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength timing analysis of the black hole transient Swift J1727.8–1613 using simultaneous Insight-HXMT (2–150 keV), ULTRACAM (g_s, i_s) and HAWK-I (K_s) observations on 2023 September 9. Power spectra show a ~1.4 Hz QPO in the X-ray bands and marginal QPOs in i_s and K_s. The discrete correlation functions (DCFs) show positive OIR–LE correlations for all three bands, while g_s and i_s show an anti-correlation with the HE band. Cross-spectral analysis yields an i_s QPO lag of ~60–80 ms relative to the X-rays that is approximately constant from 2 to 150 keV, while the LFBN and HFBN lags show strong energy dependence. The authors interpret the energy-dependent coupling as evidence for multiple Comptonisation regions, with the QPO originating from a geometric process.

Significance. If the hard-X-ray anti-correlation is established, this is a new observational result for this source and would provide a strong constraint on the coupling of optical synchrotron emission to a hard Comptonising component. The near-flat QPO phase lag across 2–150 keV is also striking and, if robust, supports a geometric origin rather than energy-dependent Comptonisation delays. The paper uses standard, carefully applied timing tools; the QPO lag values are internally consistent (71±7 ms vs LE, 67±6 ms vs HE). Its main limitation is that the central DCF claim is presented without significance estimates or tests against the trivial model in which the optical band is correlated only with the soft X-rays.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 3] The central 'strong anti-correlation' of i_s and g_s with HE is reported without confidence intervals, bootstrap, or Monte Carlo significance. The only quoted uncertainty is half a DCF bin for the peak lag. This is insufficient to support a 'first time' claim. Please provide DCF uncertainties (e.g., bootstrap on segments, or simulations preserving each band's PDS and the observed LE–HE coherence) and state the significance of the anti-correlation dips, including a quantitative comparison with the LE DCF.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 7] The paper does not rule out the null hypothesis that the optical–HE anti-correlation arises purely from the hard–soft lag. Since HE lags LE by a phase that can approach π at low frequencies, any optical component that is positively correlated with LE will appear anti-correlated with HE in a time-domain DCF that mixes all Fourier frequencies. The spectral 'harder-when-brighter' behaviour in Fig. 6 is not a timing decomposition. Please simulate the null model (e.g., optical light curve = a*LE(t) + noise, possibly with the observed QPO and lag) and compare the resulting optical–HE DCF with Fig. 3. This is load-bearing for the multiple-Comptonisation interpretation.
  3. [§4.1, right panel of Fig. 4] The interpretation that the DCF consists of a broadband anti-correlated component plus an additive coherent QPO component is not tested quantitatively. The text itself concedes (Section 3.3) that the HE-referenced lag spectra 'may also be interpreted' as a QPO lag on a broadband lag. The authors should fit this two-component model to the cross-spectrum or phase-lag versus frequency, or perform an injection-recovery simulation, and show that the observed DCF is reproduced. Without this, the flat QPO lag and the separate anti-correlated component are not independently established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'delayed optical anti-correlation' is unclear; specify that the anti-correlation appears at small positive lags and quantify it in the text.
  2. [§3.2] The DCF peak lags are quoted without uncertainties; state the bin size and whether the only uncertainty is half a bin, and give errors in the text rather than only in the figures.
  3. [§3.4] The energy sub-bands overlap between instruments (e.g., 7–11 keV in both LE and ME). Clarify whether these are independent measurements or a consistency check, and how errors were propagated.
  4. [Fig. 8] The power-law fit to the QPO absolute-rms spectrum is quoted with a slope (-1.61±0.14) but the fit range and method are not given; please provide details.
  5. [§4.1] The statement that an approximately constant phase lag close to -0.5π rad would produce the anti-correlation is not obviously consistent with the LFBN phase lag varying from about -0.1π rad to -0.6π rad with energy in §3.4; please clarify what is meant.
  6. [Throughout] The paper uses 'DCF' and 'CCF' interchangeably; define the acronyms at first use and use a consistent term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the central lag and anti-correlation claims are direct measurements, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's headline results — the optical anti-correlation with the hard X-ray band and the ~60–80 ms flat QPO lag across 2–150 keV — are obtained directly from DCFs and cross-spectra of the observed light curves (Sections 3.2–3.4), not from a fitted model that is then relabelled as a prediction. No equation in the paper defines the output in terms of an input parameter fitted to the same data; there is no equivalent-input/output step to exhibit. The self-citations (Vincentelli et al. 2025; Ma et al. 2025; Veledina et al. 2018, 2021) are used for data-reduction details and for interpretive context, and the central numbers do not reduce to those references. Section 4.1's decomposition of the DCF into a broadband anti-correlated component plus a coherent QPO modulation is an interpretation, and the paper itself notes in Section 3.3 that the lag spectra 'may also be interpreted as consisting of a QPO phase lag superimposed on an underlying broadband lag component'; however, an untested or ambiguous decomposition is a statistical-validity concern, not circular reasoning. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled via citation, or renaming of a known result as a new derivation is present. The only mild issue is reliance on earlier papers by overlapping authors for pipeline and model context, but that reliance is not load-bearing for the measured lag values.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central measurements are phenomenological; they do not introduce ad hoc parameters in a derivation. The fitted QPO parameters and hand-picked frequency bands are standard analysis choices. The interpretive weight is carried by external hot-flow/jet models and by the assumption that HE X-rays trace the same variability component across 2–150 keV.

