Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting the expected Micro-X signal from the 3.5 keV line

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 revises the expected Micro-X signal from the 3.5 keV line downward: 3.4–4.3 counts instead of 18.2, below the 6-count 2-sigma threshold, with a wider repointed field raising the expectation to 7.5–7.9 counts.

desk verdict The paper's main result is a useful, sober downward revision of Micro-X's expected 3.5 keV line counts, but the repointing scenario's ~2-sigma claim rests on an uncomputed background and should be treated as speculation until it is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08276 v2 pith:BERXA663 submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Denys Savchenko , Dmytro Iakubovskyi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords 3.5keVlinedarkmatterdecayMicro-XsoundingrocketGalacticCentreX-raymicrocalorimeterfluxinstrumentsensitivity
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 re-derives how many photons from the unidentified 3.5 keV emission line a 300-second Micro-X sounding-rocket observation should collect, using flux measurements in five off-centre annuli around the Galactic Centre instead of an extrapolation from the innermost region. With three dark-matter halo profiles (NFW, Burkert, Einasto) the expected counts are 3.8, 3.4, and 4.3—far below the 18.2 counts estimated in 2015 and below Micro-X's roughly 6-count 2-sigma detection limit. The authors conclude that a single Micro-X launch with the original 20-degree field of view is unlikely to detect the line. They further show that widening the field of view to 33 degrees and repointing it 13 degrees away from the Galactic Centre, to avoid the bright source Sco X-1, would raise the expected counts to 7.5–7.9, enough for a marginal (~2-sigma) detection in a single flight. If correct, this changes mission planning: detecting the line with the original payload would require multiple co-added flights or a modified geometry.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the line-of-sight integral in Eqs. (1)–(2), which converts a dark-matter density profile into an expected photon count: counts $= A_{\rm eff} T_{\rm exp} \Gamma_{\rm DM}/(4\pi m_{\rm DM}) \times I$, where $I$ is the field-of-view integral over the dark-matter density, evaluated with unity vignetting and a Galactic Centre distance $r_\odot = 8.127$ kpc. This integral is fed by the five annular 3.5 keV line fluxes and the corresponding NFW, Burkert, and Einasto profile parameters from Boyarsky et al. (2018). The decisive difference from the 2015 estimate is the shape of the flux as a function of angular distance: the measured off-centre fluxes fall more steeply than the extrapolated profile, so the total signal accumulated over a 20-degree field is much smaller. This machinery yields the revised counts and also makes the instrument-payload comparison possible.

