Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 107 references

Spectral properties of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636-53, XTE J1739-285 and MAXI J1816-195

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In hard-state neutron-star X-ray binaries, over half of the star's seed photons feed a corona just 2–3 Rg out.

desk verdict Useful first l-theta diagram for NS LMXBs and a stable cover-fraction asymmetry, but the compactness conclusion rests on an untested R=10 Rg assumption and the small-corona evidence is partly circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14272 v1 pith:BQOUTDB5 submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.HE

Zhenyan Fei , Ming Lyu , Guobao Zhang , Xuejuan Yang , Federico García This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarlow-massX-raybinariesreflectionspectroscopycoronageometryseedphotonscompactness-temperaturediagrampairproductionlamp-postmodelboundarylayer
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 simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR spectra of three neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries — 4U 1636–53, XTE J1739–285, and MAXI J1816–195 — using reflection models that let the seed photons for Compton scattering come either from the neutron star surface or from the accretion disk. For the two sources in the hard spectral state, the fits imply that more than half of the neutron star's thermal photons are intercepted by the corona when the neutron star supplies the seed photons, whereas only about 3–5% of the disk photons reach the corona when the disk supplies them. Combined with the fitted lamp-post height of only 2–3 $R_g$, the paper concludes that the corona hugs the central neutron star, favoring a lamp-post or boundary-layer geometry rather than an extended corona. It also builds the first compactness–temperature ($\ell$–$\theta$) diagram for neutron star systems and finds all nine sources on the safe side of the pair-production forbidden region, indicating that the corona is not pair-dominated — either because neutron star seed photons cool it, or because the corona contains both thermal and non-thermal electrons.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two coupled modeling tools. The first is the relativistic reflection model family relxill, specifically relxillCp and relxilllpCp — where 'lp' denotes a lamp-post geometry with the corona as a point source at height $h$ above the compact object — together with relxillns for a disk illuminated by the neutron-star blackbody, and the thermal Comptonization component thcomp, whose fractional coverage parameter $f_{\rm cov}$ measures what fraction of the seed photons (from the neutron star or the disk) are intercepted by the corona. The second is the compactness–temperature ($\ell$–$\theta$) diagram, in which $\ell = 4\pi (m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm e})(R_g/R)(L/L_{\rm Edd})$ measures the radiation compactness of the corona and $\theta = kT_{\rm e}/m_{\rm e} c^2$ its electron temperature; the paper computes $\ell$ assuming a corona radius $R = 10 R_g$ and compares the points with pair-production runaway limits for slab, hemisphere, and spherical geometries. The small fitted $h$ and the large $f_{\rm cov}$ for neutron-star seed photons locate the corona near the star, and the position of the points relative to the pair-production forbidden region supports the not-pair-dominated conclusion.

