Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 43 references

RELXILL_NK: A Black Hole Relativistic Reflection Model for Testing General Relativity

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents RELXILL_NK, the first readily available code that fits X-ray reflection spectra of black hole accretion disks in non-Kerr spacetimes, enabling direct tests of the Kerr hypothesis.

desk verdict A thin conference summary of an already-released code: the flavor comparison is qualitative and the GR-testing claim overstates what a phenomenological deformation can do, but the tool itself is real and public. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10152 v1 pith:NMDDKOLT submitted 2019-08-27 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Askar B. Abdikamalov , Dimitry Ayzenberg , Cosimo Bambi , Sourabh Nampalliwar This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords RELXILL_NKX-rayreflectionspectroscopyKerrhypothesisnon-KerrspacetimesgeneralrelativitytestsJohannsenmetricraytracingaccretiondisk
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

The paper presents RELXILL_NK as the first and currently only readily available model that computes the relativistic X-ray reflection spectrum of a black hole accretion disk in non-Kerr spacetimes, instead of assuming the Kerr metric. The motivation is the Kerr hypothesis: if general relativity is wrong, astrophysical black holes need not be Kerr, and the deviations should leave an imprint on the broadened iron line and reflection continuum. The model combines a general-relativistic ray-tracing code that can handle any well-behaved stationary, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat spacetime with the atomic reflection code XILLVER, which supplies the disk physics. The authors also compare several flavors of the model using the Johannsen metric and find that the choice of flavor changes how strongly a spacetime deformation affects the spectrum, though the brief comparison does not yet determine which flavor is best for testing general relativity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the RELXILL_NK package itself: a general-relativistic ray-tracing code integrated with the XILLVER rest-frame reflection code and the Cunningham transfer-function formalism for mapping the disk-frame emission to a distant observer. In Kerr spacetime, photon trajectories are separable through the Carter constant, but in a general non-Kerr metric they are not, so the code solves the full second-order geodesic equations numerically. The non-Kerr spacetime used for the comparisons is the Johannsen metric, a parametric deformation of Kerr controlled by deformation parameters, here $\alpha_{13}$; setting them to zero returns exactly Kerr. The ray tracer supplies relativistic broadening, Doppler boosting, and light bending, while XILLVER supplies the fluorescent lines and reflected continuum.