What would settle it

Point Micro-X at the Galactic Centre for 300 seconds with the original 20-degree field of view and measure the number of 3.5 keV line photons above a carefully modelled background: a value below roughly 3 counts, or consistent with zero, would falsify the central prediction of 3.4-4.3 counts, while a value near 18 would support the older extrapolation. The competing background models can also be tested directly by re-analysing the XMM-Newton data in the 3.3-3.8 keV fitting window used by Dessert et al. (2018).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the earlier 18.2-count expectation for Micro-X was an overestimate caused by extrapolating the 3.5 keV line flux from a 14-arcminute circle around the Galactic Centre to the whole 20-degree field of view. Using the five annular fluxes and best-fit decay parameters reported by Boyarsky et al. (2018), and integrating the dark-matter density over the same field of view, the expected counts are 3.8 (NFW), 3.4 (Burkert) and 4.3 (Einasto) for the original payload. All three values sit below the roughly 6-count 2-sigma threshold, so a single 300-second launch would most likely see nothing. Repointing with a larger 33-degree field of view, angled 13 degrees from the Galactic Centre to exclude Sco X-1, gives 7.5–7.9 counts—a marginal detection that could still be interpreted as evidence for the line, though not a high-significance confirmation.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes that the Boyarsky et al. (2018) measurements of the 3.5 keV line flux in the five off-centre annuli, and the dark-matter decay parameters fitted to them, correctly describe the true sky brightness; if that background treatment is wrong—as Dessert et al. (2018) argue—the expected Micro-X counts could be far lower, possibly near zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single Micro-X launch with the original 20-degree field of view will not settle whether the 3.5 keV line comes from dark matter decay; only stacking several flights or building a larger and repointed instrument can do so.
  • The older 18.2-count sensitivity estimate for Micro-X should be regarded as outdated; future mission-sensitivity statements based on the same innermost-region extrapolation need to be recomputed with the five-annulus flux profile.
  • For a 33-degree field of view repointed 13 degrees from the Galactic Centre, the expected 7.5–7.9 counts make a marginal ~2-sigma detection the realistic best case for a single Micro-X flight.
  • The close agreement with the independent Micro-X collaboration estimate (Adams et al. 2019) suggests the new counting method and input fluxes reproduce the collaboration's numbers, so the reduced expectation is not an artifact of one profile choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the same calculation can be reused as a pointing optimizer for any eV-resolution mission; because the input is just a set of annular fluxes and profile fits, any proposed target or field geometry can be scored without waiting for new dark-matter modelling.
  • My inference: the Boyarsky/Dessert background-model dispute is the single biggest swing factor; if Dessert et al.'s non-detection is correct, the revised Micro-X counts should be nearly zero, and the 7.5–7.9 'marginal detection' scenario would disappear.
  • My inference: the steep measured fall-off in line flux outside the innermost 14 arcminutes is itself informative for the 3.5 keV line debate—it constrains dark-matter profiles more tightly than the old extrapolation and could help distinguish decay from astrophysical plasma line emission if the angular surface-brightness shape is measured more precisely.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper recalculates the expected number of 3.5 keV line photons that the Micro-X sounding rocket would collect in a 300-second observation, replacing the innermost-region extrapolation used by Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015) with the five annular 3.5 keV flux measurements from Boyarsky et al. (2018). For three dark matter density profiles (NFW, Burkert, Einasto), the authors obtain 3.4-4.3 counts for the original 20-degree field of view pointed at the Galactic Centre, below the roughly 6-count 2-sigma detection limit quoted from Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015). They then consider a larger 33-degree field of view repointed 13 degrees away from the Galactic Centre to avoid Sco X-1, obtaining 7.5-7.9 expected line counts and describing this as a marginal (~2-sigma) detection. The paper closes by noting agreement with forecasts by the Micro-X collaboration (Adams et al. 2019) and by acknowledging the discrepancy between Boyarsky et al. (2018) and the non-detection reported by Dessert et al. (2018).

