Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Relativistic X-ray reflection and thermonuclear burst from accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Disk reflection contributes up to ~30% of the peak burst emission, and persistent spectra place the inner disk near 11 Rg at 50 degrees, implying a polar field near 6×10^8 G under magnetospheric truncation.

desk verdict Persistent reflection analysis is solid; burst reflection fraction is plausible but needs a test against a variable persistent component. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15982 v1 pith:IFE7SSOM submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.HE

Manoj Mandal , Sachindra Naik , Birendra Chhotaray This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Jd95.85.Nv
keywords X-rayreflectionthermonuclearburstsaccretingmillisecondpulsarsneutronstarmagneticfieldrelativisticdiskSRGAJ144459.2-604207NICERNu
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 reports that the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2–604207 shows a measurable reflection signal in both its thermonuclear bursts and its burst-free persistent emission. Using NICER, XMM-Newton, and NuSTAR spectra, the authors find that at the peak of the NICER bursts a relativistic disk-reflection model contributes up to about 30% of the total emission, and that the reflection flux rises with the blackbody burst flux. In the persistent broadband spectrum, the same kind of model requires an inner disk radius near 11 gravitational radii and an inclination near 50 degrees; under the assumption that the disk is truncated at the magnetospheric radius, this translates to a polar magnetic field of roughly $6\times10^{8}$ G. The result matters because it ties the burst-disk interaction to a concrete geometric measurement of the inner disk and an estimate of the neutron star's magnetic field, both hard to obtain in these systems.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the relativistic reflection model family relxill. For the bursts the paper uses relxillNS, which computes the reprocessed spectrum produced when a neutron-star blackbody illuminates a photoionized accretion disk; for the persistent emission it uses relxill, which does the same for a cutoff power-law continuum. The model produces the two signatures seen in the residuals: an iron line near 6.4 keV and a Compton backscattering hump near 20 keV. The parameter that carries the physics is the inner disk radius $R_{\rm in}$; combined with the source flux and the assumption that the disk is truncated by the magnetic field, $R_{\rm in}$ is converted into a magnetic field strength through the magnetospheric-radius scaling of Ibragimov & Poutanen (2009).

What would settle it

A decisive check would be an independent distance measurement: the magnetic-field estimate scales with the assumed 10 kpc distance, so a parallax or other distance determination would immediately confirm or shift the $6\times10^8$ G value if the assumed distance is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reflection of X-rays off the accretion disk is present in both regimes and carries a physical signature. During bursts, the time-resolved NICER spectra require the addition of the disk reflection model relxillNS over an absorbed blackbody, with an F-test chance probability of $10^{-9}$; the reflection component contributes up to $\sim$30% of the total burst emission at the peak, and its flux follows the blackbody flux approximately as $F_{\rm refl} = 0.7\,F_{\rm bb}^{0.5}$. In the burst-free NICER+NuSTAR spectrum, the relativistic reflection model relxill with a cutoff power-law illuminating continuum yields an inner disk radius $R_{\rm in} \sim 10.6\,R_g$ (about $1.8\,R_{\rm ISCO}$), an inclination of $50.3^{+2.0}_{-1.3}$ degrees, an iron abundance near solar, and an ionization parameter $\log\xi \sim 3.7$. Taking the inner disk radius as the magnetospheric radius and using the Ibragimov-Poutanen relation with a distance of 10 kpc gives a magnetic dipole moment of $\sim 3\times10^{26}$ G cm$^3$ and a polar field of $\sim 6\times10^8$ G.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest step is the conversion from the fitted inner disk radius to a magnetic field: the result assumes both a source distance of 10 kpc and that the disk is truncated exactly at the magnetospheric radius by the magnetic pressure, so a different distance or a non-magnetic truncation mechanism would change the field estimate even if the reflection detection itself stands.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Burst spectra from this source cannot be described by a pure blackbody alone: a disk-reflection component at the level of a few to thirty percent of the peak flux is required, so burst-disk interaction is directly observable.
  • The positive correlation between blackbody and reflection fluxes ($F_{\rm refl}\propto F_{\rm bb}^{0.5}$) means the reflection tracks the burst intensity and can be used to study how the disk reprocesses the burst.
  • The burst-free broadband spectrum places the inner disk near 11 gravitational radii at an inclination near 50 degrees, consistent with a disk that extends close to the neutron star and is viewed at moderate inclination.
  • Under magnetospheric truncation, the fitted inner radius implies a polar magnetic field of about $6\times10^8$ G, in the typical range for accreting millisecond pulsars.
  • The estimated local accretion rate, roughly 0.4-0.7 of Eddington, points to mixed hydrogen/helium fuel powering the bursts rather than pure helium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $F_{\rm refl}\propto F_{\rm bb}^{0.5}$ correlation is physically robust, a useful extension would be to predict the reflection lag or the disk ionization response on the second timescale of the burst rise, which the present time binnings cannot resolve.
  • A distance measurement would sharpen or overturn the magnetic-field estimate; the paper does not attempt such a measurement.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to the nine bursts observed simultaneously with XMM-Newton and NuSTAR, where the soft excess is suppressed by absorption, to test whether the 30% peak reflection fraction is a general feature or a NICER selection.
  • Comparing the reflection-derived field with independent pulse-timing or spin-evolution measurements would test whether the magnetospheric-truncation assumption holds for this source.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a spectral and temporal study of thermonuclear X-ray bursts from the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2–604207, using NICER, XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, and Swift observations from the 2024 outburst. The authors find energy-dependent burst profiles, time-resolved spectral evolution, and a possible reflection component during NICER bursts that contributes up to about 30% of the total emission at the burst peak, together with a positive correlation between blackbody and reflection fluxes. In the burst-free persistent emission, a relativistic reflection model applied to simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR spectra yields an inner disk radius of about 9.5–12 Rg and an inclination of about 46–53 degrees, from which a polar magnetic field strength of roughly 6e8 G is inferred under the assumption that the disk is truncated at the magnetospheric radius and that the source distance is 10 kpc.

