Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 40 references

New interpretation of the two hard X-ray sources IGR J17503-2636 and IGR J17507-2647

T0 review · 1 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 Two hard X-ray sources get reclassified: symbiotic binary and magnetic CV.

desk verdict Solid multi-mission archival analysis with honest caveats; the reclassifications are plausible but the IGR J17503-2636 SyXB claim rests entirely on an unconfirmed external SED fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17315 v1 pith:XNQGH5ZH submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

L. Sidoli , V. Sguera , P. Esposito , R. Sathyaprakash , G. Ponti , S. Mondal , A.J. Bird This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords X-raybinariessymbioticsupergiantfasttransientsmagneticcataclysmicvariablesintermediatepolarspulsationsINTEGRALsourcesXMM-Newton
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 reinterprets two hard X-ray sources whose natures were previously uncertain. Combining new XMM-Newton detections and upper limits with Swift and INTEGRAL light curves spanning up to fifteen years, it argues that IGR J17503-2636 is a symbiotic X-ray binary, with a neutron star accreting from the wind of an M-type giant, rather than the supergiant fast X-ray transient it was thought to be. For IGR J17507-2647, it argues that the stable, flat-spectrum, iron-line-emitting source is a distant magnetic cataclysmic variable rather than the low-mass X-ray binary previously assumed. If correct, these reclassifications shift the membership counts of both source classes and introduce a candidate 0.335-second pulsation with no known analog in a symbiotic X-ray binary.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by multi-epoch X-ray spectroscopy and timing from XMM-Newton, Swift, and INTEGRAL, interpreted against the published spectral energy distribution of IGR J17503-2636's infrared counterpart. The SED fit identifying the companion as an M4-6 III giant is what separates the symbiotic X-ray binary scenario from the supergiant fast X-ray transient scenario. For IGR J17507-2647, the diagnostic machinery is the combination of long-term flux stability, a flat photon index near 1, high absorption, and the presence of a 6.3-6.6 keV iron line with no ionized-iron lines, which together match the spectral signatures of intermediate polars. A Fourier-domain acceleration search adds the candidate 0.335-second pulsation, and the propeller accretion equation is used to test whether that spin period could coexist with the previously hinted 2e12 G magnetic field.

What would settle it

An infrared spectrum of IGR J17503-2636's counterpart showing OB-type stellar absorption would refute the M-giant premise and collapse the symbiotic classification; alternatively, confirming the 0.335-second pulsation in another dataset while also confirming a roughly 2e12 G magnetic field would violate the propeller limit and force one of the two measurements to be abandoned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that both sources were assigned to the wrong classes. For IGR J17503-2636, the key move is to take the published spectral energy distribution fit of its infrared counterpart at face value: it identifies an M4-6 III giant, which makes the system a symbiotic X-ray binary rather than a supergiant fast X-ray transient. The X-ray behavior, including a single detected outburst, quiescence more than 2100 times fainter than the outburst, kilosecond flaring, and an absorbed flat spectrum, is then read as consistent with wind accretion from a late-type giant. For IGR J17507-2647, the claim is that persistent flux across XMM-Newton, Swift, and INTEGRAL, a hard flat power law, and a newly detected Fe K-alpha line at 6.3-6.6 keV point to a magnetic cataclysmic variable at 6-16 kpc, with luminosity around 2e34 erg/s. The paper also reports a candidate 0.335-second pulsation in IGR J17503-2636 at 3.8 sigma that, if confirmed, would force one of the two previously suggested neutron-star parameters to be wrong, because the propeller limit would otherwise exceed the observed luminosity.

