Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Do Accretion Disks Get Bent Out of Shape? Investigating the Origin of Rapid Fluctuations in the Tails of Long Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rapid flickers in long X-ray bursts trace a warped inner accretion disk, not the burst itself.

desk verdict Careful spectral analysis shows fluctuation bursts are reflection-dominated, but the unmatched control sample and overreached viscosity claim keep me from full endorsement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07758 v1 pith:J4665QWK submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

D.R. Ballantyne (1) , N. Degenaar (2) ((1) Center for Relativistic Astrophysics , Georgia Tech , (2) Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy , University of Amsterdam) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords accretiondisksX-rayburstsneutronstarsreflectionspectroscopyradiatively-drivenwarpsdiskviscositylow-massbinariesspectralanalysis
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 argues that the rapid flux fluctuations seen during the decay of some long thermonuclear X-ray bursts are caused by changes in the inner accretion disk, most plausibly a radiatively-driven warp. Spectral analysis of five bursts with fluctuations shows relativistic, ionized reflection from the inner disk, with the neutron star blackbody often hidden; four of five control bursts without fluctuations are simple absorbed blackbodies. The fluctuating bursts are longer and more energetic, matching the predicted conditions for the warping instability. If correct, these bursts reveal that their accretion disks have large viscosity parameters, and they provide a new way to probe viscosity in low-mass X-ray binaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radiatively-driven warp instability in the accretion disk, combined with spectral decomposition using absorbed blackbody plus xillverNS/relxillNS reflection models. The reflection models provide measures of the ionization, inclination, and flux fraction of the reprocessing region, and the warp instability explains why longer, more luminous bursts hide the neutron star and produce rapid flux changes.