What would settle it

Measure the actual size of the corona in one of these systems, for instance from the energy-dependent time delay between continuum and reflected photons (reverberation), and recompute the compactness with that radius. If the radius is close to the fitted lamp-post height of 2–3 $R_g$, the points would move into or near the pair-production forbidden region, which would falsify the claim that neutron-star coronae are not pair-dominated; if the measured radius is near 10 $R_g$, the paper's placement holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that choosing the seed-photon source changes the inferred corona and neutron-star emission in a way that pins the corona close to the star. In the hard-state sources 4U 1636–53 and XTE J1739–285, the fractional coverage parameter $f_{\rm cov}$ is larger than about 0.5 when the seed photons come from the neutron star but only about 0.03–0.05 when they come from the disk; for MAXI J1816–195 the values are about 0.8 and 0.3, respectively. The lamp-post height $h$ is small, roughly 2–3 $R_g$, and the boundary-layer radius estimated from the accretion rate is comparable, supporting a compact corona near the stellar surface. The paper further claims, from the first $\ell$–$\theta$ diagram assembled for neutron star LMXBs, that all nine systems lie to the left of the pair-production runaway line, so the coronae are not pair-dominated; the preferred explanation is extra cooling by neutron star surface photons, with a hybrid thermal/non-thermal corona as the alternative. A corollary is that the seed-photon source strongly affects how significant the neutron-star blackbody appears, which the authors use to explain why the neutron-star radiation in MAXI J1816–195 looked weak in earlier work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every corona is 10 gravitational radii across when computing the compactness; if a corona is as small as the fitted height of 2–3 gravitational radii, the same data points shift several-fold toward the pair-production boundary, and the paper does not test that shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For hard-state neutron star LMXBs, a corona within a few gravitational radii of the star means the boundary layer or a jet-base lamp-post should dominate the hard X-ray emission, and reflection models of the disk must include neutron-star illumination alongside coronal illumination.
  • Because the inferred size of the neutron star's emitting region depends on which seed-photon source is assumed, identifying that source is a prerequisite for measuring blackbody-emitting areas on the neutron star surface.
  • Neutron-star seed photons provide additional cooling that keeps the corona far from pair production, giving a physical reason why neutron-star LMXB coronae differ from some black-hole binary coronae in the compactness diagram.
  • For MAXI J1816–195, the low electron temperature, small inner disk radius, and relatively high blackbody temperature together place the source in a soft or transitional state rather than the typical hard state of accreting millisecond X-ray pulsars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper computes the compactness with a corona radius of $10 R_g$ for all sources; if the corona is as compact as the fitted height of $2$–$3 R_g$, then $\ell$ is larger by a factor of roughly 3–5, shifting the points rightward and potentially toward the pair-production boundary, a sensitivity the paper does not test.
  • Editorial inference: if neutron-star seed photons cool the corona, then sources with brighter neutron-star blackbody emission should sit further from the pair-production line; this correlation could be tested by expanding the sample.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same seed-photon-aware reflection models to higher-resolution spectra from upcoming X-ray missions could break the degeneracy between a static lamp-post and a rotating boundary-layer corona, for example through iron-line reverberation.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR spectra of three neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries (4U 1636-53, XTE J1739-285, MAXI J1816-195) using reflection models with seed photons supplied either by the neutron star or by the accretion disk. It reports that in the hard spectral state the thcomp cover fraction is high (~50-80%) when the seed photons originate from the NS and low (~3-5%) when they originate from the disk, that the fitted lamp-post height is small (~2-3 Rg), and that the inferred NS blackbody normalization depends strongly on the seed-photon assumption. It also presents, for the first time, a compactness-temperature diagram for nine NS LMXBs, concluding that their coronae all lie to the left of the pair-production forbidden region and are therefore not pair-dominated, possibly because of cooling by NS seed photons, or alternatively contain hybrid thermal/non-thermal electrons.