Load-bearing premise

The reclassification of IGR J17503-2636 as a symbiotic X-ray binary rests on a published SED fit identifying its companion as an M4-6 III giant, a fit the authors did not redo and that infrared spectroscopy has not yet confirmed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IGR J17503-2636 would become a new member of the small symbiotic X-ray binary class, moving it out of the supergiant fast X-ray transient population.
  • The candidate 0.335-second pulsation, if confirmed, would make the system the only symbiotic X-ray binary with such a short spin period and would place it in an as-yet-unpopulated high-density region of the spin-period-luminosity plane predicted by population models.
  • The propeller argument implies that the candidate spin period and the previously hinted 2e12 G magnetic field cannot both be correct; future measurements should settle which one fails.
  • IGR J17507-2647 would be added to the small set of cataclysmic variables detected by INTEGRAL above 20 keV, with a stable, weak, persistent hard X-ray luminosity around 3.5e34 erg/s at 6 kpc.
  • The upper limits and revised outburst duration of about four months replace the earlier estimate of roughly twelve days for IGR J17503-2636's 2018 outburst.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A single infrared spectrum of IGR J17503-2636's counterpart could settle the symbiotic classification without waiting for more X-ray data.
  • If the 0.335-second pulsation is confirmed, the natural resolution is a much lower magnetic field or a slower spin; searches for X-ray pulsations in other symbiotic X-ray binaries might reveal a short-spin subgroup.
  • The same multi-mission archival approach could be applied to other unclassified INTEGRAL sources whose class currently depends on a single published SED fit.
  • For IGR J17507-2647, optical or infrared spectroscopy of the faint UKIDSS counterpart at K~18.5 could test the magnetic CV identification by looking for cyclotron lines or a K-M dwarf donor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes unpublished XMM-Newton, Swift, and INTEGRAL observations of the two hard X-ray sources IGR J17503-2636 and IGR J17507-2647. For IGR J17503-2636, the authors report the deepest 3σ upper limit on the quiescent X-ray flux to date (UF < 9.5e-14 erg/cm2/s, 2-10 keV), a candidate 0.335397 s periodicity at ~3.8σ significance, and a revision of the discovery outburst duration to less than ~4 months. Combining these data with the SED fit by McCollum et al. (2018) that identifies the near-infrared counterpart as an M4-6 III giant, they propose that the source is a symbiotic X-ray binary rather than a supergiant fast X-ray transient. For IGR J17507-2647, they find remarkably stable, persistent X-ray emission over a ~15-year baseline, a hard power-law spectrum (photon index ~0-1), and an iron line at 6.3-6.6 keV; from the column density versus distance relation they estimate a distance of 6-16 kpc and a luminosity of about 2e34 erg/s, leading them to favor an interpretation as a distant magnetic cataclysmic variable.

Significance. The paper provides valuable new observational material: the deep upper limit on IGR J17503-2636, long-term INTEGRAL light curves for both sources, the first detection of an iron line in IGR J17507-2647, and a careful statistical assessment of that line using simftest. If the proposed reclassifications are correct, they would change the population statistics of both SFXTs and SyXBs and would add a candidate fast (0.335 s) pulsation to a symbiotic X-ray binary, a combination with no known analog. The data analysis is standard and the paper is generally careful in reporting uncertainties. However, the central reclassification of IGR J17503-2636 rests on an external, unconfirmed SED fit, and the new X-ray data do not by themselves distinguish between the SFXT and SyXB interpretations; this limits the strength of the claim as currently stated.