Significance. If the burst reflection detection is physically correct, the paper would provide a valuable new example of burst-disk interaction in an AMXP, complementing recent studies of similar systems. The persistent emission analysis is more robust: the reflection signature in the broadband NICER+NuSTAR spectrum is clearly present, the fit is statistically good, and the MCMC-derived errors on Rin and inclination are a strength. The derived magnetic field, while model-dependent, is consistent with typical AMXP values and useful for comparison with other sources. The main weakness is the burst reflection claim, which rests on a spectral decomposition whose degeneracies are not fully explored. Overall, the paper contains a substantial amount of new observational analysis for a recently discovered source, and the persistent reflection part is likely to be reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.1, Fig. 7] The detection of burst reflection and the 30% contribution at the burst peak rest on a model in which the persistent powerlaw and diskbb components are fixed at their pre-burst values with no f_a scaling factor. The paper itself lists Poynting-Robertson drag as a mechanism that can enhance the persistent emission during bursts (Sections 1 and 4), and standard practice for burst spectroscopy includes a free f_a factor (Worpel et al. 2013). The reported F-test (F=37.8, p=1e-9) only shows that the fixed-persistent model with an added relxillNS component improves the fit relative to the same model without it; it cannot distinguish a reflection signature from a burst-induced increase in the persistent continuum. The authors should explicitly test a model with f_a free (and also with f_a free when adding relxillNS) and report whether the 30% reflection fraction remains required.
  2. [Section 3.2.1] All relxillNS parameters are frozen to assumed values (q1=q2=3, Rin=RISCO, Rout=400 Rg, i=50°, AFe=5, log xi=3.2, log N=18), leaving only the normalization free. The resulting 30% reflection fraction and the F_refl-F_bb correlation shown in Figure 9 are therefore conditional on these fixed choices. In particular, the input blackbody temperature of relxillNS is tied to the bbodyrad temperature, so part of the correlation may reflect this shared temperature evolution rather than a physical connection between the burst and reflection components. A sensitivity study varying the assumed inclination and inner radius over plausible ranges is needed to support the reported fraction and correlation.
  3. [Section 4.0.2, Eq. (3)] The magnetic field estimate B ~ 6e8 G is obtained by assuming that the fitted inner disk radius equals the magnetospheric radius and by adopting a source distance of 10 kpc. The paper states these assumptions, but it does not discuss how strongly the result depends on them. If the disk is truncated by a mechanism other than the magnetic field, or if the distance is significantly different from 10 kpc, the derived B value would not be valid. Since B scales linearly with distance and depends on the truncation assumption, the authors should add an explicit caveat and provide a simple distance-scaled error estimate, e.g., B = (d/10 kpc) times the quoted value, and clarify that the magnetospheric-truncation assumption is not independently tested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1] The phrase 'the model parameters are set as following' should read 'as follows'.
  2. [Table 3] The 'Reflection Flux' of about 3.24e-9 erg cm^-2 s^-1 is nearly equal to the Total Flux of 3.48e-9 erg cm^-2 s^-1 in the NICER+NuSTAR simultaneous fit. This suggests that the reported reflection flux may actually be the flux of the entire relxill component (i.e., the sum of the primary continuum and the reflected emission) rather than the reflected part alone. Please clarify how this flux was computed and, if it is the total relxill flux, relabel it or provide the pure reflection flux.
  3. [Section 3.2] The statement 'We do not find any requirement for an additional scaling factor' is ambiguous. Please specify whether the f_a parameter was left free in the fits and found to be consistent with unity, or whether it was fixed to one by construction.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The parentheses in '(f_ang/eta F_b/10^-9 erg cm^-2 s^-1)^(1/2)' are ambiguous. Adding parentheses to make clear that (f_ang/eta) multiplies (F_b/1e-9) would improve readability.
  5. [Figure 5] The caption mentions a shaded region for the burst peak, but the reader must infer which time segment is shaded; a direct time label or arrow would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 30% burst-reflection fraction and the persistent reflection parameters are new fits to this source's data, supported by an F-test and model-independent residuals; only a minor self-citation appears in the adopted relxillNS fixed parameters.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 3.2.1 (Disk reflection during thermonuclear bursts)]
    "The disk parameter values in the relxillNS model are chosen based on prior studies of similar systems (Ludlam et al. 2019; Zhao et al. 2022; Lu et al. 2023; Yu et al. 2024; Mandal et al. 2025a,b). The model parameters are set as following: emissivity index q1=q2=3, R in=RISCO, R out=400 Rg, i=50 deg, AFe=5, log xi=3.2 erg cm s-1, log N=18 cm-3."