free parameters (4)
  • QPO centroid frequency (ν_c) per band = i_s: 1.36±0.04 Hz; LE: 1.392±0.008 Hz
    Fitted with Lorentzians to define the QPO integration range and compare OIR/X-ray QPO periods (Section 3.1).
  • QPO FWHM per band = Resulting integration band 1.22–1.58 Hz
    Used to compute QPO lags; choosing ν_c±FWHM affects the quoted lag values (Section 3.3).
  • LFBN/HFBN frequency intervals = 0.05–0.2 Hz; 4–5 Hz
    Chosen by hand to minimise contamination from the QPO fundamental and harmonics; the energy-dependent lag results depend on these intervals (Section 3.3).
  • Power-law index of X-ray QPO absolute-rms spectrum = -1.61±0.14
    Fit to measured QPO absolute rms versus energy; used to argue against an unbroken jet-synchrotron origin for the hard X-ray QPO (Section 4.2).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Poisson noise can be estimated and subtracted in each band, and HXMT small-FOV background is negligible.
    Required to trust the PDS and cross-spectral amplitudes (Section 3.1 and footnote 1).
  • domain assumption The variability is stationary over the 0.99–2.34 ks simultaneous intervals.
    PDS and DCF are averaged over the whole observation; no segment-to-segment stability test is shown.
  • domain assumption The HE (27–150 keV) band is dominated by Comptonisation and is a cleaner probe of the hot flow/jet than softer bands.
    Intro, Section 1; the anti-correlation interpretation depends on associating HE with hot-flow Comptonisation rather than with reflection or a separate jet component.
  • domain assumption The hot-flow SSC and jet internal-shock models (Veledina et al. 2011, 2013a; Malzac et al. 2018) are valid descriptions of OIR/X-ray coupling.
    Discussion uses these external models to interpret the anti-correlation and QPO lag; they are not derived in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15093 in / 15665 out tokens · 171691 ms · 2026-08-03T01:29:35.373388+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a timing analysis of the black hole transient Swift J1727.8-1613 during its intermediate state. We use coordinated broadband X-ray observations from Insight-HXMT (2-150 keV), together with optical data from ULTRACAM (g_s and i_s bands) and near-infrared data from HAWK-I (K_s band), obtained on 2023 September 9. As shown by previous studies, the Fourier power spectrum shows a strong quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the K_s, i_s and X-ray bands. Cross-correlation analysis reveals a complex coupling between the optical/near-infrared (OIR) and X-ray emission, including a delayed optical anti-correlation, a strong infrared correlation, and a pronounced dependence of these features on X-ray energy, suggesting multiple Comptonisation regions. In contrast, the lag properties do not change at the QPO frequency, displaying an OIR lag of ~60-80 ms up to 150 keV. We discuss these results in the context of small-scale jet and hot accretion flow scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28852 by Alexandra Veledina, Diego Altamirano, Federico Vincentelli, Piergiorgio Casella, Poshak Gandhi, Ruican Ma, Sian Woahene-Demehin, Tariq Shahbaz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: HXMT light curves of Swift J1727.8–1613 in the LE (2–10 keV; light blue), ME (10–35 keV; medium blue) and HE (27–150 keV; dark blue) bands, respectively. The orange vertical line marks the simultaneous ultracam observation analyzed in this work. Right panel: HID of the source. The hardness is defined as the photon count-rate ratio between the 6–10 keV and 2–6 keV bands, while intensity correspo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: PDS of Swift J1727.8–1613 in the X-ray (LE: 2–10 keV, ME: 10–35 keV, and HE: 27–150 keV; shown from light to dark blue), optical (𝑔𝑠 and 𝑖𝑠; yellow and orange), and NIR (𝐾𝑠; red) bands. For visual clarity, the 𝑔𝑠 and 𝐾𝑠 PDS are multiplied by factors of 3 and 0.07, respectively. The grey shaded region marks the QPO frequency range (𝑣𝑐±FWHM) derived from the X-ray data. 3 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 3.1 Power … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: From top to bottom, the DCFs of the 𝐾𝑠, 𝑖𝑠, and 𝑔𝑠 bands w.r.t. the LE (2–10 keV) and HE (27–150 keV) bands of Swift J1727.8–1613 are shown. The correlations with the LE and HE bands are marked by light/dark red triangles/dots, light/dark orange triangles/dots, and light/dark yellow tri￾angles/dots, respectively. In all panels, the X-ray band is taken as the reference band. The inset panels show zoomed-in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Coherence (top panel), phase lag (middle panel) and time lag (bottom panel) of optical (𝑖𝑠) w.r.t. LE (2–10 keV; left panel) and HE (27– 150 keV; right panel) bands for Swift J1727.8–1613. A positive lag denotes optical lagging X-rays. The orange, red, and blue shaded regions indicate the QPO frequency range (𝜈𝑐±FWHM), the LFBN band (0.05–0.2 Hz) and the HFBN band (4–5 Hz), respectively. the QPO centroid f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-lag (top panel) and time-lag (bottom panel) spectra of the optical (𝑖𝑠) band w.r.t the X-ray band (2–150 keV) for Swift J1727.8–1613. The left panels show the results for the LFBN (red open symbols; 0.05–0.2 Hz) and HFBN (blue filled symbols; 4–5 Hz), while the right panels present the corresponding QPO (1.22–1.58 Hz) results. A positive lag denotes optical lagging X-rays. preceding slower ejecta, pr… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Model-unfolded spectra of Swift J1727.8–1613 observed with HXMT in the 2–150 keV band at different flux levels. The data were divided into three flux intervals based on the median count rate. The light, medium, and dark blue spectra correspond to the low-, medium-, and high￾flux states, respectively. Bottom panel: Spectral ratio between the high- and low-flux states. framework, the short negativ… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: QPO rms (left) and absolute rms (right) of Swift J1727.8–1613 in NIR (𝐾𝑠), optical (𝑖𝑠 and 𝑔𝑠), and X-ray (2–150 keV). Since no significant QPO was detected in the 𝑔𝑠 band, only an upper limit on the QPO absolute rms is shown for this band. be stronger in X-rays than in the optical band, owing to the more complex angular radiation pattern and relativistic effects, which can lead to a double-peaked X-ray li… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Belloni T., Hasinger G., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...227L..33B 227, L33