major comments (1)
  1. [4.1 and Conclusions] The proposed reclassification of IGR J17503-2636 as a symbiotic X-ray binary is entirely premised on the SED fit by McCollum et al. (2018) identifying the companion as an M4-6 III giant. The authors do not redo this fit and do not present infrared spectroscopy; the paper itself states in Section 4.1 that 'in the absence of confirmation by means of IR spectroscopy, we cannot ignore this published result.' The X-ray phenomenology reported here—transient flaring, high and variable NH, a hard power law, an iron line, and a possible cyclotron feature—is explicitly acknowledged in the same section to be shared by SFXTs and SyXBs. Therefore the new classification is not independently established by the data presented. The conclusions should be reframed as contingent on confirmation of the M-giant companion, or the authors should add a concrete test (e.g., infrared spectroscopy or a quantitative X-ray discriminator) that can separate the two hypotheses. As written, the central claim is vulnerable to the validity of a non-refereed Research Note.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The table header lists 'IGR J17503−2633' for the source that is otherwise referred to as IGR J17503-2636; please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 2.1.1] The description of the MOS camera modes is inconsistent: the text first says 'MOS1 operated in a small window and MOS2 in timing mode,' but later refers to 'MOS2 (falling on an external CCD, operated in imaging mode)' and 'For the MOS2 data in timing mode.' Please clarify the actual operating modes used for the extraction.
  3. [Section 3.1.1] The phrase 'We used a cyclotron line model (cyclabs in xspec, multiplying the absorbed power law)' is imprecise because cyclabs is a cyclotron absorption model; please use 'cyclotron absorption feature' for clarity.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.1.4] The abstract reports the candidate periodicity as 'barely detected (significance of about 3.8σ)' but does not mention the strong dependence of the significance on the energy range and extraction radius reported in Section 3.1.4, where the significance drops to about 2σ. Please include a brief caveat in the abstract or conclusions.
  5. [Table 5] The header 'kTapec (keV)' should be 'kT_apec (keV)' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reclassifications compare measured X-ray properties and an externally published SED fit to standard class definitions; no prediction reduces to a fit or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are reclassifications of two X-ray sources based on newly analyzed XMM-Newton, Swift, and INTEGRAL data plus literature results. IGR J17503-2636 is proposed as a symbiotic X-ray binary because an external SED fit (McCollum et al. 2018) identifies the companion as an M4-6 III giant; this is a published external result, not an input constructed by the present authors. IGR J17507-2647 is proposed as a magnetic cataclysmic variable by comparing its stable flux, flat spectrum, 6.3-6.6 keV iron line, absorption-derived distance range (6-16 kpc), and inferred luminosity (~2e34 erg/s) to established mCV benchmarks. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The candidate 0.335 s pulsation is explicitly flagged as barely detected and is used only in a consistency check that derives an inconsistency from assumed P and B values, which is a conditional logic test rather than a circular derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Sidoli & Paizis 2018; Sidoli et al. 2023) are used to describe the normal properties of SFXTs and SyXBs, and they are not load-bearing for either classification. The dependence on the unconfirmed McCollum SED fit is an external-evidence or correctness risk, not a circularity, because the paper does not redefine that fit or derive it from its own conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's classifications rest on several external assumptions: the McCollum et al. SED fit (for IGR J17503-2636), the marginal NIR counterpart and interstellar NH assumption (for IGR J17507-2647), and the standard software/physical models. No new entities are postulated. The fitted spectral parameters are measurements, not free parameters of a theory, though the fixed NH and photon index used for flux conversions are modeling choices.

free parameters (6)
  • Assumed absorption column for upper limit flux conversion (IGR J17503-2636) = NH=2e23 cm^-2
    Used to convert count rate upper limits to unabsorbed flux; chosen based on measured source spectrum.
  • Assumed photon index for flux conversion = Gamma=1
    Fixed for upper limit and Swift flux conversions; consistent with time-averaged spectrum.
  • Assumed NS magnetic field = B12=2
    From a candidate cyclotron line in Ferrigno et al. 2019; used in propeller argument.
  • Candidate spin period = P=0.335397 s
    Candidate periodicity from XMM-Newton; used in propeller argument.
  • Propeller efficiency constant = xi=1
    Assumed spherical symmetry in Eq. 1.
  • Assumed source distance for luminosities = d=10 kpc scaling (d10)
    Luminosities scaled to unknown distance; classification arguments for IGR J17507-2647 use 6-16 kpc from NH-distance relation.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption X-ray reduction and calibration software (SAS v21, XSPEC, PRESTO, OSA 11.2) produce accurate results
    All results rely on standard pipeline output; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption TBabs absorption model with Verner et al. cross-sections and Wilms et al. abundances is appropriate
    Used for all spectral fits; choice affects NH and unabsorbed fluxes.
  • domain assumption The McCollum et al. (2018) SED fit correctly identifies the companion of IGR J17503-2636 as an M4-6 III giant
    This external result is the basis for rejecting the SFXT classification; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The NIR counterpart of IGR J17507-2647 (K=18.5, Zolotukhin & Revnivtsev 2011) is real and associated with the X-ray source
    Used to rule out an HMXB; the detection is marginal.
  • domain assumption The measured NH of IGR J17507-2647 is purely interstellar, so the 3D-NH tool (Doroshenko 2024) can constrain distance
    Underlies the 6-16 kpc distance estimate and hence the mCV luminosity argument.
  • domain assumption The propeller formula (Campana et al. 2002, Eq. 1) applies to this source
    Used to show candidate P and B cannot coexist; factor choices do not affect the conclusion.
  • domain assumption Published class properties of SFXTs, SyXBs, and mCVs (luminosity ranges, spectra, variability) are accurate
    Classification logic relies on these established benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New interpretation of the two hard X-ray sources IGR J17503-2636 and IGR J17507-2647." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNQGH5ZH

@misc{pith2026241117315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New interpretation of the two hard X-ray sources IGR J17503-2636 and IGR J17507-2647},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNQGH5ZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17315}
}
read the original abstract

