Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

New insight into the orbital parameters of the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 New SALT radial velocities favour the 2018 emission-wing orbital solution for the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057, and combining them with previously unused H-alpha velocities yields e = 0.40 ± 0.08 with periastron at phase 0.417, closer…

desk verdict New SALT RVs are a solid step for HESS J0632+057, but the paper's headline low-eccentricity orbit rests on an untested constant-offset assumption and should be read as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12499 v2 pith:42DVOALO submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Natalie Matchett , Brian van Soelen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords gamma-raybinaryHESSJ0632+057BestarradialvelocitiesorbitalsolutioneccentricitycircumstellardiscSALTspectroscopy
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

Gamma-ray binaries are rare systems in which a compact object orbits a hot star and emits most of its light at very high energies. HESS J0632+057 is one such system whose orbital geometry has been disputed because two published radial-velocity solutions disagree about where periastron lies. This paper adds 24 new high-resolution spectra from the Southern African Large Telescope covering about 60 per cent of the 317-day orbit and argues that the new velocities favour the 2018 emission-wing solution (M18) over the 2012 absorption-line solution (C12). The central result is a new fit that combines the SALT velocities with H-$\alpha$ radial velocities from the 2012 study that had not previously been used in an orbital solution, producing a less eccentric orbit of $e = 0.40 \pm 0.08$ with periastron at phase $0.417 \pm 0.030$. If correct, the brighter X-ray/TeV peak would occur closer to periastron, matching the picture of a pulsar crossing an inclined circumstellar disc, though the authors stress that the critical phases near periastron remain sparsely covered.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the radial-velocity curve of the Be star, built two ways from SALT spectra: Voigt-profile fits to the wings of H-alpha, H-beta and H-gamma, which trace the inner circumstellar disc, and cross-correlation of narrow photospheric and Fe ii features that avoids the broad, variable absorption lines. The decisive step is a third dataset, the H-alpha radial velocities from the 2012 study, corrected for a systematic zero-point offset by subtracting a weighted mean difference computed in phase bins of width 0.1 and then combined with the SALT velocities in a Keplerian fit with the orbital period fixed at 317.3 days. That offset correction is what lets the two instruments' velocities be treated as one coherent curve, and the extra phase coverage it provides is what produces the lower-eccentricity solution.

What would settle it

A radial-velocity campaign covering the missing periastron window, orbital phases roughly 0.3-0.6, would discriminate the two solutions: the lower-eccentricity fit predicts smooth velocities through the window, the 2012 absorption-line fit predicts a sharp minimum near phase 0.99, and the 2018-based fit predicts periastron near phase 0.58. A second, direct test is to bin the difference between the older H-alpha velocities and the SALT velocities as a function of phase and check that it is flat; a non-flat offset would invalidate the correction that produces the $e = 0.40$ solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the new SALT radial velocities are significantly more consistent with the 2018 emission-wing orbital solution than with the 2012 absorption-line solution, which had placed periastron at phase roughly 0.99. When the SALT velocities are combined with the H-$\alpha$ radial velocities reported in the 2012 paper, after subtracting a phase-binned average offset between the two instruments, the best Keplerian fit changes character: the eccentricity drops to $e = 0.40 \pm 0.08$, the longitude of periastron becomes $\omega = 247.3^\circ \pm 10.1^\circ$, and periastron falls at phase $0.417 \pm 0.030$. In this geometry the sharper, brighter X-ray/TeV maximum around phases 0.3-0.4 lies closer to periastron, while the flatter secondary maximum near phases 0.6-0.8 lies closer to apastron, consistent with the idea that the peaks are produced as the pulsar crosses an inclined circumstellar disc. The authors caution that the alternative fit based on the 2018 data remains viable but is poorly constrained because the SALT campaign did not cover phases 0.3-0.6.