    The headline burst result - the ~30% reflection contribution and the F_refl-F_bb correlation in Fig. 9 - is computed inside relxillNS with AFe=5, log xi=3.2, q=3, i=50 deg, and Rin=RISCO fixed in advance. The fixed values are justified by a citation list that includes the present authors' own Mandal et al. (2025a,b), which adopted the same fixed values as modeling choices in their earlier burst-reflection studies of other sources. The justification thus re-imports an ansatz from the authors' own prior work rather than deriving it from this source's data, and the reported reflection amplitude is conditional on that self-cited ansatz. The circularity is partial: the F-test (F=37.8, p=1e-9) and the residual soft excess in Fig.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained and the paper does not disguise fitted values as predictions. The burst-reflection detection rests on time-resolved fits of tbabs x (bbodyrad + relxillNS + powerlaw + diskbb) to individual NICER burst segments; the reflection component is judged significant by an F-test (F=37.8, p=1e-9) against this source's spectra, and the soft excess below 2 keV is visible in the residuals of the blackbody-only fit (Fig. 7). The persistent-reflection detection is likewise grounded in data features that are independent of the adopted continuum: the residuals in Fig. 10 show an iron line near 6.4 keV, a Compton hump near 20 keV, and an absorption dip near 10 keV, and the final relxill + bbodyrad fit is error-estimated with MCMC. The inner radius (Rin ~ 11 Rg) and inclination (~50 deg) are fitted parameters of that model. The magnetic field B ~ 6 x 10^8 G is a standard inversion from the fitted Rin and bolometric flux using Eq. (3) of Ibragimov & Poutanen (2009), with the magnetospheric-truncation assumption and the 10 kpc distance explicitly stated; this is assumption-dependence, not circularity. The sceptic concern that holding the persistent components at pre-burst values (no free f_a factor) could inflate the burst reflection fraction is a model-specification risk - the paper itself cites Poynting-Robertson drag as an alternative in Section 4 and states that no additional scaling factor was required - but it does not correspond to a self-referential definition or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation moment is the adoption of fixed relxillNS parameters from prior work including Mandal et al. (2025a,b); that choice is supporting rather than load-bearing because the same values are also grounded in four external references and the detection itself is data-driven.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the validity of the relxill reflection models, the magnetospheric truncation interpretation, the canonical neutron star parameters, and the assumed 10 kpc distance. The main fitted quantities that anchor the claims are Rin, inclination, and the spectral normalizations that yield the burst reflection fraction.