We report on the results of X-ray observations (XMM-Newton, INTEGRAL and Swift) of two hard X-ray sources, IGR J17503-2636 and IGR J17507-2647, whose nature is not fully elucidated in the literature. Three XMM-Newton observations covered the field of IGR J17503-2636, in 2020 and twice in 2023. The analysis of the two XMM-Newton observations performed in September 2023, six days apart, did not detect IGR J17503-2636, allowing us to pose the most stringent 3sigma upper limit on the source flux to date (~9.5x10^-14 erg/cm2/s, 2-10 keV, flux corrected for absorption). This value implies that the amplitude of the X-ray flux variability exceeds a factor of ~2100, compared with the discovery outburst in 2018. A candidate X-ray periodicity at 0.335397(3) seconds has been barely detected (significance of about 3.8sigma) from IGR J17503-2636 with XMM-Newton (pulsed fraction of (10+/-1) per cent). The new data, put into the context of previous literature, allow us to propose a new classification of IGR J17503-2636 as a symbiotic X-ray binary, rather than a candidate supergiant fast X-ray transient. IGR J17507-2647 was formerly reported below 10 keV only during Chandra observations performed in 2009. We report here on two XMM-Newton observations that serendipitously covered the source field in 2020 and in 2023, finding a stable X-ray emission, both in X-ray flux and spectral shape. The long-term, persistent X-ray emission has also been probed by several Swift/XRT short observations and by INTEGRAL data spanning several years. We have detected an iron line in the emission (with centroid energy in the range of 6.3-6.6 keV), never reported before in the IGR J17507-2647 spectrum. The source properties favor the identification with a cataclysmic variable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. EPIC pn images of the three XMM–Newton observa￾tions. From top to bottom: ObsID 0844101101, 0932190801, and 0932191001 (0.3-12 keV). The black circles (1 arcmin ra￾dius) mark the position of IGR J17503-2636 and IGR J17507- 2647. Arches on the right of each image are due to stray light contamination by a bright source located outside the FoV, prob￾ably GX 3+1. Equatorial coordinates (J2000) are reported. 2.3. INTEGRA… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Best fit of the EPIC counts spectra extracted from the whole observation (Obs ID 0844101101): IGR J17503-2636 is reported on the left (EPIC pn in black, MOS1 in red, and MOS2 in blue) and IGR J17507-2647 is on the right (EPIC pn in black, MOS2 in red). Lower panels show the residuals in units of standard deviation. Spectral parameters are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. EPIC pn, background-subtracted light curves (Obs ID 0844101101) of both sources (IGR J17503-2636 on the left, IGR J17507-2647 on the right), extracted in two energy ranges (above and below 5 keV), together with their hardness ratios in the lowest panels. Vertical, dash-dotted red lines indicate the eight time intervals used to perform the time-selected spectroscopy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-resolved spectroscopy of IGR J17503-2636 (Obs ID 0844101101). Eight temporal segments with an exposure time of about 3 ks are reported ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectrum no.6 from the time-resolved spectroscopy of IGR J17503-2636 (Obs ID 0844101101). The model adopted is a simple absorbed power law. Negative residuals appear in both EPIC pn (in black) and MOS2 (in blue). However, this absorption feature is not significant (see…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Swift/XRT long-term light curves with fluxes corrected for absorption in the 1-10 keV energy range (IGR J17503-2636 on the left, IGR J17507-2647 on the right). Time is in units of MJD (spanning seven years, from July 2012 to May 2019). Fluxes are in units of 10−11 erg …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Absorption vs. distance in the direction of IGR J17507-2647, obtained using the online tool http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/nh3d/nhtool (Doroshenko 2024). The shaded regions show the estimated uncertainties for the estimate of NH,X−ray (light color) and NH,E(B−V) (denser…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afonina, M. D. & Popov, S. B. 2024, Universe, 10, 205

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

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

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 675, A199

    Avakyan, A., Neumann, M., Zainab, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A199

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    J., Knigge, C., Bird, A

    Barlow, E. J., Knigge, C., Bird, A. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 224

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    J., Barlow, E

    Bird, A. J., Barlow, E. J., Bassani, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 765

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    J., Bazzano, A., Bassani, L., et al

    Bird, A. J., Bazzano, A., Bassani, L., et al. 2010, ApJS, 186, 1

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    J., Bazzano, A., Malizia, A., et al

    Bird, A. J., Bazzano, A., Malizia, A., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 15

    2016

  8. [8]

    J., Malizia, A., Bazzano, A., et al

    Bird, A. J., Malizia, A., Bazzano, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 175