What would settle it

Generate a synthetic reflection spectrum in a known alternative-gravity solution with a known spacetime deviation, fit it with RELXILL_NK allowing nonzero $\alpha_{13}$, and check whether the fit recovers the injected spacetime; a pipeline that cannot recover injected non-Kerr deviations would show that the model cannot actually test the Kerr hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a public, ready-to-use model can now simulate the X-ray reflection spectrum of a black hole accretion disk in any well-behaved, stationary, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat spacetime, not just in Kerr. RELXILL_NK achieves this by replacing Kerr-only photon geodesic integration with a general-relativistic ray-tracing code, while keeping the rest-frame atomic physics from XILLVER. With the Johannsen metric as the non-Kerr example, the model produces spectra whose iron-line and reflection-continuum shapes depend on the deformation parameter $\alpha_{13}$, so fits to real data can ask whether the data prefer $\alpha_{13}=0$ (Kerr) or shifted values. The paper also compares three flavors and finds flavor-dependent sensitivity to $\alpha_{13}$, concluding that a fuller analysis is needed to say which flavor tests general relativity best.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Johannsen metric, a parametric deformation of Kerr that is not itself a solution of any gravity theory, captures the deviations that real modified-gravity theories would imprint on a black hole spacetime; if that mapping fails, limits on its parameters are not limits on general relativity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observational X-ray spectra of black hole accretion disks can now be fit with non-Kerr metrics, so deviations from Kerr show up directly as preferred values of parameters such as $\alpha_{13}$.
  • If fits to many sources return deformation parameters consistent with zero, the Kerr hypothesis survives within the Johannsen family; if some sources require nonzero values, those are candidates for general-relativity violations.
  • Because the ray tracer accepts any well-behaved stationary axisymmetric asymptotically flat metric, the same package can be used with other theory-specific metrics, not only the Johannsen one.
  • The flavor comparison shows that the assumed disk-corona model changes how strongly a given spacetime deformation alters the spectrum, so the choice of model flavor should be treated as a systematic uncertainty in general-relativity tests.
  • The limitations listed in the paper, including the thin-disk approximation, the inner edge at the ISCO, and the neglect of photons crossing the mid-plane, define where current model predictions are least trustworthy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strongest calibration of the framework would be to generate synthetic spectra in a known alternative-gravity spacetime and see whether fitting with the Johannsen metric recovers the injected deformation; this is not done in the paper.
  • If real modified-gravity black holes deviate from Kerr in ways the Johannsen family cannot express, current constraints should be reported as bounds on that specific parameter rather than as general tests of general relativity, a caveat the authors themselves state in Appendix A.
  • The model's thin-disk and ISCO assumptions could bias deformation constraints at high spin, so applying the package to sources with alternative inner-edge treatments may shift the published bounds.
  • Comparing RELXILL_NK constraints with independent spin measurements, such as from continuum fitting, would cross-check whether apparent deviations are really spacetime effects rather than artifacts of the disk model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript presents RELXILL_NK, a public X-ray reflection model that extends RELXILL/RELLINE by replacing the Kerr spacetime with a general stationary, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat metric via a ray-tracing code and combining it with the XILLVER reflection code. After summarizing the assumed disk-corona geometry and the model parameters, the paper lists nine flavors (RELLINE_NK, RELCONV_NK, RELXILL_NK, RELXILL_CP_NK, RELXILL_D_NK, and lamppost variants) and compares the effects of the Johannsen deformation parameter alpha_13 = -1, 0, 1 for three non-lamppost flavors at a* = 0.98 and inclination i = 45 degrees. It concludes that the CP flavor is indistinguishable from the base model in the iron-line region, while the D flavor shows somewhat weaker and more extended modifications, and it defers a definitive statement to future work. The model is already the basis of several published applications cited in Refs. [17-29].

