Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 61 references

First spectropolarimetric observation of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 3+1

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GX 3+1 shows no significant polarization in 2–8 keV, with an upper limit of 1.3% at 99% confidence.

desk verdict First IXPE constraint on GX 3+1: a robust 1.3% polarization upper limit with an interpretive layer that depends on reflection-model assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10353 v1 pith:3MFBJDXX submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.HE

Andrea Gnarini , Ruben Farinelli , Francesco Ursini , Stefano Bianchi , Fiamma Capitanio , Giorgio Matt , Mason Ng , Antonella Tarana
show 6 more authors
Anna Bobrikova Massimo Cocchi Sergio Fabiani Philip Kaaret Juri Poutanen Swati Ravi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarimetryneutronstarlow-massbinariesatollsourcesaccretiondiskreflectionComptonizationGX3+1IXPEinclination
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 the first simultaneous X-ray spectropolarimetric observation of the atoll neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary GX 3+1, using the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer together with NICER and NuSTAR. The central result is that the source shows no significant polarization in the 2–8 keV band, with a 99% confidence upper limit of 1.3% on the polarization degree. Joint spectral fitting with a disk blackbody, a Comptonized blackbody, and a relativistic reflection component yields an inclination of $i \approx 36^\circ$, which the authors use to interpret the low polarization as a natural consequence of a low-inclination, spreading-layer-like accretion geometry. By placing GX 3+1 among the other atoll sources already observed by IXPE, the result supports the emerging picture that atoll sources are weakly polarized compared to Z-sources.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by joint spectropolarimetric modeling of IXPE, NuSTAR, and NICER data. Polarization is expressed through the normalized Stokes parameters $q$ and $u$, and the signal is estimated both directly and by multiplying each spectral component with a polarization factor in the fit. The spectral decomposition uses a multi-temperature disk blackbody (diskbb), a Comptonized blackbody via the convolution model thcomp applied to a blackbody seed, and the relativistic reflection model relxillNS, which computes the reflected spectrum and the broad Fe K$\alpha$ line from a blackbody illuminating the disk at 45°; the line profile fixes the inclination. The key interpretive move is comparing the measured upper limits with theoretical predictions for electron-scattering polarization in the disk atmosphere and for Comptonization in a spreading-layer geometry.