What would settle it

If a long, energetic burst with rapid fluctuations is observed with a high-throughput instrument and phase-resolved spectra show the neutron star blackbody continuously with no relativistically blurred iron line, the claim that the fluctuations are caused by inner-disk reflection changes would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the presence of rapid flux variations in the tails of long X-ray bursts is connected to changes in the inner accretion disk structure, most likely a radiatively-driven warp. In all five bursts with fluctuations, spectra from before, during, and after the fluctuations show relativistic, ionized reflection, and the blackbody from the neutron star is often hidden; in the control sample, four of five bursts are best described by a simple absorbed blackbody. The bursts with fluctuations are longer and more energetic than the control sample, consistent with the prediction that a radiatively-driven warp instability affects their disks. A consequence is that these disks must have large viscosity parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The spectral results rely on the reflection models xillverNS and relxillNS, with density fixed at $10^{19}$ $cm^{-3}$, spin 0.2, emissivity index 3, and inclination often frozen at 30 degrees, being accurate descriptions of the disk emission; the paper itself notes that the disk density likely exceeds the model maximum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bursts that show rapid fluctuations should also show reflection-dominated spectra with the neutron star blackbody hidden, whereas equally long bursts without fluctuations should remain simple blackbodies.
  • The presence of fluctuations implies accretion disks with large viscosity parameters, so bursts can serve as probes of disk viscosity.
  • Radiative warping can occur in bursts even without visible fluctuations, such as the claimed case of XTE J1810-189.
  • Future high-throughput, time-resolved spectroscopy can track the disk response and measure the strength of accretion disk viscosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the warp interpretation holds, the same fluctuations should appear in other observables such as X-ray polarization or timing correlations, which could be tested with future missions.
  • The reflection-model caveats mean that an alternative explanation, a burst-driven wind or shell temporarily obscuring and re-exposing the inner disk, could mimic some spectral changes; the paper argues against it but does not fully rule it out.
  • A testable extension is to search for bursts that are longer and more energetic but show no reflection and no fluctuations, which would challenge the duration-energy threshold for warping.
  • The 1 keV line identified as Ne emission in IGR 17062-6143 may provide a compositional tag for ultracompact binaries.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectral analysis of five Swift-XRT observations of long thermonuclear X-ray bursts that exhibit rapid flux fluctuations in their decay tails, extracting spectra before, during, and after the fluctuation intervals. Using absorbed blackbody plus xillverNS/relxillNS reflection models, the authors report that the fluctuation bursts are frequently reflection-dominated with the neutron-star blackbody hidden, and that parameters such as ionization, column density, and inclination change across intervals. They compare these results with five long bursts without fluctuations, find that 4/5 of the control bursts are simple absorbed blackbodies, and interpret the spectral dichotomy together with the longer durations and higher fluences of the fluctuation bursts as evidence for radiatively driven disk warping, which would imply large disk viscosity parameters.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable observational probe of accretion disk viscosity and of burst-disk interactions, extending the earlier theoretical prediction of Ballantyne (2023) to a homogeneous Swift sample. The paper has genuine strengths: it uses a single instrument for all targets, extracts time-resolved intervals bracketing the fluctuations, includes an explicit simulated low-count check showing that reflection features would be detected at control-sample count levels, and compares with earlier blackbody-only analyses. The identification of the 1 keV line in IGR J17062-6143 as Ne is also a useful concrete result. However, the small sample sizes, the unmatched control sample, and the known degeneracies in the reflection modeling mean that the evidence is suggestive rather than demonstrative at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, Tables 1 and 5] The control sample is not matched to the fluctuation sample in duration or fluence: from Table 1, t5% ranges from 600 to >5530 s for the fluctuation bursts versus 140 to 750 s for the controls, and Table 5 gives mean fluences of (3.85±4.53)e-4 erg/cm2 versus (1.48±1.17)e-6 erg/cm2, a factor of roughly 260. Therefore the striking spectral dichotomy between reflection-dominated fluctuation bursts and blackbody-dominated controls may simply track burst energy or duration rather than the presence of fluctuations. The paper uses these same differences in §6.1 as support for the warp prediction, so the control comparison does not isolate the fluctuation phenomenon. A matched control sample, or an explicit analysis separating fluence/duration from fluctuation state, is needed before the claim that fluctuations are connected to inner-disk structural changes can be accepted.
  2. [§3, Tables 3 and 6–9] The reflection models assume a fixed slab density of 1e19 cm-3, while the paper itself notes in §3 that the density of neutron-star accretion disks is expected to exceed 1e20-21 cm-3, above the model maximum. Because the soft excess from reflection depends strongly on density (Ballantyne 2004), the inferred blackbody fractions, ionization parameters, and inclination angles may be partly determined by an incorrect reflection continuum rather than by real geometric changes. The paper should quantify this systematic uncertainty, for example by testing alternative reflection prescriptions, or at minimum should temper the parameter-level conclusions drawn from Figure 4.
  3. [Appendix A.3] The Swift J1734.5-3027 FLUC spectrum admits two very different best-fit solutions: one with AFe≈1, logξ≈3.07, and i≈3 degrees, and an alternative with AFe≈10, logξ≈1.1, and i≈87 degrees. The authors reject the latter based on physical plausibility rather than statistical preference, explicitly noting that the iron abundances are inconsistent between intervals and that one interval may be incorrectly modeled. This degeneracy directly affects the inclination-change evidence in Figure 4(d) and weakens the claim that detected inclination changes support a changing disk geometry; the alternative solution and its implications should be reported and discussed.
  4. [§5 and §6.3] With five bursts in each sample, the '4 of 5 versus 1 of 5' dichotomy has limited statistical power, and no quantitative significance test is provided for the 'striking difference' asserted in §5. The conclusion in §6.3 that the available evidence 'strongly indicates' a connection between the fluctuations and inner-disk structural changes goes beyond what the present data can support; a more cautious phrasing, such as 'is consistent with,' would be more proportionate to the sample size and the modeling caveats.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph] The text refers to 'the 2011 burst of IGR 17062-6143', but Table 1 lists the observation date as 2012-06-25; the year should be corrected consistently.
  2. [Table 2] The column header 'Energy Rangy' contains a typo and should read 'Energy Range'.
  3. [Table 8] The POST row lists '−604/501' for χ2/dof, which appears to be a typographical artifact; it should read '604/501'.
  4. [Figure 2] The source label 'SAX J1712-3739' is inconsistent with the nomenclature 'SAX J1712.6-3739' used elsewhere in the paper.
  5. [§6.1] The statement that the higher fluences 'is reflective of a larger energy release' should be rephrased for grammatical agreement, and the fluence estimates computed from interval fluxes should be flagged more prominently as lower limits given the long data gaps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper tests an independent theoretical prediction against new observational data, and the central spectral comparison is not equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) fit xillverNS/relxillNS reflection models to Swift-XRT spectra of five bursts with rapid fluctuations; (2) compare those results to a control sample of five bursts without fluctuations; (3) find that the fluctuation bursts are longer and more energetic; and (4) interpret these facts as consistent with the radiative-warp prediction of Ballantyne (2023). The only self-citation that carries interpretive weight is Ballantyne (2023), but that work is a parameterized theoretical calculation whose assumptions do not include the present observational results, so citing it as a testable prediction is independent evidence rather than a circular reduction. The fixed reflection-model parameters (density, spin, emissivity index, inclination) come from external work, not from the present paper's conclusions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the blackbody fractions, ionization parameters, and inclinations are measured quantities, and the duration/fluence comparison is a direct observational correlation. The control sample is indeed not matched in duration or fluence, which is a validity concern for the comparison, but it is not a case where an equation or definition reduces to its own input. No circular step can be exhibited with the specific reduction required by the reviewing rules, so the appropriate finding is 'no significant circularity.'