Significance. If established, the cover-fraction asymmetry would provide a useful observational constraint on the location and geometry of the corona in NS LMXBs, and the compactness diagram would be a novel extension of a tool previously applied mainly to AGN and BH binaries. The data reduction and spectral fitting are generally careful: the fits are statistically acceptable (reduced chi-square 1.02-1.24), the model comparison is clearly presented in Tables 3-6, and Appendix A provides a welcome consistency check using the nthratio correction, which confirms the fcov results. However, the headline compactness conclusion rests on an unvaried assumption about the corona radius that the paper's own fitted scales call into question, and the interpretation of the fitted lamp-post height as independent geometric evidence is partly circular. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Tables 3-5] The compactness is computed as l = 4*pi*(mp/me)*(Rg/R)*(L/LE) with the corona radius R fixed to 10 Rg for all nine sources. This is not a harmless convention for NS LMXBs: the same paper fits lamp-post heights h = 2.2-3.0 Rg for the three new sources (Tables 3-5) and estimates boundary-layer radii of ~5-7 Rg (Section 5.1). Since l scales as 1/R, adopting R = 3 Rg would increase l by a factor ~3.3 (about 0.5 dex) for the three new sources, and the literature point for 4U 1636-53 with Ecut = 135.9 keV (theta ~0.13) would move substantially toward or into the pair-production forbidden region. The paper presents no sensitivity analysis, no error bars on Figure 7, and no physical justification for choosing 10 Rg in NS systems. Because the claim that all nine NS systems lie safely to the left of the forbidden region is the load-bearing support for the 'not pair-dominated' and 'additional cooling from NS photons' interpretation, this assumption must be tested against the smaller scales inferred in this work before that conclusion can be accepted.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Tables 3-5] The small corona height h is a fitted parameter of relxilllpCp, a model that already assumes a lamp-post point-source geometry. Using this fitted height as independent evidence favoring the lamp-post geometry or a boundary-layer scenario is partly circular: the model cannot distinguish a point source at height h from an alternative extended geometry, and the boundary-layer scenario is not directly described by relxilllpCp at all. The cover-fraction result from thcomp already supports a compact corona close to the neutron star without this geometric prior; the h value should be presented as a model-dependent scale, not as an independent confirmation. A comparison with an extended-corona or slab reflection model, or an explicit statement of this limitation, would remove the circularity concern.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 7] No error bars are shown on the l and theta values in Figure 7; given the uncertainties in distances, fluxes, and kTe/Ecut listed in Table 7, error bars are essential for judging whether points are indeed 'safely' left of the forbidden region.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The conversion theta = Ecut/(2 mec^2) for sources without a fitted kTe is model-dependent; the relation between Ecut and kTe depends on the Comptonization model used in the original references. The authors should justify this factor or use a consistent model-dependent conversion.
  3. [Table 7] The literature sample mixes total unabsorbed fluxes with power-law fluxes and uses approximate distances (some marked with *); this heterogeneity should be stated more prominently in Section 5.3, since it directly affects the computed l values.
  4. [Abstract] The statement that 'more than ~50% of the NS photons enter into the corona' refers to the fitted thcomp parameter fcov; the abstract should explicitly note that this is a model-dependent cover fraction, not a direct measurement.
  5. [Conclusion] Item (2) of the Conclusion says the corona height is '~3 Rg', while the fits give 2.2-3.0 Rg across the three sources; the range should be quoted consistently.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'bina ry' in the title, 'di erent' for 'different', and 'in the all fits' for 'in all fits'; these should be corrected during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported cover fractions and corona heights are fitted parameters presented as fit results, and the compactness diagram is an application of an external formalism; the untested R=10 Rg assumption is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The cover-fraction claim ('more than ~50% of the NS photons enter into the corona') restates the thcomp parameter fcov, but this is a spectral-fit result reported as such, not a quantity derived from a separate first-principles input; no subset fitting or forced identity is involved. The corona height h ~2-3 Rg is a free parameter in relxilllpCp; the model assumes a lamp-post geometry but does not force h to be small, so using the small fitted h as evidence for a compact corona is model-dependent interpretation rather than self-definition. The l-theta compactness diagram is an application of the external Fabian et al. (2015) formalism to nine sources, with R=10 Rg explicitly assumed. The paper's own fitted h ~2-3 Rg and boundary-layer radii ~5-7 Rg imply that a sensitivity test with smaller R is needed, and the 'left of the forbidden region' conclusion is not shown to be robust to that choice; however, this is an unexamined assumption, not a circular step. Self-citations (García et al. 2022; Lyu et al. 2023) introduce model codes used as tools; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or to forbid alternative geometries. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted spectral parameters, especially fcov and h, plus hand-set assumptions such as R equals 10 Rg in the compactness diagram. The free-parameter count is therefore substantial, and the geometry and pair-production conclusions are not independent of those assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • thcomp cover fraction fcov = 0.79 to 1.00 (NS seed) and 0.03 to 0.30 (disk seed) across Tables 3 to 5
    The paper's main claim that more than 50 percent of NS photons enter the corona versus 3 to 5 percent of disk photons is read directly from this fitted parameter.
  • Corona height h in relxilllpCp = 2.20 to 2.54 Rg for 4U 1636-53 and XTE J1739-285, 2.99 Rg for MAXI J1816-195
    Used as evidence for a corona close to the NS, but it is a free parameter in a model that already assumes a lamp-post point source.
  • Electron temperature kTe = 9 to 40 keV across fits
    Determines theta in the compactness diagram and the pair-production placement.
  • Corona luminosity L = Derived from model normalization and unabsorbed flux in 0.1 to 100 keV
    Determines the compactness l in the diagram and depends on fitted normalizations and assumed distances.
  • Assumed corona radius R in compactness diagram = 10 Rg by hand
    The compactness l scales inversely with R; no sensitivity test is performed for smaller radii consistent with the fitted heights.
  • Fixed spectral parameters = q=3, Rbr=Rout=1000 Rg, log(N)=20, spin from a=0.47/Pms
    Standard but hand-set choices that affect the reflection component and derived inner radii, though not the central fcov comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption relxill, relxilllp, and relxillns reflection models accurately describe disk reflection in NS LMXBs.
    The spectral decomposition uses these models as ground truth. They were originally built for AGN with low seed-photon temperatures, a mismatch checked in the appendix only for MAXI J1816-195.
  • domain assumption Seed photons can be cleanly separated into a pure NS blackbody and a pure disk blackbody.
    The fcov comparison assumes the seed source is one or the other, but the M5 fit for MAXI gives a seed temperature in between, suggesting a mixture.
  • domain assumption The thcomp fcov parameter is a direct geometric measure of the fraction of seed photons intercepted by the corona.
    The paper converts a fitted spectral parameter into a physical covering fraction without independent calibration or verification.
  • domain assumption The lamp-post geometry in relxilllpCp is a valid description of the corona in these sources.
    The model assumes a point source on the axis; deriving h and then using it to favor a lamp-post is internally circular.
  • domain assumption The pair-production runaway lines of Stern et al. (1995) apply to NS coronae.
    The compactness diagram transfers AGN and black-hole pair-equilibrium calculations to NS systems without testing geometry or magnetic-field effects.
  • domain assumption Distances and bolometric flux conversions taken from the literature are accurate.
    The luminosity used in the compactness calculation and magnetic field estimates depends on assumed distances and flux conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral properties of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636-53, XTE J1739-285 and MAXI J1816-195." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQOUTDB5