What would settle it

A longer IXPE exposure, or any future polarimetric observation that detects polarization in GX 3+1 above 1.3% at 99% confidence in the 2–8 keV band, would directly falsify the reported non-detection. Because reflected photons make up about 15% of the 2–8 keV flux, the paper's reflection upper limit of about 8% is already below standard theoretical predictions for disk reflection; measuring a higher polarization from the reflection component, or finding an independent inclination significantly different from $36^\circ$, would undermine the geometric interpretation while leaving the total upper limit intact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GX 3+1 does not produce a detectable polarization signal in a 47.7 ks IXPE exposure: the polarization degree in the 2–8 keV band is below 1.3% at 99% confidence, and no significant polarization is found in narrower energy bins or in separate hardness states. The joint NICER and NuSTAR spectra are well described by thermal disk emission, a hard Comptonized component, and reflected photons off the disk, and the broad Fe K$\alpha$ line profile in the reflection model pins the system inclination at about 36° with an inner disk radius upper limit of roughly 1.5 ISCO radii. Component-resolved polarization limits—$1.7\% \pm 1.4\%$ for the disk, below $2.6\%$ for the Comptonized emission, and below $8.1\%$ for the reflection—are all consistent with theoretical expectations for a spreading-layer-like Comptonizing region viewed at low inclination, though the reflection limit is tighter than standard predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred inclination of about $36^\circ$ and the upper limit of about $8.1\%$ on the reflection polarization both assume that relxillNS, with its fixed emissivity index of 2.8, spin of 0.1, density of $\log n_{\rm e} = 16.5$, outer radius of 1000 $R_{\rm g}$, and a 45-degree seed blackbody, correctly describes the disk reflection; if the real reflection geometry differs, these inferred values could be biased, whereas the 1.3% total polarization upper limit does not depend on this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GX 3+1 becomes the latest atoll neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary with a low polarization upper limit in the 2–8 keV band, strengthening the observational trend that atolls are less polarized than Z-sources.
  • The inclination of about $36^\circ$ derived from the reflection component is consistent with the low total polarization, since more face-on geometries are expected to be weakly polarized by electron scattering.
  • With reflection contributing about 15% of the 2–8 keV flux, the upper limit of $8.1\%$ on the reflection polarization constrains models of radiation reprocessed by the disk in this class of sources.
  • The upper limit on the Comptonized component (below $2.6\%$, and as low as $0.7\%$ when reflection is assumed highly polarized) supports a spherical or spreading-layer-like geometry for the hot Comptonizing region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tight reflection polarization upper limit survives different model assumptions, it would suggest that the standard picture of highly polarized reflection from a flat disk needs modification for atoll sources—for example through a different illuminating angle, a more ionized medium, or a non-Keplerian velocity field in the reflecting region.
  • The fixed relxillNS parameters (emissivity index, spin, density, outer radius) are not independently constrained by this dataset; a future observation designed to measure the Fe K$\alpha$ line shape across a wider band could test whether the $36^\circ$ inclination is robust.
  • Applying the same joint IXPE+NICER+NuSTAR analysis to a sample of atoll sources would show whether the low polarization and relatively weak reflection polarization are universal properties or peculiar to GX 3+1.
  • Because the source moved between lower and upper banana states during the observation, higher-fidelity time-resolved polarimetry across spectral states might reveal a dependence of polarization on accretion rate that a single upper limit cannot expose.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first simultaneous X-ray spectropolarimetric observation of the atoll neutron-star LMXB GX 3+1 with IXPE, NICER, and NuSTAR. The IXPE data in the 2-8 keV band show no significant polarization; the authors derive a 99% upper limit of 1.3% on the polarization degree. The joint spectral analysis, split into lower-banana and upper-banana states, is well described by TBabs*(diskbb + thcomp*bbodyrad + relxillNS), from which the authors estimate a system inclination of about 36 degrees and an upper limit on the inner disk radius of roughly 1.5 R_ISCO. Using polconst decompositions, the paper places component-level upper limits on the polarization of the disk, Comptonized, and reflection components and compares these with theoretical expectations for spreading-layer geometries.

Significance. The headline result is a clean observational upper limit that adds GX 3+1 to the small sample of atoll NS-LMXBs observed by IXPE, strengthening the evidence that atolls are generally weakly polarized compared with Z-sources. The measurement is made with standard, well-tested IXPE analysis (PCUBE and xspec polconst), and the 99% upper limit is independent of the spectral model used to interpret the source. The simultaneous multi-instrument spectral analysis has good statistical quality (chi2/dof about 1.08), and the paper is careful to report upper limits rather than detections. The component-level polarization constraints and the inclination estimate are useful but model-dependent; the authors acknowledge the main fixed parameters, and the total upper limit does not depend on those assumptions.

minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Table 2] The fixed relxillNS parameters (qem=2.8, a=0.1, log ne=16.5, Rout=1000 Rg) are not varied, and the text states that the fit cannot constrain them. Because the inclination is used in §4 to interpret the polarization result, the quoted i uncertainty is statistical only; I suggest adding an explicit caveat about this systematic dependence and, if feasible, a short robustness test with a lower qem or a different reflection model to show that i≈36° is stable.
  2. [Table 2, §3.2 and §5] The upper limit on the inner disk radius is quoted as 1.4 R_ISCO in §3.2 but as <1.5 in Table 2 and <1.5 in §5; these numbers should be made consistent.
  3. [§4, Table 4] The component-level upper limits (e.g., <8.1% for relxillNS) are derived under the assumption that the other two components are either unpolarized or have fixed polarization values. The text does present these as scenarios, but the conclusion that the reflected photons are 'expected to be less polarized' should be more explicitly tied to the assumed disk/Comptonization polarization, since the data alone do not uniquely separate the three components.
  4. [Abstract and §3.2] The phrase 'from the broad Fe Kα line profile, we were able to determine the inclination' is stronger than the model-dependent estimate described in §3.2; consider replacing 'determine' with 'estimate' and noting the fixed reflection-model assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1.3% polarization upper limit is a direct IXPE measurement, and the inclination and theoretical comparisons are forward-modeled rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