    1990

  2. [2]

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

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  3. [3]

    Bollemeijer N., Uttley P., You B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.1394B 540, 1394

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf750 2025

  4. [4]

    Cao X., et al., 2020, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SCPMA..6349504C 63, 249504

    doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1 2020

  5. [6]

    A., Dewangan G

    Chand S., Zdziarski A. A., Dewangan G. C., Sahu P., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae45aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1000..137C 1000, 137

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae45aa 2026

  6. [7]

    Chen Y., et al., 2020, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SCPMA..6349505C 63, 249505

    doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5 2020

  7. [9]

    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

    doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 2007

  8. [10]

    Du D., You B., Yan Z., Cao X., Hameury J.-M., Wu Y., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543.2575D 543, 2575

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1607 2025

  9. [11]

    P., Miller J., Dhillon V

    Durant M., Gandhi P., Shahbaz T., Fabian A. P., Miller J., Dhillon V. S., Marsh T. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682L..45D 682, L45

    doi:10.1086/590906 2008

  10. [14]

    Fan X., You B., Du D., He H., Yang S., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2a2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...997....7F 997, 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2a2d 2026

  11. [16]

    C., Blaes O

    Fragile P. C., Blaes O. M., Anninos P., Salmonson J. D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..417F 668, 417

    doi:10.1086/521092 2007

  12. [19]

    Gandhi P., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0273-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1..859G 1, 859

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0273-3 2017

  13. [25]

    Ingram A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...76I 968, 76

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf 2024

  14. [26]

    K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A...9J 699, A9

    Jin P., M \'e ndez M., Garc \' a F., Altamirano D., Zhang G., Rout S. K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A...9J 699, A9

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554353 2025

  15. [27]

    Kalamkar M., Casella P., Uttley P., O'Brien K., Russell D., Maccarone T., van der Klis M., Vincentelli F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3284K 460, 3284

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1211 2016

  16. [29]

    Li Z.-X., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...707A..33L 707, A33

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555276 2026

  17. [30]

    Liu C., et al., 2020, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SCPMA..6349503L 63, 249503

    doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x 2020

  18. [32]

    Ma X., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5...94M 5, 94

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2 2021

  19. [33]

    Ma R., M \'e ndez M., Garc \' a F., Sai N., Zhang L., Zhang Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..854M 525, 854

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2284 2023

  20. [35]

    Malzac J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..299M 443, 299

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1144 2014

  21. [37]

    Malzac J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2054M 480, 2054

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2006 2018

  22. [38]

    Markoff S., Falcke H., Fender R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...372L..25M 372, L25

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010420 2001

  23. [39]

    D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A.118M 662, A118

    Mastichiadis A., Petropoulou M., Kylafis N. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A.118M 662, A118

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243397 2022

  24. [40]

    Mata S \'a nchez D., Torres M. A. P., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Armas Padilla M., Yanes-Rizo I. V., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.129M 693, A129

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451960 2025

  25. [42]

    J., Page C

    Motch C., Ricketts M. J., Page C. G., Ilovaisky S. A., Chevalier C., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...119..171M 119, 171

    1983

  26. [43]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490L..62P 490, L62

    Paice J. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490L..62P 490, L62

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz148 2019

  27. [44]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3452P 505, 3452

    Paice J. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3452P 505, 3452

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1531 2021

  28. [45]

    M., Parsotan T

    Palmer D. M., Parsotan T. M., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16215....1P 16215, 1

    2023

  29. [47]

    Poutanen J., Veledina A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-013-0033-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SSRv..183...61P 183, 61

    doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0033-3 2014

  30. [48]

    Poutanen J., Vurm I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/L97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690L..97P 690, L97

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/2/l97 2009

  31. [49]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3987P 445, 3987

    Poutanen J., Veledina A., Revnivtsev M. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3987P 445, 3987