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spectral findings rest on the fidelity of the xillverNS/relxillNS reflection models and on a set of fixed parameters (spin, emissivity, density, inclination). The warp interpretation further rests on the author's own previous theory. Many parameters are fitted per interval, and some are degenerate or pegged.

free parameters (8)
  • Blackbody temperature kT_BB = 0.64 to 2.33 keV depending on interval (Tables 3, 6-9)
    Fitted to each spectrum; central to the blackbody fraction result.
  • Blackbody normalization / flux fraction = varies from <0.01 to 1.0 (Tables 3-4, 6-9)
    Fitted via cflux; the key observable showing the NS is hidden.
  • Ionization parameter log xi = 1.0 to 3.81
    Fitted for each reflection component; used to infer changes in the reflecting region.
  • Iron abundance A_Fe = often pegged at 10 times solar
    Fitted; sometimes pegged at upper bound, indicating degeneracy.
  • Inclination angle i = 3 to 71.6 degrees (free in some intervals)
    Fitted in several intervals; changes interpreted as disk geometry changes.
  • Excess column density Delta_NH = 0 to 9.4e22 cm^-2
    Fitted for each spectrum; used to assess obscuration.
  • Bremsstrahlung temperature kT_bremss = 0.055 to 0.41 keV
    Added to model soft excess in some sources; a free parameter not predicted by theory.
  • vapec normalization and Ne abundance = A_Ne lower limits >1.2-1.8
    Added for IGR 17062-6143 to model 1 keV line; abundance is fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The xillverNS/relxillNS reflection models with constant-density slab at 1e19 cm^-3 describe the accretion disk emission.
    Section 2.4 and 3; paper notes expected disk densities exceed this, and soft excess may be underrepresented.
  • domain assumption Neutron star spin is fixed at a=0.2.
    Section 2.4; taken from literature, affects relativistic blurring in relxillNS.
  • domain assumption Emissivity index of the reflector is fixed at q=3.0.
    Section 2.4; standard value but not source-specific.
  • domain assumption The burst emission from the NS surface is a blackbody.
    Standard practice in X-ray burst spectral fitting (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption The radiatively-driven warp instability from Ballantyne (2023) applies to these systems.
    Section 6.3 uses this theory to interpret results; theory from the same first author and not independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do Accretion Disks Get Bent Out of Shape? Investigating the Origin of Rapid Fluctuations in the Tails of Long Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4665QWK

@misc{pith2026260807758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do Accretion Disks Get Bent Out of Shape? Investigating the Origin of Rapid Fluctuations in the Tails of Long Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4665QWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07758}
}
read the original abstract