@misc{pith2026250114272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral properties of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636-53, XTE J1739-285 and MAXI J1816-195},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQOUTDB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14272}
}
abstract

We investigated simultaneous NICER plus NuSTAR observations of three neutron star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636-53, XTE J1739-285 and MAXI J1816-195 using the latest reflection models, with the seed photons feeding into the corona originating from either the neutron star (NS) or the accretion disk. We found that, for the sources in the hard spectral state, more than $\sim$ 50% of the NS photons enter into the corona if NS provides seed photons, while only $\sim$ 3%-5% disk photons go to the corona if seed photons come from the disk. This finding, together with the derived small height of the corona, favors the lamp-post geometry or boundary layer scenario where the corona is close to the central neutron star. Additionally, we found that the source of the seed photons has big influence in the significance of the NS radiation, especially for the soft spectral state. This result may help explain why the NS radiation in MAXI J1816-195 is weak in the previous work. More importantly, for the first time, we explored the properties of the corona in the NS systems with the compactness ($l-\theta$) diagram. We found that the corona in the NS systems all lie in the left side of the pair-production forbidden region, away from the predicted pair-production lines. This finding indicates that either the corona in these NS systems is not pair-dominated, possibly due to the additional cooling from NS photons, or the corona is composed of both thermal and non-thermal electrons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14272 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NICER (left panel) and NuSTAR/FPMA (right panel) light curve of 4U 1636–53 (top), XTE J1739–285 (middle) and MAXI J1816–195 (bottom). We extracted NICER light curves in 0.5-10 keV at a time resolution of 1 second, and derived the NuSTAR light curves in 3-79 keV using a time bin of 5 second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hardness-intensity diagram of NICER observations of 4U 1636–53 (left), XTE J1739–285 (middle) and MAXI J1816–195 (right). The hardness ratio is defined as the count ratio between the 4-10 and 0.5-4 keV, and the intensity is defined as the counts in 0.5-10 keV. Each datapoint in the plots corresponds to a 64-second NICER data segment, with the NICER observations analyzed in this work shown in red and other NICER obse… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The best fitting results with different reflection models (M1 and M2 from left to right on the top; M3 and M4 in the bottom) for NICER/NuSTAR observation of 4U 1636–53. We show the fitted spectra and the individual model components (main panel), and the residuals in terms of sigmas (sub panel) in the plots. The components diskbb, blackbody, (thcomp × diskbb) or (thcomp × bb), and relxillC p or relxilllpC p are plott… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The best fitting results with different reflection models (M1 and M2 from left to right on the top; M3 and M4 in the bottom) for NICER/NuSTAR observation of XTE J1739–285. We show the fitted spectra and the individual model components (main panel), and the residuals in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The best fitting results with different reflection models (M1 and M2 from left to right on the top; M3 and M4 in the bottom) for NICER/NuSTAR observation of MAXI J1816–195. We show the fitted spectra and the individual model components (main panel), and the residuals i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The best fitting results with the reflection model M5 for NICER/NuSTAR observation of MAXI J1816–195. We show the fit￾ted spectra and the individual model components (main panel), and the residuals in terms of sigmas (sub panel) in the plots. The compo￾nents diskbb, co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The compactness–temperature (ℓ–θ) diagram for the NS LMXBs. We used different symbols to mark the samples in this work and in the literatures ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2008, , 685, 436