Significance. If the inputs are accepted, the paper provides a useful planning constraint: a single Micro-X observation with the original payload is unlikely to detect the 3.5 keV line, contrary to the earlier 18.2-count estimate of Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015). The main improvement is replacing an extrapolation of the innermost 14-arcmin flux with measured fluxes out to 35 degrees, and checking three halo profiles. The comparison with the Micro-X collaboration's own numbers (Adams et al. 2019) is a positive cross-check. However, the paper's positive claim about the repointed 33-degree configuration lacks a background calculation, and the forecasts inherit a large systematic uncertainty from the contested input line flux, so the quantitative conclusions are not yet on as solid a footing as the qualitative non-detection statement for the baseline configuration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, 33-degree repointed scenario] The claim that the repointed 33-degree observation would yield a marginal (~2-sigma) detection is not supported as written. The paper compares the 7.5-7.9 expected line counts with the ~6-count 2-sigma limit taken from Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015), but that limit was computed for the original 20-degree field of view pointed at the Galactic Centre. The manuscript only asserts “a modest increase of the number of expected background counts in larger FoV” without computing the background for the new geometry. If the line-band background is dominated by diffuse X-ray sky emission, the larger field of view increases the solid angle by roughly (33/20)^2 ≈ 2.7, and the 2-sigma threshold, which scales approximately as the square root of the background, would rise from about 6 to about 9-10 counts; the expected 7.5-7.9 line counts would then not be a 2-sigma detection. If the background is instead dominated by detector-internal noise, the threshold might remain near 6, but the paper provides no calculation to distinguish these cases. This gap directly affects the abstract's positive claim and requires an explicit background estimate for the proposed pointing and field of view.
  2. [Section 2, Eqs. (1)-(2) and Section 3] The expected counts are quoted as point values (3.4-4.3 and 7.5-7.9) without propagated statistical or systematic uncertainties. The five annular line fluxes from Boyarsky et al. (2018) carry statistical errors, and the best-fit decay widths and halo profile parameters have associated uncertainties; the only uncertainty mentioned is the footnote on r_sun, which changes the counts by roughly 15%. Given that the central quantitative claims are these count numbers, the authors should either propagate the input uncertainties or explicitly state that all results are conditional on the Boyarsky et al. (2018) flux measurements and give a sensitivity estimate, such as varying the overall line-flux normalization within its reported error bars.
  3. [Last paragraph (Dessert et al. discrepancy)] The paper correctly acknowledges the contradiction between Boyarsky et al. (2018) and Dessert et al. (2018), but it does not quantify how sensitive its forecasts are to the choice of background model that drives that contradiction. Since the expected counts are built directly from the Boyarsky et al. (2018) line fluxes, a reader cannot determine whether the 3.4-4.3 and 7.5-7.9 numbers would survive if the line flux were lower, or absent, as Dessert et al. report. A simple scaling test—for example, setting the line flux to zero or to the Dessert et al. upper limit—would make the conditional nature of the forecast precise and would strengthen the paper's robustness discussion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The comparison with Adams et al. (2019) for the North target (l = 31 degrees, b = 40 degrees) is introduced without specifying the assumed pointing, FoV radius, or maximal halo radius used for that calculation; a sentence stating the assumed geometry would make the cross-check reproducible.
  2. [Figure 1] The caption says the red crosses show the Boyarsky et al. (2018) data points but does not mention whether error bars are shown; adding error bars or explicitly stating that they are omitted would improve the figure's usefulness.
  3. [Footnote 4] The phrase “one changes the expected Micro-X numbers of counts change by ~0.6 cts” is grammatically garbled and should be rewritten, for example as “the expected Micro-X number of counts changes by ~0.6 cts.”
  4. [Abstract] The phrase “similar Micro-X payload” should presumably be “a similar Micro-X payload”; the missing article appears in the abstract but not in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Micro-X count forecast is a forward integral of externally measured line fluxes, not a re-derivation of its own input.

full rationale

The paper's main calculation takes the 3.5 keV line surface-brightness fluxes and best-fitting dark-matter parameters from Boyarsky et al. (2018, Table II) and integrates them through the Micro-X response using Eqs. (1)-(2) with the same 300 s exposure and 1 cm^2 effective area as Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015). This is a forward-model forecast: the input quantities are annular line fluxes and DM profile parameters, while the output is a predicted photon count in a different instrument's field of view. The output is not fed back into any fit, and no equation defines the input in terms of the output, so the count estimates do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The reliance on Boyarsky et al. (2018) is a self-citation insofar as Iakubovskyi and Savchenko are co-authors, but the cited fluxes are empirical measurements from XMM-Newton data that are externally falsifiable (as the Dessert et al. (2018) null result shows), so the citation is real evidence rather than a circularity penalty under the review rules. The paper explicitly acknowledges the Dessert et al. discrepancy and defends its background-model choice by reference to Boyarsky et al. (2018), which is a data-analysis argument, not a unique-theorem or redefinition manoeuvre. The claimed 'marginal ~2-sigma detection' for the 33-degree FoV relies on an unquantified assertion that backgrounds increase only 'modestly' with FoV, but that is an internal consistency or correctness gap, not a circular reduction. The paper also cross-checks its numbers against Adams et al. (2019), an external benchmark. No circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests on a small number of external inputs: the claimed 3.5 keV line fluxes, the dark matter halo model parameters fitted to those fluxes, the instrument effective area and observation time, and the no-vignetting approximation. The authors' own contribution is the numerical integration and the scenario comparison; they add no new parameters themselves, but the three fitted halo parameter sets are load-bearing. The most fragile input is the disputed line detection itself.