free parameters (9)
  • Source distance d = 10 kpc (assumed)
    Used in Eqs. (1) and (3) to convert flux to luminosity, accretion rate, and magnetic field. Not measured in this paper, so the derived B and mdot scale with this assumption.
  • Neutron star mass M = 1.4 M_sun (assumed)
    Canonical value assumed for R_ISCO, mass accretion rate, and magnetic field estimates.
  • Neutron star radius R = 10 km (assumed)
    Canonical value used in the mass accretion rate and magnetic field estimates.
  • Gravitational redshift z = 0.3 (assumed)
    Used in Eq. (1) for the mass accretion rate.
  • Accretion efficiency eta, f_ang, k_A = 0.1, 1, 1 (assumed)
    Adopted from Cackett et al. (2009) in Eq. (3) for the magnetic dipole moment; the B estimate depends linearly on these choices.
  • Inner disk radius Rin (persistent fit) = 9.5+0.5-0.7 Rg (NICER+NuSTAR); 11-12 Rg (NuSTAR segments)
    Free parameter in the relxill fit; the central claim of disk truncation depends on this fitted value.
  • Inclination i = 50.3+2.0-1.3 deg
    Free parameter in the relxill persistent fit; also frozen to 50 deg in the burst reflection model.
  • relxillNS burst parameters = q1=q2=3, Rin=RISCO, Rout=400Rg, i=50 deg, AFe=5, logxi=3.2, logN=18
    Fixed from prior studies; these choices set the shape and flux of the burst reflection component, so the 30 percent contribution is conditional on them.
  • Correlation parameters k and alpha = k=0.7±0.1, alpha=0.5±0.1
    Best-fit power law to the blackbody-reflection flux correlation in Fig. 9; an empirical fit, not a prediction from theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Relativistic reflection models (relxill/relxillNS) describe the returning radiation from a photoionized disk (Garcia et al. 2014, 2022)
    Central to the reflection fits; the model's assumed geometry and atomic physics are taken as valid without independent verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption The inner disk radius measured from reflection equals the magnetospheric radius (Ibragimov & Poutanen 2009, Eq. 3)
    Required for the B ~ 6e8 G estimate; stated as an assumption in the abstract and Section 4.0.2.
  • domain assumption Spin parameter a* = 0.21 derived from the spin frequency via a* ~ 0.47/P(ms) (Braje et al. 2000)
    Used to compute R_ISCO and to convert the fitted Rin in units of R_ISCO to gravitational radii.
  • ad hoc to paper The persistent emission during bursts is represented by the pre-burst powerlaw+diskbb parameters with no scaling factor (Section 3.2)
    Assumes no Poynting-Robertson drag or other brightening of the persistent emission during bursts, which could bias the burst reflection fraction.
  • ad hoc to paper The burst soft excess below 2 keV is attributed to disk reflection rather than atmospheric effects or Poynting-Robertson drag (Section 3.2.1)
    The paper mentions alternative explanations but does not model them; the 30 percent reflection claim rests on this attribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic X-ray reflection and thermonuclear burst from accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFE7SSOM

@misc{pith2026250715982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic X-ray reflection and thermonuclear burst from accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFE7SSOM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15982}
}
read the original abstract