    Altamirano , D., van der Klis , M., M \'e ndez , M., et al. 2008, , 685, 436

    2008

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58

    2018

  5. [5]

    2007, , 379, 247

    Belloni , T., Homan , J., Motta , S., Ratti , E., & M \'e ndez , M. 2007, , 379, 247

    2007

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 1999, , 510, L123

    1999

  7. [7]

    2022, , 662, A98

    Bertola , E., Vignali , C., Lanzuisi , G., et al. 2022, , 662, A98

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bilous , A. V. & Watts , A. L. 2019, , 245, 19

    2019

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    M., Romani , R

    Braje , T. M., Romani , R. W., & Rauch , K. P. 2000, , 531, 447

    2000

  2. [10]

    2021, , 907, 79

    Bult , P., Altamirano , D., Arzoumanian , Z., et al. 2021, , 907, 79

    2021

  3. [11]

    2022 a , , 935, L32

    Bult , P., Altamirano , D., Arzoumanian , Z., et al. 2022 a , , 935, L32

    2022

  4. [12]

    M., Ng , M., Iwakiri , W., et al

    Bult , P. M., Ng , M., Iwakiri , W., et al. 2022 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 15425, 1

    2022

  5. [13]

    M., Altamirano , D., Patruno , A., et al

    Cackett , E. M., Altamirano , D., Patruno , A., et al. 2009, , 694, L21

    2009

  6. [14]

    M., Miller , J

    Cackett , E. M., Miller , J. M., Ballantyne , D. R., et al. 2010, , 720, 205

    2010

  7. [15]

    2022, , 936, L21

    Chen , Y.-P., Zhang , S., Ji , L., et al. 2022, , 936, L21

    2022

  8. [16]

    2010, , 516, A36

    D'A \` , A., di Salvo , T., Ballantyne , D., et al. 2010, , 516, A36

    2010

  9. [17]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 362

    Dauser , T., Garc \' a , J., & Wilms , J. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 362

    2016

  10. [18]

    2013, , 430, 1694

    Dauser , T., Garcia , J., Wilms , J., et al. 2013, , 430, 1694

    2013

  11. [19]

    S., & Brenneman , L

    Dauser , T., Wilms , J., Reynolds , C. S., & Brenneman , L. W. 2010, , 409, 1534

    2010

  12. [20]

    & Sanna , A

    Di Salvo , T. & Sanna , A. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. S. Bhattacharyya , A. Papitto , & D. Bhattacharya , 87--124

    2022

  13. [21]

    2019, , 483, 767

    Di Salvo , T., Sanna , A., Burderi , L., et al. 2019, , 483, 767

    2019

  14. [22]

    D., Vaughan , S., Lefkir , M., & Wynn , G

    Dias , S. D., Vaughan , S., Lefkir , M., & Wynn , G. 2024, , 529, 1752

    2024

  15. [23]

    & Gierli \'n ski , M

    Done , C. & Gierli \'n ski , M. 2003, , 342, 1041

    2003

  16. [24]

    2007, , 15, 1

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

    2007

  17. [25]

    C., Lohfink , A., Belmont , R., Malzac , J., & Coppi , P

    Fabian , A. C., Lohfink , A., Belmont , R., Malzac , J., & Coppi , P. 2017, , 467, 2566