free parameters (3)
  • Gamma_DM (radiative dark matter decay width) per profile = Values from Boyarsky et al. 2018 Table II, not quoted in the text
    Normalizes the 3.5 keV line flux in Eq. (1); it is fitted to the five annular line fluxes, so the Micro-X count expectation is directly proportional to this fitted value.
  • DM halo profile parameters (NFW/Burkert/Einasto normalization and scale radii) = Best-fit values from Boyarsky et al. 2018 Table II
    Determine the column-density integral in Eq. (2); these parameters are fitted to the same 3.5 keV line data rather than independently constrained.
  • Rmax, maximal dark matter halo radius = Assumed equal to the halo virial radius; numerical value not given
    Sets the upper limit of the line-of-sight integral in Eq. (2); this choice affects the contribution from the outer parts of the field of view.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 3.5 keV line is real and originates from dark matter decay.
    The entire count forecast assumes the line exists and is produced by decaying dark matter. The paper explicitly leaves the Dessert et al. (2018) non-detection unresolved and argues for a different background model in the final paragraph.
  • domain assumption The five annular line fluxes and best-fit model parameters of Boyarsky et al. (2018) are correct.
    These are the inputs to Eq. (2) and to the Gamma_DM values. The authors of this paper are also coauthors of that fit, and no independent data are used.
  • domain assumption Vignetting factor V(theta) = 1 over the full field of view.
    Stated in Section 2: 'Similar to Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015), we choose V(theta) = 1.' Real off-axis effective area losses would reduce counts, especially in the 33-degree field-of-view scenario.
  • domain assumption The dark matter halo is adequately described by one of the NFW, Burkert, or Einasto profiles with the adopted fitted parameters.
    The three profiles span model uncertainty, but all assume spherical symmetry and fixed fitting choices from Boyarsky et al. 2018; other halo shapes would change the count.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the expected Micro-X signal from the 3.5 keV line." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BERXA663

@misc{pith2026190808276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the expected Micro-X signal from the 3.5 keV line},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BERXA663}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08276}
}
abstract

One of the future instruments to resolve the origin of the unidentified 3.5 keV emission line is the Micro-X sounding rocket telescope. According to the estimate made in 2015, Micro-X will be able to detect on average about 18.2 photons from the 3.5 keV line during its 300-second-long planned observation. However, this estimate is based on the extrapolation of the 3.5 keV line signal from the innermost Galactic Centre (GC) region available in 2015. With newly available reports on the 3.5 keV line emission in five off-centre regions, we found that similar Micro-X payload will result in 3.4-4.3 counts on average, depending on the dark matter distribution. Therefore, we show that the 3.5 keV line is unlikely to be detected with a single Micro-X launch using an original Micro-X payload. Increasing its field-of-view from 20$^\circ$ to 33$^\circ$ and its repointing out of GC (to avoid the brightest X-ray point source on the sky, Sco X-1) will increase the expected number of counts from 3.5 keV line to 7.5-7.9, which corresponds to its expected marginal ($\sim 2\sigma$) detection within a single Micro-X observation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08276 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Expected 3.5 keV line fluxes (as functions of the angular distance from the Galactic Centre) obtained for differ￾ent dark matter distributions, including NFW, EIN and BURK profiles used in this paper, and the NFW15 profile used in Figueroa-Feliciano et al. (2015). The red crosses show datapoints from Boyarsky et al. (2018). The black square corresponds to the reference flux 29 × 10−6 cts/sec/cm2 from Boyarsky et al.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Micro-X Sounding Rocket: Transitioning from First Flight to a Dark Matter Configuration

    astro-ph.IM 2019-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Micro-X proposes a dark-matter-configured payload that could detect or exclude the contested 3.5 keV X-ray line with a single sounding rocket flight.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., 2017, @doi [Phys