Load-bearing premise

The low-eccentricity orbit rests on the assumption that the systematic offset between the older H-alpha velocities and the new SALT velocities is constant across orbital phase, so a single phase-bin-averaged correction can be subtracted; if the offset changes with phase, the corrected velocities are biased and the $e = 0.40$ result is not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SALT radial velocities, from both the Voigt-profile wings and cross-correlation, are internally consistent and agree with the 2018 emission-wing solution, while the sharp minimum predicted by the 2012 absorption-line solution is not seen.
  • When the previously unused 2012 H-alpha velocities are added, the fit yields $e = 0.40 \pm 0.08$ and periastron phase $0.417 \pm 0.030$, placing the brighter X-ray/TeV peak closer to periastron.
  • The combined solution gives a small semi-amplitude, $K = 6.9 \pm 0.8$ km/s, $a\sin i = 0.185 \pm 0.021$ AU, and a mass function of $0.011 \pm 0.004$ solar masses, much smaller than the 2012 absorption-line solution.
  • The equivalent widths and V/R ratios of the Balmer lines show orbital modulation, indicating tidal disturbance of the circumstellar disc and linking disc changes to the orbit-to-orbit variability of the non-thermal emission.
  • The SALT data alone constrain periastron to phases 0.3-0.6, excluding the phase ~0.99 placement of the 2012 absorption-line solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the phase-bin offset correction absorbed a real phase-dependent difference between the older and new velocity systems, the $e = 0.40$ solution would be an artifact; targeted observations around phase 0.4 would reveal this as a systematic residual.
  • Editorial inference: the recipe of resurrecting previously excluded radial velocities from one instrument, correcting for a constant offset, and re-fitting may transfer to other binaries with conflicting orbital solutions, provided the offset is tested for phase dependence.
  • Editorial inference: if the lower-eccentricity orbit is confirmed, the interpretation of the X-ray and TeV peaks shifts from an apastron-shock geometry to a disc-crossing geometry, which would sharpen pulsar-wind models for this source.
  • Editorial inference: the authors' own caution means the decisive data do not yet exist; a campaign covering the missing phases 0.3-0.6 could settle the dispute within roughly one orbital period.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports 24 new high-resolution SALT spectra of the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057, covering approximately 60% of the 317.3-day orbit. Radial velocities are derived via Voigt-profile fits to the wings of Balmer emission lines and via cross-correlation of narrow spectral features. The new RVs are compared with two previously published, mutually inconsistent orbital solutions (Casares et al. 2012, C12; Moritani et al. 2018, M18), and are found to be more consistent with M18. The authors then present two new orbital fits: one combining SALT and M18 RVs (which yields e=0.75±0.24 and φ_peri=0.582±0.013 but with sparse phase coverage near periastron), and one combining SALT with the C12 H-alpha RVs after subtracting a constant weighted-mean offset (yielding e=0.40±0.08, φ_peri=0.417±0.030). They report indications of orbital modulation in the Balmer equivalent widths and V/R ratios, and argue that the low-eccentricity SALT+C12 H-alpha solution places the brighter X-ray/TeV peak closer to periastron, supporting a pulsar-disc interaction scenario.