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1989 2014

  32. [51]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..815R 429, 815

    Russell D. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..815R 429, 815

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts377 2013

  33. [52]

    K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513L..35T 513, L35

    Thomas J. K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513L..35T 513, L35

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab132 2022

  34. [53]

    Uttley P., Casella P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-014-0072-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SSRv..183..453U 183, 453

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0072-4 2014

  35. [54]

    Veledina A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4236V 481, 4236

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2556 2018

  36. [55]

    Veledina A., Poutanen J., Vurm I., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737L..17V 737, L17

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/l17 2011

  37. [56]

    Veledina A., Poutanen J., Vurm I., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.3196V 430, 3196

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt124

  38. [57]

    Veledina A., Poutanen J., Ingram A., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778..165V 778, 165

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/165

  39. [58]

    G., Durant M., Gandhi P., Poutanen J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2855V 454, 2855

    Veledina A., Revnivtsev M. G., Durant M., Gandhi P., Poutanen J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2855V 454, 2855

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2201 2015

  40. [59]

    Veledina A., Gandhi P., Hynes R., Kajava J. J. E., Tsygankov S. S., Revnivtsev M. G., Durant M., Poutanen J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470...48V 470, 48

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1207 2017

  41. [60]

    Veledina A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958L..16V 958, L16

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781 2023

  42. [61]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..19V 887, L19

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..19V 887, L19

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5860 2019

  43. [62]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..614V 503, 614

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..614V 503, 614

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab475 2021

  44. [63]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2347V 539, 2347

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2347V 539, 2347

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf600 2025

  45. [65]

    Xu S.-E., You B., Long Y., He H., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae058a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...993...40X 993, 40

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae058a 2025

  46. [66]

    Yang Z.-X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970L..33Y 970, L33

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bd 2024

  47. [67]

    Yang S.-K., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1000...20Y 1000, 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4724 2026

  48. [68]

    T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...82Y 858, 82

    You B., Bursa M., \.Z ycki P. T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...82Y 858, 82

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd33 2018

  49. [69]

    You B., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-021-21169-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatCo..12.1025Y 12, 1025

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21169-5 2021

  50. [70]

    You B., et al., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abo4504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...381..961Y 381, 961

    doi:10.1126/science.abo4504 2023

  51. [71]

    You B., Yu W., Ingram A., De Marco B., Qu J.-L., Zhu Z.-H., Santangelo A., Xu S.-E., 2026, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-026-69604-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026NatCo..17.2860Y 17, 2860

    doi:10.1038/s41467-026-69604-9 2026

  52. [72]

    Yu W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.4624Y 529, 4624

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae835 2024

  53. [73]

    A., Gierli \'n ski M., 2004, @doi [Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement] 10.1143/PTPS.155.99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PThPS.155...99Z 155, 99

    Zdziarski A. A., Gierli \'n ski M., 2004, @doi [Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement] 10.1143/PTPS.155.99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PThPS.155...99Z 155, 99

    doi:10.1143/ptps.155.99 2004

  54. [74]

    Zhang S.-N., et al., 2020, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SCPMA..6349502Z 63, 249502

    doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6 2020

  55. [75]

    Zhao Q.-C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e6c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961L..42Z 961, L42

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e6c 2024

  56. [76]

    , keywords =

    Echo mapping of Swift J1753.5-0127. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15260.x , archivePrefix =. 0906.2773 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2009

  57. [77]

    , keywords =

    Interplay of spectral components in timing properties of accreting compact objects. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2556 , archivePrefix =. 1809.06053 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [78]

    , keywords =

    Modelling Spectral and Timing Properties of Accreting Black Holes: The Hybrid Hot Flow Paradigm. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0033-3 , archivePrefix =. 1312.2761 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [79]

    , keywords =

    Discovery of X-Ray Polarization from the Black Hole Transient Swift J1727.8-1613. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781 , archivePrefix =. 2309.15928 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  60. [80]