    Abazajian K. N., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rept.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.003 , 711-712, 1

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.003 2017

  2. [2]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 , 615, L15

    Abuter R., et al., 2018, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 , 615, L15

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 2018

  3. [3]

    S., et al., 2019, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190809010A ( @eprint arXiv 1908.09010 )

    Adams J. S., et al., 2019, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190809010A ( @eprint arXiv 1908.09010 )

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrophys

    Aharonian F. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa61fa , 837, L15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa61fa 2017

  5. [5]

    Boyarsky A., Malyshev D., Neronov A., Ruchayskiy O., 2008, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13003.x , 387, 1345

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Boyarsky A., Ruchayskiy O., Iakubovskyi D., Franse J., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.251301 , 113, 251301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.251301 2014

  7. [7]

    Boyarsky A., Franse J., Iakubovskyi D., Ruchayskiy O., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.161301 , 115, 161301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.161301 2015

  8. [8]

    Boyarsky A., Iakubovskyi D., Ruchayskiy O., Savchenko D., 2018, preprint ( @eprint arXiv 1812.10488 )

    arXiv 2018

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Boyarsky A., Drewes M., Lasserre T., Mertens S., Ruchayskiy O., 2019, @doi [Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.] 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.07.004 , 104, 1

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Loewenstein M., Randall S

    Bulbul E., Markevitch M., Foster A., Smith R. K., Loewenstein M., Randall S. W., 2014, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/13 , 789, 13

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Burkert A., 1996, @doi [IAU Symp.] 10.1086/309560 , 171, 175

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa68 , 854, 179

    Cappelluti N., et al., 2018, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa68 , 854, 179

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Safdi B

    Dessert C., Rodd N. L., Safdi B. R., 2018, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181206976D ( @eprint arXiv 1812.06976 )

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Drewes M., et al., 2017, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/025 , 1701, 025

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Einasto J., 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965TrAlm...5...87E 5, 87

    1965

  8. [16]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/82 , 814, 82

    Figueroa-Feliciano E., et al., 2015, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/82 , 814, 82

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Gu L., Kaastra J., Raassen A. J. J., Mullen P. D., Cumbee R. S., Lyons D., Stancil P. C., 2015, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527634 , 584, L11

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935561 , 625, L7

    Hofmann F., Wegg C., 2019, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935561 , 625, L7

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Iakubovskyi D., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv1955 , 453, 4097

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Savchenko D., Sadova V., 2015, preprint ( @eprint arXiv 1508.05186 )

    Iakubovskyi D., Bulbul E., Foster A. R., Savchenko D., Sadova V., 2015, preprint ( @eprint arXiv 1508.05186 )

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    E., Profumo S., 2015, @doi [Mon

    Jeltema T. E., Profumo S., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv768 , 450, 2143

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/177173 , 462, 563

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/304888 , 490, 493

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123504 , D94, 123504

    Neronov A., Malyshev D., Eckert D., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123504 , D94, 123504

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Phillips K. J. H., Sylwester B., Sylwester J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...50P 809, 50

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527278 , 590, A71

    Riemer-S rensen S., 2016, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527278 , 590, A71

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Gu L., Kaastra J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...52S 833, 52

    Shah C., Dobrodey S., Bernitt S., Steinbr \"u gge R., Crespo L \'o pez-Urrutia J. R., Gu L., Kaastra J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...52S 833, 52

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    G., Ng K

    Speckhard E. G., Ng K. C. Y., Beacom J. F., Laha R., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.031301 , 116, 031301

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Simionescu A., Kaastra J

    Urban O., Werner N., Allen S. W., Simionescu A., Kaastra J. S., Strigari L. E., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv1142 , 451, 2447

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

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