We present the results obtained from the spectral and temporal study of thermonuclear bursts from the millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 detected with NICER. The dynamic evolution of the spectral parameters in a broad energy range is also investigated during a simultaneously detected burst with XMM-Newton and NuSTAR. The burst profiles exhibit a strong energy dependence, as observed with XMM-Newton, NICER, and NuSTAR. We investigated the reflection feature during these bursts using the disk reflection model. As observed during the peak of the NICER bursts, the reflection model can contribute 30 per cent of the overall emission. During the NICER bursts, a correlation is observed between the flux of the blackbody and the reflection components. The measurements of the mass accretion rate indicate that the bursts may be powered by a mixed H/He fuel. Moreover, the broadband NICER and NuSTAR spectra are also used to probe the reflection signature in the burst-free persistent region using the relativistic reflection model. Based on the variability of the count rate during the NuSTAR observation, we also investigate the evolution of spectral parameters during two different flux levels of the NuSTAR observation. The inner disk radius (Rin) and the angle of inclination are found to be nearly 11 Rg and 50 degrees, respectively. The magnetic field strength at the poles of the neutron star is estimated to be 6 x 10^8 G, assuming that the inner disk is truncated at the magnetospheric boundary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MAXI/GSC daily light curve of SRGA J1444 during the 2024 outburst. The Swift-XRT, NICER, NuSTAR, and XMM-Newton observation epochs are shown with the yellow, purple, blue, and black arrows, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 1 s binned light curves of SRGA J1444 with NuSTAR, NICER, Swift-XRT, and XMM-Newton. Time-resolved spectral study was performed for one of the bursts simultaneously detected with XMM-Newton and NuSTAR (marked with red asterisks). The dotted horizontal lines in the bottom panel indicate the two segments at different flux levels, which are used to investigate the evolution of spectral parameters. Simultaneous NICE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Energy-resolved burst profiles of SRGA J1444 are shown using NICER, XMM-Newton and NuSTAR. version of 20240522. The xrtpipeline (version 0.13.7) is used to filter, screen, and reduce the Swift/XRT data. A circular region of 30 arcsec radius, centered at the source position, is used to extract light curves and spectra. The background spectrum is generated using a circular region of 60 arcsec away from the source posi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The evolution of different spectral parameters during bursts obtained by fitting time-resolved NICER spectra of SRGA J1444 with model tbabs×bbodyrad. The blackbody temperature (kT; top panel), blackbody normalization (second panel), blackbody flux (third panel), total …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of different spectral parameters during bursts obtained by fitting time-resolved NICER spectra of SRGA J1444 with model tbabs × (bbodyrad + relxillNS): blackbody temperature (kT; Top panel), blackbody normalization (second panel), blackbody component flux (th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of various spectral parameters obtained from the time￾resolved simultaneous spectral fitting of a burst from SRGA J1444 observed with XMM-Newton and NuSTAR (marked with asterisks in third and fourth panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The spectrum of SRGA J1444 at the peak of the NICER burst (TNB-4; shaded strip in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The broadband XMM-Newton and NuSTAR pre-burst spectra fitted with the absorbed power law and a disk blackbody model. Right: The best fit broadband spectra with the absorbed blackbody model during the burst peak (corresponding to the shaded segment of [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The residuals of the burst-free NuSTAR spectra of SRGA J1444 fitted with an absorbed cutoff power law and blackbody model tbabs × (cutoffpl + bbodyrad). The presence of an iron line at ∼6.4 keV and a Compton hump near 20 keV is evident in the residuals. MNRAS 000, 1–1…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The broadband burst-free NICER (in green color) and NuS￾TAR spectra of SRGA J1444 with the best-fit model tbabs × (relxill + bbodyrad), and corresponding residuals are shown in bottom panel. The NuSTAR FPMA and FPMB spectra are shown in black and red colors, respec￾ti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 16 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., 1996, in Jacoby G

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    R., Strohmayer T

    Ballantyne D. R., Strohmayer T. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602L.105B 602, L105

    doi:10.1086/382703 2004

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharyya S., 2010, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2010.01.010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AdSpR..45..949B 45, 949

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2010.01.010 2010

  5. [5]