    2017

  18. [26]

    C., Lohfink , A., Kara , E., et al

    Fabian , A. C., Lohfink , A., Kara , E., et al. 2015, , 451, 4375

    2015

  19. [27]

    O., Henri , G., Saug \'e , L., & Pelletier , G

    Ferreira , J., Petrucci , P. O., Henri , G., Saug \'e , L., & Pelletier , G. 2006, , 447, 813

    2006

  20. [28]

    K., Muno , M

    Galloway , D. K., Muno , M. P., Hartman , J. M., Psaltis , D., & Chakrabarty , D. 2008, , 179, 360

    2008

  21. [29]

    K., Psaltis , D., Chakrabarty , D., & Muno , M

    Galloway , D. K., Psaltis , D., Chakrabarty , D., & Muno , M. P. 2003, , 590, 999

    2003

  22. [30]

    K., Psaltis , D., Muno , M

    Galloway , D. K., Psaltis , D., Muno , M. P., & Chakrabarty , D. 2006, , 639, 1033

    2006

  23. [31]

    2014, , 782, 76

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

    2014

  24. [32]

    S., et al

    Garc \' a , J., Dauser , T., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2013, , 768, 146

    2013

  25. [33]

    & Kallman , T

    Garc \' a , J. & Kallman , T. R. 2010, , 718, 695

    2010

  26. [34]

    A., Dauser , T., Ludlam , R., et al

    Garc \' a , J. A., Dauser , T., Ludlam , R., et al. 2022, , 926, 13

    2022

  27. [35]

    C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P

    Gendreau , K. C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz , 99051H

    2016

  28. [36]

    & Poutanen , J

    Gierli \'n ski , M. & Poutanen , J. 2005, , 359, 1261

    2005

  29. [37]

    T., Gudennavar , S

    Giridharan , L., Thomas , N. T., Gudennavar , S. B., & Bubbly , S. G. 2024, , 527, 11855

    2024

  30. [38]

    W., Fabian , A

    Guilbert , P. W., Fabian , A. C., & Rees , M. J. 1983, , 205, 593

    1983

  31. [39]

    1994, , 432, L95

    Haardt , F., Maraschi , L., & Ghisellini , G. 1994, , 432, L95

    1994

  32. [40]

    A., Craig , W

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

    2013

  33. [41]

    Heger , A., Cumming , A., & Woosley , S. E. 2007, , 665, 1311

    2007

  34. [42]

    Hinkle , J. T. & Mushotzky , R. 2021, , 506, 4960

    2021

  35. [43]

    Inogamov , N. A. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 269

    1999

  36. [44]

    Kaaret , P., Prieskorn , Z., in 't Zand , J. J. M., et al. 2007, , 657, L97

    2007

  37. [45]

    A., et al

    Kamraj , N., Brightman , M., Harrison , F. A., et al. 2022, , 927, 42

    2022

  38. [46]

    & Wang , J.-X

    Kang , J.-L. & Wang , J.-X. 2022, , 929, 141

    2022

  39. [47]

    2021, , 502, 80

    Kang , J.-L., Wang , J.-X., & Kang , W.-Y. 2021, , 502, 80

    2021

  40. [48]

    2023, , 958, 79

    Kargaltsev , O., Hare , J., Volkov , I., & Lange , A. 2023, , 958, 79

    2023

  41. [49]

    L., Lohfink , A., & Kara , E

    King , A. L., Lohfink , A., & Kara , E. 2017, , 835, 226

    2017

  42. [50]

    Lewin , W. H. G., van Paradijs , J., & Taam , R. E. 1993, , 62, 223

    1993

  43. [51]

    P., Tao , L., Zhang , L., et al

    Li , P. P., Tao , L., Zhang , L., et al. 2023 a , , 525, 595

    2023

  44. [52]

    2023 b , , 958, 177

    Li , Z., Kuiper , L., Ge , M., et al. 2023 b , , 958, 177

    2023

  45. [53]

    M., & Lovelace , R

    Long , M., Romanova , M. M., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 2005, , 634, 1214