Significance. The new SALT dataset is a valuable independent radial-velocity sample for a source where conflicting orbital solutions have hampered interpretation of the multiwavelength emission. The reported EW and V/R variability adds observational characterization of the circumstellar disc. If the low-eccentricity solution with periastron near phase 0.42 is correct, it would support the pulsar-disc interaction interpretation and align the light-curve peaks in a physically plausible way. However, the central new claim rests on an offset correction assumption that is not validated, and the paper's own statements about sparse phase coverage around periastron limit the certainty of any periastron placement. The contribution is therefore significant but conditional on a more robust treatment of the offset and the associated uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.3, Table 2] The SALT+C12 Hα solution (e=0.40±0.08, φ_peri=0.417±0.030) is obtained after subtracting a single weighted-mean offset between the C12 and SALT RVs, computed in phase bins of width 0.1. This implicitly assumes the offset is constant in orbital phase. The paper itself notes a large offset between the LT RVs and those from the WHT/Mercator/STELLA-I telescopes in fig. 4 of C12; if these sub-samples have different phase coverage, the offset correction can introduce a phase-dependent bias precisely in the phase range that constrains e and φ_peri. No test for phase dependence is performed, and the uncertainty in the offset is not propagated into the fitted parameters, so the errors in Table 2 underestimate the true uncertainties. This is load-bearing because the central claim that the brighter X-ray/TeV peak is closer to periastron depends entirely on this solution.
  2. [§3.2.2, §3.4] The SALT+M18 fit yields e=0.75±0.24 and φ_peri=0.582±0.013, but Section 3.2.2 explicitly states that the data have sparse coverage and larger scatter between phases ~0.3–0.6 and that the key parameters are still very poorly constrained. Despite this, Section 3.4 concludes that the results strongly suggest periastron lies between orbital phases φ≈0.3–0.6. This overstates the constraining power of the data, particularly because the M18 RVs near periastron are few and scattered; the statement should be softened or supported by a fit that excludes those points.
  3. [Data Availability and §3.2.3] The C12 Hα RVs used for the low-eccentricity solution are extracted from fig. 4 of C12 and are not tabulated in the paper or supplied as a machine-readable file. Without these data and the exact offset-correction values, the reader cannot reproduce the fit or test alternative offset treatments. The Data Availability statement only says 'available on reasonable request', which is insufficient for a result that turns on a transformation of these particular data. The authors should include the extracted RVs and the offset values as an appendix or online table.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] Use a consistent notation for exposures, e.g., '3×600 s' instead of '3× 600s'.
  2. [§2.2.1] 'Voigt1Dmodel' should be 'Voigt1D model'.
  3. [Table 1] The header 'BJD kms −1' should be split into separate column headers 'BJD' and 'km s−1'.
  4. [§3.2.1] The statement that the eccentricity of the refolded M18 data increases to e≈0.8 should be reconciled with the M18 value e=0.76±0.29 listed in Table 2, since the difference is within the quoted uncertainty.
  5. [Fig. 4] The bottom panel shows a large scatter between phases 0.3–0.5; the authors might consider marking the phase bins used for the offset correction to aid the reader's assessment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orbital solutions are openly fitted to independent RV data, and the light-curve comparison is post-fit.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit observational fitting study, not a derivation from first principles. The new orbital parameters in Table 2 are obtained by least-squares fits to radial-velocity data: the SALT+M18 solution in Section 3.2.2 and the SALT+C12 H-alpha solution in Section 3.2.3. The claim that the new SALT RVs favor the M18 solution is an external comparison of independent measurements to previously published orbital curves. The offset correction applied to the C12 H-alpha RVs in Section 3.2.3 is a calibration step; even if the assumption of a phase-constant offset is fragile, a fragile calibration is not a circular reduction because the resulting orbit is not assumed in constructing the offset. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the 'solution where the brighter peak... is closer to periastron' is a post-fit interpretation comparing the fitted orbit with external X-ray/TeV light curves. The self-citations (Monageng et al. 2017 and van Soelen et al. 2019 for cross-correlation template construction, and van Soelen et al. 2024 for a source classification) are methodological or contextual and carry no load-bearing weight in the orbital fit. No uniqueness theorem or first-principles claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper itself flags the sparse phase coverage around periastron in Sections 3.2.2 and 4, which is a limitation rather than evidence of circularity. Verdict: no significant circularity.