    2007

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    L., et al

    Campana, S., Stella, L., Israel, G. L., et al. 2002, ApJ, 580, 389

    2002

  2. [10]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11952, 1 de Martino, D., Bernardini, F., Mukai, K., Falanga, M., &

    Chenevez, J., Jaisawal, G., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11952, 1 de Martino, D., Bernardini, F., Mukai, K., Falanga, M., &

    2018

  3. [11]

    2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1209

    Masetti, N. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1209

    2020

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127

    Doroshenko, V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2020, A&A, 643, A62

    Doroshenko, V ., Suleimanov, V ., Tsygankov, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A62

    2020

  6. [14]

    2022, A&A, 664, A99

    Ferrigno, C., Bozzo, E., & Romano, P . 2022, A&A, 664, A99

    2022

  7. [15]

    2019, A&A, 624, A142

    Ferrigno, C., Bozzo, E., Sanna, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A142

    2019

  8. [16]

    J., Bandyopadhyay, R

    Gosling, A. J., Bandyopadhyay, R. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A. , & Farrell, S. A. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1511

    2007

  9. [17]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1

    2001

  10. [18]

    2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 86, 101546

    Kretschmar, P ., F¨ urst, F., Sidoli, L., et al. 2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 86, 101546

    2019

  11. [19]

    2007, A&A, 475, 775

    Krivonos, R., Revnivtsev, M., Lutovinov, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, 775

    2007

  12. [20]

    W ., Hoare, M

    Lucas, P . W ., Hoare, M. G., Longmore, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 136 Mart´ ınez-N´ u˜ nez, S., Kretschmar, P ., Bozzo, E., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 59

    2008

  13. [21]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11992, 1

    Minniti, D. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11992, 1

    2018

  14. [22]

    2006, A&A, 453, 295

    Masetti, N., Orlandini, M., Palazzi, E., Amati, L., & Fronte ra, F. 2006, A&A, 453, 295

    2006

  15. [23]

    2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 193

    McCollum, B., Laine, S., & McCollum, M. 2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 193

    2018

  16. [24]

    The X-ray Universe 2005

    Negueruela, I., Smith, D. M., Reig, P ., Chaty, S., & Torrej´ o n, J. M. 2006, in Proc. of the “The X-ray Universe 2005”, 26-30 September 2005, El Escorial, Madrid, Spain. Ed. by A. Wilson. ESA SP-604, V olume 1, Noordwijk: ESA Pub

    2006

  17. [25]

    Division, ISBN 92-9092-915-4, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P ., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23

    2000

  19. [27]

    M., Eikenberry, S

    Ransom, S. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Middleditch, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1788

    2002

  20. [28]

    2008, A&A, 489, 1121

    Sunyaev, R. 2008, A&A, 489, 1121

    2008

  21. [29]

    J., Bird, A

    Sguera, V ., Barlow, E. J., Bird, A. J., et al. 2005, A&A, 444, 221

    2005

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Sguera, V ., Bazzano, A., Bird, A. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 45 2

    2006

  23. [31]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 216

    Shakura, N., Postnov, K., Kochetkova, A., & Hjalmarsdotter , L. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 216

    2012

  24. [32]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2325

    Shakura, N., Postnov, K., Sidoli, L., & Paizis, A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2325

    2014

  25. [33]

    & Paizis, A

    Sidoli, L. & Paizis, A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2779

    2018

  26. [34]

    2023, A&A, 671, A150 Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al

    Sidoli, L., Ponti, G., Sguera, V ., & Esposito, P . 2023, A&A, 671, A150 Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18

    2023

  27. [35]

    F., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K

    Suleimanov, V . F., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4937

    2022

  28. [36]

    A., Chaty, S., Rodriguez, J., Walter, R., & Kaare t, P

    Tomsick, J. A., Chaty, S., Rodriguez, J., Walter, R., & Kaare t, P . 2009, ApJ, 701, 811

    2009

  29. [37]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27 V erner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Y akovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487

    2001

  30. [38]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

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

    2000

  31. [39]

    D., & Li, X.-D

    Xu, X.-j., Wang, Q. D., & Li, X.-D. 2016, ApJ, 818, 136 Y ungelson, L. R., Kuranov, A. G., & Postnov, K. A. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 851

    2016

  32. [40]

    Zolotukhin, I. Y . & Revnivtsev, M. G. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 620

    2011

Pith tools

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