Significance. The central availability claim is credible and useful: a non-Kerr reflection model is publicly available, has been used in multiple studies, and the code is downloadable from two institutional websites. The general-metric framework, the use of the Cunningham transfer-function formalism, and the explicit discussion of model limitations are strengths. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, but the reproducibility of the public code and the open list of previous applications support the availability claim. However, the broader claim that the model 'allows for tests of GR' is weakened by the fact that the Johannsen metric is an ad hoc parametric deformation, not a solution of any gravity theory, and by the purely qualitative flavor comparison in Section 4. The manuscript is valuable as a software announcement and a preliminary sensitivity study; the over-claims are correctable by rephrasing and by adding a quantitative figure of merit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Appendix A] The abstract's claim that RELXILL_NK allows for 'tests of the Kerr hypothesis and GR' overreaches relative to what the model actually delivers with the Johannsen metric. Appendix A states explicitly that the Johannsen metric 'is not itself a solution to any theory of gravity.' Therefore a constraint on alpha_13 is a constraint on a phenomenological deviation from Kerr within one four-function family, not a measurement of any specific modified-gravity coupling constant. To support the GR-testing wording, the paper would need either to map the alpha_13 constraints to concrete theories (e.g., Chern-Simons or Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet) or to demonstrate the code with metrics that are actual solutions of those theories. At minimum, the abstract and Section 5 should be rephrased as 'tests of the Kerr hypothesis within a deformed-Kerr parametric family,' with the theory-mapping step explicitly identified as future work. The phrase 'non-Kerr solutions' in the abstract should also be changed to 'non-Kerr spacetimes' to avoid implying that the metrics solve any field equations.
  2. [Section 4 / Fig. 2] The flavor comparison is based entirely on visual inspection of the spectra in Fig. 2. Statements such as 'the affect of non-Kerr modifications are slightly weaker in the iron line region' and 'this reduction seems to be slower' are not backed by any quantitative diagnostic (e.g., residual RMS, chi-squared difference, equivalent width, line centroid shift, or a normalized difference spectrum). Because the stated aim is to judge which flavor is 'more suited for testing the Kerr hypothesis,' the paper should define a figure of merit and present it, ideally over a grid of spins and inclinations. As written, Section 4 supports only a qualitative anecdote, and the authors' own conclusion that the analysis is not enough confirms this.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4 / Fig. 2] The text contains 'the affect of non-Kerr modications'; 'affect' should be 'effect' and the spelling of 'modifications' should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix A] The sentence 'The deformations are encoded in the four free functions f, A1, A2, and A3' refers to A3, but A3 is not defined in the metric; the fourth function is A5.
  3. [Section 4 / Fig. 2] The red/black/blue curves in Fig. 2 will be difficult to distinguish in grayscale print; different line styles or dashed/dotted patterns would improve readability.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence 'the method of computation needed to by modified' contains a typo; it should read 'needed to be modified'.
  5. [Section 2] The code download URLs appear only in a footnote; they should be repeated in the reference list with an access date, since the URLs are an essential part of the availability claim.
  6. [Section 5] The accuracy caveat ('overall accuracy not being good enough for next-generation telescopes') is an important limitation and should be stated in the abstract or in Section 2, not only in the concluding remarks, because it tempers the readiness claim of the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RELXILL_NK is a public, independently checkable code; the Johannsen-metric caveat is a validity issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper is a software presentation rather than a derivation of a physical prediction, and none of the load-bearing steps are circular. The central claim is that RELXILL_NK is a readily available non-Kerr extension of RELXILL, and that claim rests on the existence of a public code, not on a self-referential argument. The relativistic transfer is computed with a general relativistic ray-tracing code and the disk atomic physics is handled by XILLVER; neither of these components is defined in terms of the final reflection spectrum being tested, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional structure. The paper does rely on the authors' own public release paper [16] for implementation details and accuracy studies, but such a citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense because the code is publicly available and can be independently checked or falsified against external data. The main caveat identified by the skeptic is real but is not circularity: Appendix A explicitly states that the Johannsen metric is a parametric deformation of Kerr and 'is not itself a solution to any theory of gravity.' Therefore, constraints on alpha13 are constraints on a phenomenological deformation parameter, not direct measurements of a specific modified-gravity coupling. This is a correctness and interpretability limitation, not a reduction of the paper's output to its input by construction. The paper's own concluding remarks also acknowledge accuracy limitations for next-generation telescopes, and the flavor comparison is explicitly described as inconclusive. No equation is asserted to follow from another by definition, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in solely through self-citation. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard thin-disk and corona reflection model, the accuracy of external codes (XILLVER and the ray tracer), and the choice of the Johannsen metric as the non-Kerr spacetime. The largest conceptual burden is that the Johannsen metric is not a solution of any gravity theory. The comparison section uses hand-chosen parameters (a* = 0.98, iota = 45 degrees, alpha13 = -1, 0, 1) and does not scan spin or inclination.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha13 (Johannsen deformation parameter) = -1, 0, 1 (chosen, not fitted)
    The only non-Kerr spacetime parameter varied in the flavor comparison; all other deformations are set to zero. It is selected by hand as the dominant deformation, per ref. 42.
  • dimensionless black hole spin a* = 0.98
    A single spin value is chosen for the comparison; the response of the spectrum to non-Kerr deformations may depend on spin, but no spin scan is performed.
  • disk inclination angle iota = 45 degrees
    A single inclination is chosen, and the paper itself flags accuracy concerns at high inclinations, so conclusions may not generalize to other viewing angles.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The disk-corona geometry assumes a geometrically thin, optically thick disk in the equatorial plane with the inner edge at the ISCO radius.
    This standard accretion disk model is adopted in Section 2. The paper notes in Section 5 that thick disks and emission from below the ISCO are not yet included.
  • ad hoc to paper The Johannsen metric is a suitable spacetime for testing general relativity even though it is not a solution of any theory of gravity.
    Appendix A states the metric is a parametric deformation, not a solution of a known gravity theory. Constraints on its parameters therefore do not directly constrain physical modified-gravity models.
  • domain assumption Setting alpha13 nonzero and all other deformation parameters to zero captures the dominant non-Kerr effects.
    Section 3 and Appendix A rely on ref. 42 for this claim, but it is a modeling choice that could miss important effects from other deformation parameters.
  • domain assumption XILLVER accurately computes the local non-relativistic reflection spectrum.
    The atomic physics of the disk is delegated to XILLVER (refs. 33, 37); the paper provides no in-situ validation of this component.
  • domain assumption Photons travel from the corona to the disk and then to the observer without crossing the mid-plane of the black hole.
    Section 5 explicitly lists the neglect of underside-originating photons as a current limitation of the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RELXILL_NK: A Black Hole Relativistic Reflection Model for Testing General Relativity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NMDDKOLT