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

The central results are fitted orbital parameters; no new physical entities are introduced. The main external inputs are the fixed orbital period and phase zero, plus mass assumptions for visualization. The C12-to-SALT offset is the only ad hoc calibration that materially affects the preferred low-eccentricity solution.

free parameters (3)
  • C12-to-SALT RV offset correction = not reported (subtracted as weighted mean in phase bins of 0.1)
    Applied to C12 H-alpha RVs before the combined fit; the low-eccentricity solution (e=0.40, periastron phase 0.417) depends on this calibration.
  • Orbital elements for SALT+M18 solution = T_peri=2455042.2±4.0 BJD, e=0.75±0.24, omega=274.0±19.9 deg, K=7.3±3.9 km/s, gamma=35.6±0.6 km/s
    Free parameters of the Keplerian fit to combined SALT and M18 RVs; the paper reports only statistical errors.
  • Orbital elements for SALT+C12 H-alpha solution = T_peri=2454989.8±9.4 BJD, e=0.40±0.08, omega=247.3±10.1 deg, K=6.9±0.8 km/s, gamma=35.8±0.4 km/s
    Free parameters of the Keplerian fit to combined SALT and offset-corrected C12 H-alpha RVs; this solution produces the highlighted light-curve alignment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radial velocities from Voigt-profile fits to Balmer emission-line wings and from cross-correlation of narrow photospheric/disc features trace the orbital motion of the Be star.
    The paper uses these RVs as proxies for the Be star's motion, while noting disc asymmetries and non-radial pulsations can contaminate photospheric lines (Sections 2.2, 3.1).
  • domain assumption The orbital period is fixed at P=317.3 d and phase zero at T0=2454857.5 HJD from prior X-ray studies.
    Taken from Adams et al. 2021 and Falcone et al. 2010; all phase folding and fits use this period without re-deriving it (Sections 1, 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The systematic offset between C12 LT H-alpha RVs and SALT RVs is constant in orbital phase.
    Introduced in Section 3.2.3 to combine datasets; no test for phase dependence is presented, and the SALT+C12 orbital solution depends on this correction.
  • standard math Keplerian two-body orbital model with a single dominant star is adequate for fitting the RVs.
    Standard orbital fitting; used for both solutions (Table 2).
  • domain assumption Masses assumed for Figure 5 are 16 Msun for the Be star and 1.4 Msun for the compact object.
    Taken from Aragona et al. 2010; used to draw orbital geometry but not to fit the parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New insight into the orbital parameters of the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42DVOALO

@misc{pith2026241112499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New insight into the orbital parameters of the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42DVOALO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12499}
}
abstract

The gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057 consists of a Be star and an undetected compact object in a $\sim$317 day orbit. The interpretation of the emission from this system is complicated by the lack of a clear orbital solution, as two different and incompatible orbital solutions were obtained by previous radial velocity studies of this source. In order to address this, we report on 24 new observations, covering $\sim$60 per cent of the orbit which we have undertaken with the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT). We obtained new radial velocity measurements from cross-correlation of the narrower spectral features, and by fitting Voigt profiles to the wings of the Balmer emission lines. Additionally, we find an indication of orbital variability in the equivalent widths and V/R of the Balmer lines. Using the combined data from this study, as well as archival data from the earlier radial velocity studies, we have derived updated orbital solutions. Using reported H $\alpha$ emission radial velocities - previously not considered for the orbital solution - along with the new SALT data, a solution is obtained where the brighter peak in the X-ray and gamma-ray light curves is closer to periastron. However, continuing sparse coverage in the data around the expected phases of periastron indicates that the orbital solution could be improved with further observation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representative blue arm template spectrum (left) showing the H 𝛽 and H 𝛾 Balmer emission lines as well as the low intensity Fe ii lines and weak absorption features for reference, and a portion of the averaged red arm spectrum (right) showing the H 𝛼 emission line. The dark grey shaded regions on the blue and red spectra indicate the regions around the Balmer emission lines included in the Voight profile fits (Sec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SALT RVs versus phase plotted over the existing C12 (dashed line) and M18 (solid line) orbital solutions, refolded on 𝑃orb = 317.3 d. The results are repeated over two orbital phases for clarity and observations during the first, second and third semester are marked as blue, orange and green, respectively. The error bars indicate the statistical error. Top: The RV measurements from the H 𝛼 (crosses), H 𝛽 (open squar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. From top to bottom: the EW measurements for the H 𝛼, H 𝛽 and H 𝛾 emission lines, along with the V/R ratio for the H 𝛽 and H 𝛾 emission lines, folded on the 317.3 d period. The observations from the first, second, and third observing semesters are shown in blue, orange, and green, respectively. The data are repeated over two orbits for clarity. variations are likely to be averaged out across the relevant emitting reg… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Weighted average (top) of our Voigt profile-fitting (red open circles) and cross-correlation (blue filled circles) RV results, plotted against the C12 (dashed line) and M18 (solid line) orbital solutions, refolded on the 317.3 d period. Our average SALT RV values (purp…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The orbital geometry for the best fit to the (a) SALT and M18 RV data and, (b) SALT and C12 H 𝛼 data – assuming masses of 16 M⊙ and 1.4 𝑀⊙ for the Be star (Aragona et al. 2010) and the compact object, respectively. The Be star (MWC 148) is indicated by the blue circle.…