    , keywords =

    Variability in the noise properties of Cygnus X-1. , keywords =

  61. [81]

    , keywords =

    A Unified Description of the Timing Features of Accreting X-Ray Binaries. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/340290 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0202213 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [82]

    , keywords =

    A broad-band spectral-timing study of QPOs in the bright black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8 - 1613. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf750 , archivePrefix =. 2505.05060 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [83]

    , keywords =

    Fast infrared variability from a relativistic jet in GX 339-4. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00826.x , archivePrefix =. 1002.1233 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2010

  64. [84]

    Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy , keywords =

    The Medium Energy X-ray telescope (ME) onboard the Insight-HXMT astronomy satellite. Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1 , archivePrefix =. 1910.04451 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 1910

  65. [85]

    , keywords =

    Evolution of the Inner Accretion Flow in Swift J1727.8─1613 across Intermediate States: Insights from Broadband Spectral and Timing Analysis. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae45aa , archivePrefix =. 2512.05544 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  66. [86]

    Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy , keywords =

    The Low Energy X-ray telescope (LE) onboard the Insight-HXMT astronomy satellite. Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5 , archivePrefix =. 1910.08319 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  67. [87]

    , keywords =

    ULTRACAM: an ultrafast, triple-beam CCD camera for high-speed astrophysics. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x , archivePrefix =. 0704.2557 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2007

  68. [88]

    Everything you always wanted to know about accretion but were afraid to ask

    Modelling the behaviour of accretion flows in X-ray binaries. Everything you always wanted to know about accretion but were afraid to ask. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 , archivePrefix =. 0708.0148 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [89]

    , keywords =

    A comprehensive study of time delay between optical/near-infrared and X-ray emissions in black hole X-ray binaries. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1607 , archivePrefix =. 2507.00578 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  70. [90]

    , keywords =

    SWIFT J1753.5-0127: A Surprising Optical/X-Ray Cross-Correlation Function. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/590906 , archivePrefix =. 0806.2530 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [91]

    , keywords =

    Multiwavelength spectral and high time resolution observations of SWIFTJ1753.5-0127: new activity?. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14044.x , archivePrefix =. 0810.1141 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2008

  72. [92]

    , keywords =

    The Discrete Correlation Function: A New Method for Analyzing Unevenly Sampled Variability Data. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/166773 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1086/166773

  73. [93]

    , keywords =

    On the Optical Emission in the Minioutburst of the Black Hole X-Ray Binary MAXI J1348-630. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2a2d , archivePrefix =. 2508.19645 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  74. [95]

    , keywords =

    Global General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Simulation of a Tilted Black Hole Accretion Disk. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/521092 , archivePrefix =. 0706.4303 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [96]

    , keywords =

    Rapid optical and X-ray timing observations of GX 339-4: flux correlations at the onset of a low/hard state. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00529.x , archivePrefix =. 0807.1529 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2008

  76. [97]

    , keywords =

    Rapid optical and X-ray timing observations of GX339-4: multicomponent optical variability in the low/hard state. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17083.x , archivePrefix =. 1005.4685 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2010

  77. [98]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    An elevation of 0.1 light-seconds for the optical jet base in an accreting Galactic black hole system. Nature Astronomy , keywords =. doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0273-3 , archivePrefix =. 1710.09838 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  78. [99]

    , keywords =

    Estimating black hole spin from AGN SED fitting: the impact of general-relativistic ray tracing. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2499 , archivePrefix =. 2304.01253 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [100]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Dynamic disk-corona coupling during the state transition of Swift J1727.8-1613. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.01384 , archivePrefix =. 2508.01384 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.01384

  80. [101]

    , keywords =

    The remarkable rapid X-ray, ultraviolet, optical and infrared variability in the black hole XTE J1118+480. , keywords =. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06938.x , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0306626 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2003

Showing first 80 references.