Thermonuclear X-ray bursts from the surfaces of neutron stars affect the surrounding accretion flow, revealing details of the underlying physical processes influencing accretion physics. In this context, we perform a spectral analysis of 5 long X-ray bursts that exhibit temporary rapid flux variations during the tails of their light curves. In all cases, spectra extracted from before, during and after the time of fluctuations show evidence for relativistic, ionized reflection with the blackbody from the neutron star often hidden from view. Both the properties of the reflecting region and the observed fraction of the blackbody vary as the fluctuations start and stop. These results are compared to a sample of 5 similar bursts without fluctuations in their light curves, and we find that spectra from 4 of the bursts in the control sample are best described by a simple absorbed blackbody. The bursts with fluctuations are longer and more energetic than those without fluctuations, in agreement with the prediction that radiatively-driven warps are impacting the accretion disks of the bursts with fluctuations. This result would also imply that these accretion disks must have large viscosity parameters. The lack of reflection in bursts from the control sample may result from lower accretion rates, as these disks would have smaller surface densities and would expand and become Compton-thin due to heating from the burst. High-throughput, time-resolved spectral analysis of X-ray bursts that undergo warping would give insight into the strength of accretion disk viscosity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Swift-XRT light curves of the five bursts with fluctuations chosen for analysis. The time resolution is 1 s and t = 0 corresponds to the onset of the burst rise found by J. J. M. in’t Zand et al. (2019). Colored regions indicate the different time intervals used for spectral extraction, where dark, medium and light gray specify the intervals before (PRE), during (FLUC), and after the fluctuations (POST), respectivel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Swift-XRT light curves (1-s resolution) of the five bursts without fluctuations, which comprises our control sample (lower half of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the PRE, FLUC and POST intervals from the IGR 17062-6143 burst ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Key results from fitting the PRE, FLUC and POST spectra from the 5 intermediate duration bursts that show rapid fluctuations in their light curves: (a) the fraction of the total flux in the blackbody component (including upper-limits), (b) the increase in absorbing col…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fluences of the 10 bursts in the sample (Ta￾ble 5) plotted against their durations as measured by t5% ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the PRE, FLUC and POST intervals from the 2011 burst from SAX J1712.6-3739. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the final model (plotted in EFE units) including the relxill (dotted line) and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the PRE and FLUC intervals from the 2014 burst from SAX J1712.6-3739. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the final model (plotted in EFE units) including the relxill (dotted line), the burs…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the Swift J1734.5-3027 FLUC and POST intervals. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the final model (plotted in EFE units) including the relxill (dotted line), the burst blackbody (dot-dashe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the PRE, FLUC and POST intervals from 4U 1850-087. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the final model (plotted in EFE units) including the relxill (dotted line) and blackbody (dot-dashed l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the three intervals from 4U 1246-58. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the final model (plotted in EFE units) including the relxillNS (dotted line), blackbody (dot-dashed line) and nthcom…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the three intervals from XTE J1701-407. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the best-fitting model plotted in EFE units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the three intervals from the 2010 burst of SAX J1712.6-3739. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the best-fitting model plotted in EFE units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the three intervals from XTE J1810-189. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the best-fitting model plotted in EFE units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Plots of the best-fit models and residuals (in units of σ) for the three intervals from SAX J1806.5-2215. The solid line in the upper-part of each plot shows the best-fitting model plotted in EFE units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Borghese, A., et al

    Armas Padilla, M., Corral-Santana, J. M., Borghese, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346797

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346797 2023

  2. [2]

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

    1996

  3. [3]

    Ballantyne, D. R. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 57, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07767.x

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Ballantyne, D. R. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3227

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3227 2023

  5. [5]

    R., & Everett, J

    Ballantyne, D. R., & Everett, J. E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 364, doi: 10.1086/429860

    doi:10.1086/429860 2005

  6. [6]

    R., & Strohmayer, T

    Ballantyne, D. R., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2004, ApJL, 602, L105, doi: 10.1086/382703

    doi:10.1086/382703 2004

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 694, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452878 Barri` ere, N

    Barra, F., Barret, D., Pinto, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452878 Barri` ere, N. M., Krivonos, R., Tomsick, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/123

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452878 2025

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 579, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526150

    Bozzo, E., Romano, P., Falanga, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526150

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526150 2015

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    K., G¨ uver, T., et al

    Bult, P., Jaisawal, G. K., G¨ uver, T., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ae1

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4

    Bult, P., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Shapiro, S

    Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823, doi: 10.1086/173934

    1994 doi

  4. [12]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    2004, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 132, 435, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.04.078

    Cumming, A. 2004, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 132, 435, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.04.078

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Wijnands, R., Altamirano, D., & Fabian, A

    Degenaar, N., Miller, J. M., Wijnands, R., Altamirano, D., & Fabian, A. C. 2013, ApJL, 767, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L37

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Belloni, T., et al

    Degenaar, N., Ballantyne, D. R., Belloni, T., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 15, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0448-3

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Ballantyne, D

    Fragile, P. C., Ballantyne, D. R., & Blankenship, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 541, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0987-5

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Witry, J. W. L. 2018, ApJL, 867, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeb99

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Ajamyan, A

    Galloway, D. K., Ajamyan, A. N., Upjohn, J., & Stuart, M. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1576