GX 3+1's headline result — the 2–8 keV polarization upper limit of 1.3% at 99% confidence — is derived directly from IXPE's measured Stokes parameters (Section 3.3, PCUBE and xspec polconst), not from the spectral model or from any fitted parameter. The inclination i≈36° is a free parameter of the relxillNS reflection model fit to the Fe Kα line profile (Section 3.2, Table 2); it is an output of the spectral fit, and it is not fed back into the polarization measurement. The fixed relxillNS parameters (qem=2.8, a=0.1, log ne=16.5, Rout=1000 Rg) are model assumptions adopted from prior external measurements or standard values; they affect the inclination estimate but do not by construction produce the polarization upper limit. The component-level polarization constraints in Table 4 are obtained by applying polconst to the fixed best-fit spectral model, i.e., they are reparameterizations of the same IXPE measurement, not predictions derived from the model. Theoretical comparisons (Chandrasekhar 1960; Gnarini et al. 2022; Farinelli et al. 2024; Bobrikova et al. 2024) are forward predictions evaluated at the fitted inclination and are compared to, not fitted against, the measured upper limits. Several cited theory papers include present authors, but none of the load-bearing quantitative results (upper limit, inclination, component upper limits) reduces to a self-citation; the self-citations only contextualize consistency. No equation in the paper defines a claimed prediction in terms of an input quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Model dependence of the inclination is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed; all components are standard disk/Comptonization/reflection models. The main assumptions are the spectral model family and fixed reflection parameters, which are documented. The total polarization upper limit is a direct measurement, so it does not depend on those assumptions.