    2005

  46. [54]

    M., Cackett , E

    Ludlam , R. M., Cackett , E. M., Garc \' a , J. A., et al. 2020, , 895, 45

    2020

  47. [55]

    M., Cackett , E

    Ludlam , R. M., Cackett , E. M., Garc \' a , J. A., et al. 2022, , 927, 112

    2022

  48. [56]

    M., Miller , J

    Ludlam , R. M., Miller , J. M., Barret , D., et al. 2019, , 873, 99

    2019

  49. [57]

    M., Miller , J

    Ludlam , R. M., Miller , J. M., Cackett , E. M., et al. 2016, , 824, 37

    2016

  50. [58]

    M., Miller , J

    Ludlam , R. M., Miller , J. M., Degenaar , N., et al. 2017, , 847, 135

    2017

  51. [59]

    2014, , 440, 1165

    Lyu , M., M \'e ndez , M., Sanna , A., et al. 2014, , 440, 1165

    2014

  52. [60]

    2015, , 454, 541

    Lyu , M., M \'e ndez , M., Zhang , G., & Keek , L. 2015, , 454, 541

    2015

  53. [61]

    2019, , 484, 3434

    Lyu , M., M \'e ndez , M., Zhang , J.-F., & Xiang , F.-Y. 2019, , 484, 3434

    2019

  54. [62]

    B., Wang , H

    Lyu , M., Zhang , G. B., Wang , H. G., & Garc \' a , F. 2023, , 677, A156

    2023

  55. [63]

    K., Grefenstette , B

    Madsen , K. K., Grefenstette , B. W., Pike , S., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.00569

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    1986, , 308, 635

    Makishima , K., Maejima , Y., Mitsuda , K., et al. 1986, , 308, 635

    1986

  57. [65]

    2023, , 521, 881

    Mandal , M., Pal , S., Chauhan , J., Lohfink , A., & Bharali , P. 2023, , 521, 881

    2023

  58. [66]

    M., et al

    Marino , A., Anitra , A., Mazzola , S. M., et al. 2022, , 515, 3838

    2022

  59. [67]

    2001, , 372, L25

    Markoff , S., Falcke , H., & Fender , R. 2001, , 372, L25

    2001

  60. [68]

    A., & Wilms , J

    Markoff , S., Nowak , M. A., & Wilms , J. 2005, , 635, 1203

    2005

  61. [69]

    1984, , 36, 741

    Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., Koyama , K., et al. 1984, , 36, 741

    1984

  62. [70]

    S., Dewangan , G

    Mondal , A. S., Dewangan , G. C., & Raychaudhuri , B. 2019, , 487, 5441

    2019

  63. [71]

    S., Raychaudhuri , B., & Dewangan , G

    Mondal , A. S., Raychaudhuri , B., & Dewangan , G. C. 2021, , 504, 1331

    2021

  64. [72]

    S., Raychaudhuri , B., Dewangan , G

    Mondal , A. S., Raychaudhuri , B., Dewangan , G. C., & Beri , A. 2022, , 516, 1256

    2022

  65. [73]

    2015, , 452, 3994

    Mukherjee , D., Bult , P., van der Klis , M., & Bhattacharya , D. 2015, , 452, 3994

    2015

  66. [74]

    & McClintock , J

    Narayan , R. & McClintock , J. E. 2008, , 51, 733

    2008

  67. [75]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15418, 1

    Negoro , H., Serino , M., Iwakiri , W., et al. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15418, 1

    2022

  68. [76]

    2016, , 457, 2988

    Pintore , F., Sanna , A., Di Salvo , T., et al. 2016, , 457, 2988

    2016

  69. [77]

    & Sunyaev , R

    Popham , R. & Sunyaev , R. 2001, , 547, 355

    2001

  70. [78]

    & Paul , B

    Rai , B. & Paul , B. C. 2019, , 489, 5858

    2019

  71. [79]

    N., Braito , V., Porquet , D., et al

    Reeves , J. N., Braito , V., Porquet , D., et al. 2021, , 500, 1974

    2021

  72. [80]

    A., Loewenstein , M., Steiner , J

    Remillard , R. A., Loewenstein , M., Steiner , J. F., et al. 2022, , 163, 130

    2022

  73. [81]