@misc{pith2026190810152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RELXILL_NK: A Black Hole Relativistic Reflection Model for Testing General Relativity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NMDDKOLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10152}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we briefly present RELXILL_NK, the first and currently only readily available model of the relativistic reflection spectrum of black hole accretion disks that includes non-Kerr solutions for the black hole spacetime, thus allowing for tests of the Kerr hypothesis and GR. RELXILL_NK makes use of a general relativistic ray-tracing code to calculate the relativistic effects of any well-behaved, stationary, axisymmetric, and asymptotically flat black hole spacetime, while the disk physics is handled through the non-relativistic X-ray reflection code XILLVER. A number of different flavors are available within RELXILL_NK; we summarize and compare these flavors using the Johannsen metric for the black hole spacetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of the disk-corona model and the reflection process. From Ref. [16]. effects through the use of the Cunningham transfer functions was kept the same, however the method of computation needed to by modified to be able to allow for a wide range of non-Kerr BH spacetimes. As the Kerr solution admits a third constant of the motion, known as the Carter constant, the equations of motion are separable. In general, ho… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of RELXILL_NK, RELXILLCP_NK, and RELXILLD_NK, in the Johannsen spacetime with α13 = [−1(red), 0(black), 1(blue)]. Other model parameters are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barret et al., arXiv:1807.06092 [astro-ph.IM]

    D. Barret et al., arXiv:1807.06092 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    S. N. Zhang et al. [eXTP Collaboration], Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9905, 99051Q (2016) [arXiv:1607.08823 [astro-ph.IM]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Bambi, Mod

    C. Bambi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26, 2453 (2011) [arXiv:1109.4256 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Bambi, Rev

    C. Bambi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025001 (2017) [arXiv:1509.03884 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Carter, Phys

    B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331 (1971)

    1971

  6. [6]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1344 (1971)

    1971

  7. [7]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 152 (1972)

    1972

  8. [8]

    Israel, Phys

    W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776 (1967)

    1967

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Israel, Commun

    W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys. 8, 245 (1968)

    1968

  2. [10]

    D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905 (1975)

    1975

  3. [11]

    Psaltis, D

    D. Psaltis, D. Perrodin, K. R. Dienes and I. Mocioiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 091101 (2008) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 119902 (2008)] [arXiv:0710.4564 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Alexander and N

    S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept. 480, 1 (2009) [arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dauser, J

    T. Dauser, J. Garcia, J. Wilms, M. Bock, L. W. Brenneman, M. Falanga, K. Fukumura and C. S. Reynolds, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 1694 (2013) [arXiv:1301.4922 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    García et al., Astrophys

    J. García et al., Astrophys. J. 782, 76 (2014) [arXiv:1312.3231 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bambi, A

    C. Bambi, A. Cardenas-Avendano, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J. 842, 76 (2017) [arXiv:1607.00596 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J.878, 91 (2019) [arXiv:1902.09665 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Z. Cao, S. Nampalliwar, C. Bambi, T. Dauser and J. A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 051101 (2018) [arXiv:1709.00219 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. Zhou, Z. Cao, A. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, L. Modesto and S. Nampalliwar, Phys. Rev. D98, 024007 (2018) [arXiv:1803.07849 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Tripathi, S