free parameters (14)
  • NH = 2.41e22 cm^-2
    Column density of interstellar absorption, fitted freely with TBabs; affects continuum shape and cross-normalization.
  • diskbb kTin (LB/UB) = 0.94/1.11 keV
    Inner disk temperature fitted separately for the two spectral states.
  • diskbb normalization (Rin sqrt(cos i)) = 11.4/9.3 km
    Apparent inner disk radius fitted separately per state; distance assumed 6.5 kpc.
  • thcomp optical depth = 7.7/7.9
    Optical depth of Comptonizing region fitted per state.
  • thcomp electron temperature kTe = 2.8/2.7 keV
    Electron temperature of Comptonizing region fitted per state.
  • bbodyrad temperature kT = 1.39/1.65 keV
    Seed blackbody temperature, linked to relxillNS seed temperature.
  • bbodyrad normalization Rbb = 7.9/5.6 km
    Equivalent spherical radius of seed photon region.
  • relxillNS inclination i = 36.1 deg (-1.9,+1.1)
    Inclination fitted from reflection spectrum; central to the geometric interpretation but not to the total polarization upper limit.
  • relxillNS inner radius = <1.5 ISCO
    Upper limit on inner edge of disk from reflection fit.
  • relxillNS ionization log xi = 2.8
    Ionization parameter fitted from reflection spectrum.
  • relxillNS iron abundance AFe = 1.7
    Iron abundance fitted from reflection spectrum.
  • relxillNS normalization Nr = 4.2e-3 / 3.0e-3
    Normalization of reflection component per spectral state, related to reflected flux fraction.
  • cross-calibration constants = 0.827-0.982
    Energy-independent multiplicative constants per IXPE DU, NuSTAR FPM, and NICER relative to FPMA; fitted to correct inter-instrument normalization.
  • NICER edge energy and gaussian = 1.81 keV; 1.7 keV
    Ad hoc corrections for NICER low-energy residuals below 2-2.5 keV, not physical source components.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption diskbb, thcomp, bbodyrad, and relxillNS are adequate spectral models for the disk, Comptonized, and reflected emission of GX 3+1.
    Section 3.2: the joint fit uses these models; if the true continuum differs, the inclination and component fractions could shift.
  • domain assumption relxillNS fixed parameters qem=2.8, a=0.1, log ne=16.5, Rout=1000 Rg and a 45 degree seed blackbody illuminator are correct.
    Section 3.2: taken from Ludlam et al. 2019, Braje et al. 2000, Garcia et al. 2016; the fit is said to be insensitive to these parameters, but they still set the reflection model geometry.
  • domain assumption The broad Fe K alpha line in relxillNS provides informative constraints on inclination and inner radius.
    Section 3.2 and residuals in Figs. 3 and 4: inclination and Rin are derived from the relativistic reflection profile; this is the standard assumption of relxill modeling.
  • domain assumption IXPE weighted analysis and PCUBE extraction produce unbiased normalized Stokes parameters.
    Sections 2.1 and 3.3: analysis uses Di Marco et al. (2022) weighted method and ixpeobssim; central to the polarization upper limit.
  • domain assumption Theoretical polarization predictions for a plane-parallel atmosphere and spreading layer (Chandrasekhar 1960; Gnarini et al. 2022; Farinelli et al. 2024) are applicable.
    Section 4: used to interpret the upper limits and to set component PD values in scenario fits.
  • domain assumption Distance to GX 3+1 is 6.5 kpc for converting normalizations to radii.
    Section 3.2 and Table 2 notes: distance from Galloway et al. 2008 assumed; affects derived radii but not polarization.
  • ad hoc to paper NICER residual structure below 2.5 keV can be absorbed by an edge and gaussian without affecting source parameters.
    Section 2.3: ad hoc corrections added for known NICER ARF deficiencies; not physically motivated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First spectropolarimetric observation of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 3+1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MFBJDXX

@misc{pith2026241110353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First spectropolarimetric observation of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 3+1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MFBJDXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10353}
}
abstract

We report the first simultaneous X-ray spectropolarimetric observation of the bright atoll neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 3+1, performed by the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) joint with NICER and NuSTAR. The source does not exhibit significant polarization in the 2-8 keV energy band, with an upper limit of 1.3% at a 99% confidence level on the polarization degree. The observed spectra can be well described by a combination of thermal disk emission, the hard Comptonization component, and reflected photons off the accretion disk. In particular, from the broad Fe K$\alpha$ line profile, we were able to determine the inclination of the system ($i \approx 36^\circ$), which is crucial for comparing the observed polarization with theoretical models. Both the spectral and polarization properties of GX 3+1 are consistent with those of other atoll sources observed by IXPE. Therefore, we may expect a similar geometrical configuration for the accreting system and the hot Comptonizing region. The low polarization is also consistent with the low inclination of the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10353 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. NuSTAR CCD of GX 3+1. The soft and hard colors are defined as the ratio of the counts in the 6–10/3–6 keV and 10–20/6–10 keV bands, respectively. Empty black circles denote the NuSTAR points not simultaneous with IXPE observation. The red and purple boxes corre￾spond to the LB and UB region. Each bin corresponds to 200 s. a total exposure time of 1.2 ks (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Deconvolved IXPE (2–8 keV), NuSTAR (3–25 keV), NICER (1– 10 keV) spectra (top panels), and IXPE Q and U Stokes spectra (bot￾tom panels), with the best-fit model during the LB state and residuals in units of σ. We added the residuals without including the reflection components in the zoomed plot, highlighting the Fe Kα line profile. The best-fit model includes diskbb (dash-dotted lines), thcomp*bbodyrad (dashed lines… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Normalized Stokes q (Q/I) and u (U/I) parameters in the 2– 8 keV band obtained with the PCUBE algorithm of ixpeobssim (Baldini et al. 2022), for the three IXPE DUs and their combination. The gray￾filled circle corresponds to the 99% MDP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contour plots of the PD and PA at the 68%, 90%, and 99% confidence levels, in the 2–8 keV energy bands obtained with xspec. task of ixpeobssim are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser., V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analy- sis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes (San Francisco: Astron. Soc. Pac.), 17–20