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. T. M. Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 209–262, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 5

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, ApJS, 179, 360, doi: 10.1086/592044

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al

    Galloway, D. K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9f2e Garc ´ ıa, J. A., Dauser, T., Ludlam, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3cb7

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa13 G¨ uver, T., Boztepe, T., Ballantyne, D

    Zamfir, M. 2021, ApJ, 914, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa13 G¨ uver, T., Boztepe, T., Ballantyne, D. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3422 Hern´ andez Santisteban, J. V., C´ uneo, V., Degenaar, N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1997

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, A&A, 638, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936895 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al

    Herrera, Y., Sala, G., & Jos´ e, J. 2020, A&A, 638, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936895 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 Investigating Rapid Fluctuations in Type I X-ray Bursts23 10 2 10 1 100 10...

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Naylor, T., et al

    Homer, L., Charles, P. A., Naylor, T., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 282, L37, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.3.L37 in’t Zand, J. J. M., Galloway, D. K., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2011, A&A, 525, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015556 in’t Zand, J. J. M., Kries, M. J. W., Palmer, D. M., &

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, A&A, 621, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834270

    Degenaar, N. 2019, A&A, 621, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834270

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Chenevez, J., Strohmayer, T

    Jaisawal, G. K., Chenevez, J., Strohmayer, T. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcc24 24Ballantyne et al. 10 2 10 1 100 101 EFE (keV (keV s 1 keV 1 cm 2)) XTE J1810-189 (1) TBabs*(bbodyrad+relxillNS) 2/dof=171/178 1.0 9.0 Energy (keV) 2.5 0.0 2.5 Residuals...

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/40

    Ji, L., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/40

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Chakrabarty, D

    Juett, A. M., & Chakrabarty, D. 2003, ApJ, 599, 498, doi: 10.1086/379188

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Kuulkers, E., & Strohmayer, T

    Keek, L., Ballantyne, D. R., Kuulkers, E., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2014, ApJL, 797, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L23

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/111

    Keek, L., Iwakiri, W., Serino, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/111

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., & Taam, R. E. 1993, SSRv, 62, 223, doi: 10.1007/BF00196124

    1993 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Zhang, G., et al

    Li, A., Watts, A. L., Zhang, G., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  26. [34]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 119503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2761-4

    doi

  27. [35]

    L., Wijnands, R., et al

    Linares, M., Watts, A. L., Wijnands, R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 392, L11, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00572.x

    2009

  28. [36]

    J., & Coppi, P

    Maccarone, T. J., & Coppi, P. S. 2003, A&A, 399, 1151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021881 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004 http://a...

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 043038, doi: 10.1103/mxlf-8sbm

    Neuweiler, A., Gieg, H., Rose, H., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 043038, doi: 10.1103/mxlf-8sbm

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Roming, P

    Ray, P. S., Roming, P. W. A., Argan, A., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 042504, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.4.042504

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al

    Russell, T. D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 763, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07133-5 S´ anchez-Fern´ andez, C., Kajava, J. J. E., Poutanen, J.,

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Kuulkers, E., & Suleimanov, V. F. 2020, A&A, 634, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936599

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  34. [42]

    R., & Sunyaev, R

    Sibgatullin, N. R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1998, Astronomy Letters, 24, 774, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9811028

    1998 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    R., & Fragile, P

    Speicher, J., Ballantyne, D. R., & Fragile, P. C. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3087

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    R., & Malzac, J

    Speicher, J., Ballantyne, D. R., & Malzac, J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3137 Investigating Rapid Fluctuations in Type I X-ray Bursts25

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    C., & Ballantyne, D

    Speicher, J., Fragile, P. C., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2684

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, in Cambridge Astrophysics Series, Vol

    Strohmayer, T., & Bildsten, L. 2006, in Cambridge Astrophysics Series, Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. Lewin & M. van der Klis, 113–156

    2006

  39. [47]

    E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al

    Strohmayer, T. E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2019, ApJL, 878, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25eb

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    A., & Meszaros, P

    Walker, M. A., & Meszaros, P. 1989, ApJ, 346, 844, doi: 10.1086/168065

    1989 doi

  41. [49]

    Wilkins, D. R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 748, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3167

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    K., & Price, D

    Worpel, H., Galloway, D. K., & Price, D. J. 2015, ApJ, 801, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/60

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.