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. Fermi-LAT and FAST observation of the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Fermi-LAT data spanning 15 years yield a power-law GeV spectrum for HESS J0632+057 with a possible 10-100 GeV turnover, and FAST observations set a 2 microJy upper limit on radio pulsations from the system.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..241A 923, 241

    Adams C. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..241A 923, 241

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b7 2021

  3. [3]

    V., De Becker M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..306A 724, 306

    Aragona C., McSwain M. V., De Becker M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..306A 724, 306

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/306 2010

  4. [4]

    L., Zorec J., Cidale L., Ringuelet A

    Arias M. L., Zorec J., Cidale L., Ringuelet A. E., Morrell N. I., Ballereau D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...460..821A 460, 821

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065160 2006

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    Baade D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A..56B 588, A56

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528026 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    I., et al., 2008, in McLean I

    Barnes S. I., et al., 2008, in McLean I. S., Casali M. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II. p. 70140K, @doi 10.1117/12.788219

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Falcone A

    Bongiorno S. D., Falcone A. D., Stroh M., Holder J., Skilton J. L., Hinton J. A., Gehrels N., Grube J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737L..11B 737, L11

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Buckley D. A. H., Swart G. P., Meiring J. G., 2006, in Stepp L. M., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 6267, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes. p. 62670Z, @doi 10.1117/12.673750

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Vilardell F., Negueruela I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20368.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.1103C 421, 1103

    Casares J., Rib \'o M., Ribas I., Paredes J. M., Vilardell F., Negueruela I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20368.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.1103C 421, 1103

    2012

  5. [13]

    M., Takata J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A.153C 658, A153

    Chen A. M., Takata J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A.153C 658, A153

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Chernyakova M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1358C 454, 1358

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Chernyakova M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A.177C 631, A177

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Chernyakova M., Malyshev D., Blay P., van Soelen B., Tsygankov S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..365C 495, 365

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Chernyakova M., et al., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe7070242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Univ....7..242C 7, 242

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    S., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...376..476C 376, 476

    Clark J. S., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...376..476C 376, 476

    2001 doi

  11. [19]

    Corbet R. H. D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..105C 829, 105

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Corbet R. H. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...93C 884, 93

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Dubus G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-013-0064-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...64D 21, 64

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Falcone A. D., Grube J., Hinton J., Holder J., Maier G., Mukherjee R., Skilton J., Stroh M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708L..52F 708, L52

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Foellmi C., Moffat A. F. J., Guerrero M. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06052.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.338..360F 338, 360

    2003

  16. [24]

    C., Taylor A

    Gregory P. C., Taylor A. R., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/272704a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.272..704G 272, 704

    1978 doi

  17. [25]