    1996

  2. [2]

    1993, PASJ, 45, 801

    Asai, K., Dotani, T., Nagase, F., et al. 1993, PASJ, 45, 801

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Lalla, N. D., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194

    2022

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, submitted, arXiv:2409.16023

    Bobrikova, A., Poutanen, J., & Loktev, V . 2024, A&A, submitted, arXiv:2409.16023

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    T., Chubb, T

    Bowyer, S., Byram, E. T., Chubb, T. A., & Friedman, H. 1965, Science, 147, 394

    work page 1965

  6. [6]

    M., Romani, R

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

    2000

  7. [7]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 129

    Capitanio, F., Fabiani, S., Gnarini, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 129

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    1960, Radiative transfer (New York: Dover Publications)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Radiative transfer (New York: Dover Publications)

    work page 1960

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    2006, A&A, 449, L5

    Chenevez, J., Falanga, M., Brandt, S., et al. 2006, A&A, 449, L5

    2006

  2. [10]

    2023, A&A, 674, L10

    Cocchi, M., Gnarini, A., Fabiani, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, L10

    2023

  3. [11]

    2001, Nature, 411, 662

    Costa, E., Soffitta, P., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2001, Nature, 411, 662

    2001

  4. [12]

    L., Fabian, A

    Dauser, T., Garcia, J., Parker, M. L., Fabian, A. C., & Wilms, J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, L100 den Hartog, P. R., in’t Zand, J. J. M., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2003, A&A, 400, 633 Di Marco, A., Costa, E., Muleri, F., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 170 Di Marco, A., La Monaca, F., Poutanen, J., e...

    2014

  5. [13]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 355

    Durant, M., Cornelisse, R., Remillard, R., & Levine, A. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 355

    2010

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681

    Farinelli, R., Fabiani, S., Poutanen, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681

    2023

  7. [15]

    2024, A&A, 684, A62

    Farinelli, R., Waghmare, A., Ducci, L., & Santangelo, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A62

    2024

  8. [16]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, ApJS, 179, 360 García, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 76 García, J. A., Fabian, A. C., Kallman, T. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 751

    2008

  9. [17]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051H

    2016

  10. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2561

    Gnarini, A., Ursini, F., Matt, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2561

    2022

  11. [19]

    A., Craig, W

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

    2013

  12. [20]

    & van der Klis, M

    Hasinger, G. & van der Klis, M. 1989, A&A, 225, 79

    1989

  13. [21]

    M., Di Salvo, T., et al

    Iaria, R., Mazzola, S. M., Di Salvo, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A209

    2020

  14. [22]

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

    1999

  15. [23]

    Kaastra, J. S. & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151

    2016

  16. [24]

    Kotze, M. M. & Charles, P. A. 2010, MNRAS, 402, L16

    2010

  17. [25]

    2002, A&A, 383, L5

    Kuulkers, E. 2002, A&A, 383, L5

    2002

  18. [26]

    & van der Klis, M

    Kuulkers, E. & van der Klis, M. 2000, A&A, 356, L45

    2000

  19. [27]

    1994, A&A, 289, 795 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al

    Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., Oosterbroek, T., et al. 1994, A&A, 289, 795 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, L11

    1994

  20. [28]

    Lapidus, I. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 291

    1985

  21. [29]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., Hasinger, G., et al. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 383

    1987

  22. [30]

    Ludlam, R. M. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 16

    2024

  23. [31]

    M., Cackett, E

    Ludlam, R. M., Cackett, E. M., García, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 112

    2022

  24. [32]