    E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664L.103B 664, L103

    Bhattacharyya S., Strohmayer T. E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664L.103B 664, L103

    work page doi:10.1086/520844 2007

  6. [6]

    M., Romani R

    Braje T. M., Romani R. W., Rauch K. P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531..447B 531, 447

    work page doi:10.1086/308448 2000

  7. [7]

    Bult P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...59B 920, 59

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4 2021

  8. [8]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..415C 674, 415

    Cackett E. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..415C 674, 415

    doi:10.1086/524936 2008

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    M., Altamirano D., Patruno A., Miller J

    Cackett E. M., Altamirano D., Patruno A., Miller J. M., Reynolds M., Linares M., Wijnands R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...694L..21C 694, L21

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Chauhan J., Lohfink A., Bharali P., Mandal M., Draghis P., Pal S., Sanna A., 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15470....1C 15470, 1

    2022

  3. [11]

    D'A \` A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...516A..36D 516, A36

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Fabian A

    Dauser T., Garcia J., Parker M. L., Fabian A. C., Wilms J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444L.100D 444, L100

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Degenaar N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-017-0448-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SSRv..214...15D 214, 15

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    arXiv:2010.09005

    Di Salvo T., Sanna A., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2010.09005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv201009005D p. arXiv:2010.09005

    2020 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    C., Rees M

    Fabian A. C., Rees M. J., Stella L., White N. E., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/238.3.729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.238..729F 238, 729

    1989 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Iwasawa K., Reynolds C

    Fabian A. C., Iwasawa K., Reynolds C. S., Young A. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1145F 112, 1145

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Cumming A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..559G 652, 559

    Galloway D. K., Cumming A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..559G 652, 559

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Keek L., 2021, in Belloni T

    Galloway D. K., Keek L., 2021, in Belloni T. M., M \'e ndez M., Zhang C., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions. pp 209--262 ( @eprint arXiv 1712.06227 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_5

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    K., Muno M

    Galloway D. K., Muno M. P., Hartman J. M., Psaltis D., Chakrabarty D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..179..360G 179, 360

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Garc \' a J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...76G 782, 76

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Dauser T., Ludlam R., Parker M., Fabian A., Harrison F

    Garc \' a J. A., Dauser T., Ludlam R., Parker M., Fabian A., Harrison F. A., Wilms J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3cb7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...13G 926, 13

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W

    Gendreau K. C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W. A., Takahashi T., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99051H, @doi 10.1117/12.2231304

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Fabian A

    George I. M., Fabian A. C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/249.2.352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.249..352G 249, 352

    1991 doi

  17. [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

  18. [26]

    G \"u ver T., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1ae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...37G 910, 37

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770..103H 770, 103

    Harrison F. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770..103H 770, 103

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Ibragimov A., Poutanen J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15477.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400..492I 400, 492

    2009

  21. [29]

    K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad794e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...67J 975, 67

    Jaisawal G. K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad794e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...67J 975, 67

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Jansen F., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L...1J 365, L1

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    Keek L., Heger A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842..113K 842, 113

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Keek L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L...4K 855, L4

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    R., in't Zand J

    Kuulkers E., den Hartog P. R., in't Zand J. J. M., Verbunt F. W. M., Harris W. E., Cocchi M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...399..663K 399, 663

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    Lewin W. H. G., van Paradijs J., Taam R. E., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00196124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993SSRv...62..223L 62, 223

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    Lu Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..87L 670, A87

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824...37L 824, 37

    Ludlam R. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824...37L 824, 37

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...99L 873, 99

    Ludlam R. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...99L 873, 99

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    V., Remillard R

    Makishima K., Maejima Y., Mitsuda K., Bradt H. V., Remillard R. A., Tuohy I. R., Hoshi R., Nakagawa M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..635M 308, 635

    1986 doi

  31. [39]

    arXiv:2502.08239

    Malacaria C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250208239M p. arXiv:2502.08239

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mandal M., Naik S., Jaisawal G., 2025a, , (under review)

  33. [41]

    Mandal M., Pal S., Jaisawal G. K., Lohfink A., Naik S., Chauhan J., 2025b, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JHEAp..4700387M 47, 100387