    H g E., et al., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...355L..27H 355, L27

    2000

  18. [26]

    N., Lyne A

    Johnston S., Manchester R. N., Lyne A. G., Bailes M., Kaspi V. M., Qiao G., D'Amico N., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...387L..37J 387, L37

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    N., Lyne A

    Johnston S., Manchester R. N., Lyne A. G., Nicastro L., Spyromilio J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.2.430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..430J 268, 430

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    Kargaltsev O., Hare J., Volkov I., Lange A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...79K 958, 79

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Kim J., An H., Mori K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936...32K 936, 32

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Y., Gvaramadze V

    Kniazev A. Y., Gvaramadze V. V., Berdnikov L. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3068K 459, 3068

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Mink D

    Kurtz M. J., Mink D. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..934K 110, 934

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    Lampton M., Margon B., Bowyer S., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...208..177L 208, 177

    1976 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Stappers B

    Lyne A. G., Stappers B. W., Keith M. J., Ray P. S., Kerr M., Camilo F., Johnson T. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451..581L 451, 581

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Makishima K., Uchida N., Yoneda H., Enoto T., Takahashi T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bdf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...79M 959, 79

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Malyshev D., Chernyakova M., Santangelo A., P \"u hlhofer G., 2019, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..465M 340, 465

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    B., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....101.1408M 101, 1408

    Massey P., Thompson A. B., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....101.1408M 101, 1408

    1991 doi

  29. [37]

    M., McBride V

    Monageng I. M., McBride V. A., Townsend L. J., Kniazev A. Y., Mohamed S., B \"o ttcher M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa87b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...68M 847, 68

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Moritani Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..32M 804, L32

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...61M 70, 61

    Moritani Y., Kawano T., Chimasu S., Kawachi A., Takahashi H., Takata J., Carciofi A. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...61M 70, 61

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...31N 199, 31

    Nolan P. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...31N 199, 31

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Pri s egen M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..86P 640, A86

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Rivinius T., Baade D., Stefl S., Stahl O., Wolf B., Kaufer A., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..177R 336, 177

    1998

  35. [43]

    Rivinius T., Baade D., S tefl S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...411..229R 411, 229

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A.106R 593, A106

    Rivinius T., Baade D., Carciofi A. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A.106R 593, A106

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Szkody P., Thorstensen J

    Shafter A. W., Szkody P., Thorstensen J. R., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..765S 308, 765

    1986 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Bunclark P

    Stoehr F., et al., 2008, in Argyle R. W., Bunclark P. S., Lewis J. R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 394, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVII. p. 505

    2008

  39. [47]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...17T 923, 17

    Tokayer Y. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...17T 923, 17

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    van Oijen van Oijen van Oijen J. G. J., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...217..115V 217, 115

    1989

  41. [49]

    van Soelen van Soelen van Soelen B., Komin N., Kniazev A., V \"a is \"a nen P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4347V 484, 4347

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    van Soelen van Soelen van Soelen B., Bordas P., Negueruela I., de O \ n a Wilhelmi E., Papitto A., Rib \'o M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529L.102V 529, L102

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Vollmann K., Eversberg T., 2006, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200610645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AN....327..862V 327, 862

    2006 doi

  44. [52]

    Weng S.-S., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..698W 6, 698

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Yoneda H., Makishima K., Enoto T., Khangulyan D., Matsumoto T., Takahashi T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.111103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvL.125k1103Y 125, 111103

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Zamanov R., Stoyanov K., Mart \' J., 2016a, @doi [Bulgarian Astronomical Journal] 10.48550/arXiv.1509.04191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016BlgAJ..24...40Z 24, 40

    doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    K., Stoyanov K

    Zamanov R. K., Stoyanov K. A., Mart \' J., Latev G. Y., Nikolov Y. M., Bode M. F., Luque-Escamilla P. L., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..97Z 593, A97

    doi

Pith tools

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