    M., Miller, J

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

    2019

  25. [33]

    I., Paizis, A., Farinelli, R., et al

    Mainardi, L. I., Paizis, A., Farinelli, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A57

    2010

  26. [34]

    1983, ApJ, 267, 310

    Makishima, K., Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., et al. 1983, ApJ, 267, 310

    1983

  27. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5907

    Marinucci, A., Muleri, F., Dovciak, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5907

    2022

  28. [36]

    1993, MNRAS, 260, 663

    Matt, G. 1993, MNRAS, 260, 663

    1993

  29. [37]

    & Fender, R

    Migliari, S. & Fender, R. P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 79

    2006

  30. [38]

    M., Gendreau, K., Ludlam, R

    Miller, J. M., Gendreau, K., Ludlam, R. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, L28

    2018

  31. [39]

    M., Parker, M

    Miller, J. M., Parker, M. L., Fuerst, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, L2

    2013

  32. [40]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

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

    1984

  33. [41]

    1989, PASJ, 41, 97

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Nakamura, N., & Tanaka, Y . 1989, PASJ, 41, 97

    1989

  34. [42]

    S., Pahari, M., Dewangan, G

    Mondal, A. S., Pahari, M., Dewangan, G. C., Misra, R., & Raychaudhuri, B. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4991 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center. 2014, HEA- soft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    2017

  35. [43]

    Oosterbroek, T., Barret, D., Guainazzi, M., & Ford, E. C. 2001, A&A, 366, 138

    2001

  36. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 106

    Patruno, A., Haskell, B., & Andersson, N. 2017, ApJ, 850, 106

    2017

  37. [45]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 161

    Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bailón, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 161

    2004

  38. [46]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2016

    Pintore, F., Di Salvo, T., Bozzo, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2016

    2015

  39. [47]

    2012, A&A, 542, L27

    Piraino, S., Santangelo, A., Kaaret, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, L27

    2012

  40. [48]

    & Sunyaev, R

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

    2001

  41. [49]

    N., & Svensson, R

    Poutanen, J., Nagendra, K. N., & Svensson, R. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 892

    1996

  42. [50]

    L., Kaaret, P., Gnarini, A., et al

    Saade, M. L., Kaaret, P., Gnarini, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 133

    2024

  43. [51]

    & Titarchuk, L

    Seifina, E. & Titarchuk, L. 2012, ApJ, 747, 99

    2012

  44. [52]

    E., Gendreau, K

    Strohmayer, T. E., Gendreau, K. C., Altamirano, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 63

    2018

  45. [53]

    & Poutanen, J

    Suleimanov, V . & Poutanen, J. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2036

    2006

  46. [54]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 873

    Tarana, A., Belloni, T., Bazzano, A., Méndez, M., & Ubertini, P. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 873

    2011

  47. [55]

    T., Gudennavar, S

    Thomas, N. T., Gudennavar, S. B., & Bubbly, S. G. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 433

    2023

  48. [56]

    2023b, MNRAS, 519, 50 van den Berg, M., Homan, J., Fridriksson, J

    Ursini, F., Marinucci, A., Matt, G., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 519, 50 van den Berg, M., Homan, J., Fridriksson, J. K., & Linares, M. 2014, ApJ, 793, 128 van der Klis, M. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 517 van der Klis, M. 1995, in Cambridge Astrophysics Series, V ol. 26, X-ray Bina- ries, ed. W...

    2014

  49. [57]

    A., Ferland, G

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

    1996

  50. [58]

    C., Ramsey, B., O’Dell, S., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Ramsey, B., O’Dell, S., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 990517

    2016

  51. [59]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, JATIS, 8, 1

    2022

  52. [60]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

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

    2000

  53. [61]

    A., Szanecki, M., Poutanen, J., Gierli ´nski, M., & Biernacki, P

    Zdziarski, A. A., Szanecki, M., Poutanen, J., Gierli ´nski, M., & Biernacki, P. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5234 Article number, page 7 of 7

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.