    2025

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    A., Semena A

    Mereminskiy I. A., Semena A. N., Molkov S. V., Lutovinov A. A., Tkachenko A. Y., Arefiev V. A., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16464....1M 16464, 1

    2024

  36. [44]

    M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..441M 45, 441

    Miller J. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..441M 45, 441

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mitsuda K., et al., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PASJ...36..741M 36, 741

    1984

  38. [46]

    Mukherjee D., Bult P., van der Klis M., Bhattacharya D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3994M 452, 3994

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Ng M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4edb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968L...7N 968, L7

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    \"O zel F., 2013, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/76/1/016901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RPPh...76a6901O 76, 016901

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    T., Robba N

    Papitto A., Di Salvo T., D'A \` A., Iaria R., Burderi L., Riggio A., Menna M. T., Robba N. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200811401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493L..39P 493, L39

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17090.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.2575P 407, 2575

    Papitto A., Riggio A., di Salvo T., Burderi L., D'A \` A., Iaria R., Bozzo E., Menna M. T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17090.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.2575P 407, 2575

    2010

  43. [51]

    Papitto A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3411P 429, 3411

    doi

  44. [52]

    Papitto A., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.501..517P 501, 517

    doi

  45. [53]

    F., Ferrigno C., Kajava J

    Papitto A., Bozzo E., Sanchez-Fernandez C., Romano P., Torres D. F., Ferrigno C., Kajava J. J. E., Kuulkers E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..71P 596, A71

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Papitto A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A..37P 694, A37

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    L., 2021, in Belloni T

    Patruno A., Watts A. L., 2021, in Belloni T. M., M \'e ndez M., Zhang C., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions. pp 143--208 ( @eprint arXiv 1206.2727 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_4

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Pavlinsky M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..42P 650, A42

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Poutanen J., 2006, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2006.04.025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AdSpR..38.2697P 38, 2697

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..130R 163, 130

    Remillard R. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..130R 163, 130

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Sanchez-Fernandez C., Kuulkers E., Ferrigno C., Chenevez J., Del Santo M., 2024a, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16507....1S 16507, 1

  52. [60]

    Sanchez-Fernandez C., Kuulkers E., Ferrigno C., Chenevez J., Del Santo M., 2024b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16507....1S 16507, 1

  53. [61]

    E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NuPhA.777..601S 777, 601

    Schatz H., Rehm K. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NuPhA.777..601S 777, 601

    2006 doi

  54. [62]

    Staubert R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A..61S 622, A61

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    Strohmayer T., Bildsten L., 2003, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003astro.ph..1544S pp astro--ph/0301544

    2003 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Str \"u der L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L..18S 365, L18

    2001 doi

  57. [65]

    Sunyaev R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.132S 656, A132

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Takeda T., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16495....1T 16495, 1

    2024

  59. [67]

    Tawara Y., et al., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...276L..41T 276, L41

    1984 doi

  60. [68]

    Turner M. J. L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L..27T 365, L27

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385..661W 385, 661

    Walker M. A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385..661W 385, 661

    1992 doi

  62. [70]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  63. [71]

    K., Price D

    Worpel H., Galloway D. K., Price D. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/94 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...94W 772, 94

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    Yu W., Li Z., Lu Y., Pan Y., Yang X., Chen Y., Zhang S., Falanga M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..93Y 683, A93

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Johnson W

    Zdziarski A. A., Johnson W. N., Magdziarz P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.1.193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283..193Z 283, 193

    1996 doi

  66. [74]

    Zhao G., Li Z., Pan Y., Falanga M., Ji L., Chen Y., Zhang S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A..31Z 660, A31

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    T., Done C., Smith D

    \.Z ycki P. T., Done C., Smith D. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.309..561Z 309, 561

    1999

  68. [76]

    W., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L...7D 365, L7

    den Herder J. W., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L...7D 365, L7

    2001 doi

  69. [77]

    van Paradijs J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/274650a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.274..650V 274, 650

    1978 doi

  70. [78]

    van der Klis M., 2004, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0410551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.10551V pp astro--ph/0410551

    2004 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.