    2001, , 372, 138

    Revnivtsev , M., Churazov , E., Gilfanov , M., & Sunyaev , R. 2001, , 372, 138

    2001

  74. [82]

    A., Garc \' a , F., Fogantini , F

    Saavedra , E. A., Garc \' a , F., Fogantini , F. A., et al. 2023, , 522, 3367

    2023

  75. [83]

    2022, , 516, L76

    Sanna , A., Bult , P., Ng , M., et al. 2022, , 516, L76

    2022

  76. [84]

    2013, , 432, 1144

    Sanna , A., Hiemstra , B., M \'e ndez , M., et al. 2013, , 432, 1144

    2013

  77. [85]

    2017, , 466, 2910

    Sanna , A., Pintore , F., Bozzo , E., et al. 2017, , 466, 2910

    2017

  78. [86]

    2018, , 481, 1658

    Sanna , A., Pintore , F., Riggio , A., et al. 2018, , 481, 1658

    2018

  79. [87]

    2020, , 496, 197

    Sharma , P., Sharma , R., Jain , C., & Dutta , A. 2020, , 496, 197

    2020

  80. [88]

    C., Bird , A

    Shih , I. C., Bird , A. J., Charles , P. A., Cornelisse , R., & Tiramani , D. 2005, , 361, 602

    2005

  81. [89]

    E., Poutanen , J., Svensson , R., Sikora , M., & Begelman , M

    Stern , B. E., Poutanen , J., Svensson , R., Sikora , M., & Begelman , M. C. 1995, , 449, L13

    1995

  82. [90]

    & Bildsten , L

    Strohmayer , T. & Bildsten , L. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, Vol. 39, 113--156

    2006

  83. [91]

    Strohmayer , T. E. 1999, , 523, L51

    1999

  84. [92]

    Strohmayer , T. E. & Markwardt , C. B. 2002, , 577, 337

    2002

  85. [93]

    Syunyaev , R. A. & Shakura , N. I. 1986, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 12, 117

    1986

  86. [94]

    Tauris , T. M. & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, Vol. 39, 623--665

    2006

  87. [95]

    T., Gudennavar , S

    Thomas , N. T., Gudennavar , S. B., & Bubbly , S. G. 2023, , 525, 2355

    2023

  88. [96]

    Thompson , T. W. J., Rothschild , R. E., Tomsick , J. A., & Marshall , H. L. 2005, , 634, 1261

    2005

  89. [97]

    1994, , 434, 570

    Titarchuk , L. 1994, , 434, 570

    1994

  90. [98]

    2022, , 509, 3599

    Tortosa , A., Ricci , C., Tombesi , F., et al. 2022, , 509, 3599

    2022

  91. [99]

    1990, , 234, 181

    van Paradijs , J., van der Klis , M., van Amerongen , S., et al. 1990, , 234, 181

    1990

  92. [100]

    A., Ferland , G

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

    1996

  93. [101]

    M., Casella , P., Borghese , A., et al

    Vincentelli , F. M., Casella , P., Borghese , A., et al. 2023, , 525, 2509

    2023

  94. [102]

    Wang , Y., M \'e ndez , M., Sanna , A., Altamirano , D., & Belloni , T. M. 2017, , 468, 2256

    2017

  95. [103]

    Wilkins , D. R. 2018, , 475, 748

    2018

  96. [104]

    2000, , 542, 914

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914

    2000

  97. [105]

    A., De Marco , B., Szanecki , M., Nied \'z wiecki , A., & Markowitz , A

    Zdziarski , A. A., De Marco , B., Szanecki , M., Nied \'z wiecki , A., & Markowitz , A. 2021, , 906, 69

    2021

  98. [106]

    A., Szanecki , M., Poutanen , J., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Biernacki , P

    Zdziarski , A. A., Szanecki , M., Poutanen , J., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Biernacki , P. 2020, , 492, 5234

    2020

  99. [107]

    H., White , N

    Zhang , W., Lapidus , I., Swank , J. H., White , N. E., & Titarchuk , L. 1997, , 6541, 1

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.