    A. Tripathi, S. Nampalliwar, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, J. Jiang and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D98, 023018 (2018) [arXiv:1804.10380 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. Wang, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia, S. Nampalliwar and J. F. Steiner, arXiv:1806.00126 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Y. Xu, S. Nampalliwar, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia and J. Jiang, Astrophys. J. 865, 134 (2018) [arXiv:1807.10243 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Choudhury, S

    K. Choudhury, S. Nampalliwar, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser and J. A. Garcia, Astrophys. J. 879, 80 (2019) [arXiv:1809.06669 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tripathi, S

    A. Tripathi, S. Nampalliwar, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia and A. Marinucci, Astrophys. J. 875, 56 (2019) [arXiv:1811.08148 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tripathi et al., Astrophys

    A. Tripathi et al., Astrophys. J. 874, 135 (2019) [arXiv:1901.03064 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, A

    Y. Zhang, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J. 875, 41 (2019) [arXiv:1901.06117 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi and S. Nampalliwar, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083001 (2019) [arXiv:1903.04071 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. Zhou, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, L. Modesto, S. Nampalliwar and Y. Xu, EPL125, no. 3, 30002 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    H. Liu, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia and S. Nampalliwar, Phys. Rev. D99, 123007 (2019) [arXiv:1904.08027 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang, A

    Y. Zhang, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi and S. Nampalliwar, arXiv:1907.03084 [gr-qc]

    1907 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. B. Abdikamalov et al., MDPI Proc. 17, 2 (2019) [arXiv:1905.08012 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bambi, Annalen Phys

    C. Bambi, Annalen Phys. 530, 1700430 (2018) [arXiv:1711.10256 [gr-qc]]. 9 of 9

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bambi, Black Holes: A Laboratory for T esting Strong Gravity (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2017), doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4524-0

    C. Bambi, Black Holes: A Laboratory for T esting Strong Gravity (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2017), doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4524-0

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Garcia, T

    J. Garcia, T. Dauser, C. S. Reynolds, T. R. Kallman, J. E. McClintock, J. Wilms and W. Eikmann, Astrophys. J.768, 146 (2013) [arXiv:1303.2112 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. C. Fabian, K. Iwasawa, C. S. Reynolds and A. J. Young, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 112, 1145 (2000) [astro-ph/0004366]

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Brenneman, Measuring Supermassive Black Hole Spins in Active Galactic Nuclei (Springer, New York, 2013), doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7771-6 [arXiv:1309.6334 [astro-ph.HE]]

    L. Brenneman, Measuring Supermassive Black Hole Spins in Active Galactic Nuclei (Springer, New York, 2013), doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7771-6 [arXiv:1309.6334 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. S. Reynolds, Space Sci. Rev. 183, 277 (2014) [arXiv:1302.3260 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Garcia and T

    J. Garcia and T. Kallman, Astrophys. J. 718, 695 (2010) [arXiv:1006.0485 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dauser, J

    T. Dauser, J. Garcia, M. L. Parker, A. C. Fabian and J. Wilms, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 444, L100 (2014) [arXiv:1408.2347 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dauser, J

    T. Dauser, J. Wilms, C. S. Reynolds and L. W. Brenneman, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 409, 1534 (2010) [arXiv:1007.4937 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. A. Zdziarski, W. N. Johnson and P . Magdziarz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.283, 193 (1996) [astro-ph/9607015]

    1996 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zycki, C

    P . Zycki, C. Done and D. Smith, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 309, 561 (1999) [astro-ph/9904304]

    1999 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Johannsen, Phys

    T. Johannsen, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044002 (2013) [arXiv:1501.02809 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vigeland, N

    S. Vigeland, N. Yunes and L. Stein, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104027 (2011) [arXiv:1102.3706 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.