Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Quenching and recovery of persistent X-ray emission during a superburst in 4U 1820$-$30

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superburst in 4U 1820–30 nearly quenched the neutron star's persistent X-ray emission, which then recovered as the inner disk refilled on a ~1.8-hour viscous timescale.

desk verdict Solid observational core with a headline claim that over-extrapolates the data; the persistent-flux recovery and absorption-line drift are real, but 'near-complete quenching' is a model-dependent lower limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05785 v2 pith:3JZTG5H4 submitted 2024-12-08 astro-ph.HE

Zhijiao Peng , Zhaosheng Li , Yuanyue Pan , Tao Fu , Wenhui Yu , Yupeng Chen , Shu Zhang , Maurizio Falanga
show 1 more author
Shuang-Nan Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarsX-raybursterssuperburstlow-massbinaryaccretiondiskComptonizationgravitationalredshift4U1820-30
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 reports the 2021 superburst of the neutron star X-ray binary 4U 1820–30, observed simultaneously by NICER and MAXI, and argues that the burst's radiation temporarily emptied the inner accretion disk. The central claim is that the persistent emission, tracked by its Comptonization (inverse-Compton) component, was nearly quenched at the burst peak, with a lower-limit flux of about $2.2\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, and then recovered to its preburst level on a timescale of about 1.8 hr as the disk refilled. The paper further identifies a drifting absorption line, from 4.15 to 3.62 keV, as gravitationally redshifted Ar XVIII from the inner disk, placing the disk about 17 km from the neutron star. If correct, these results show that superbursts can effectively switch off the persistent accretion flow and give a new way to measure disk viscosity and the neutron star's compactness.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two quantitative tools. The first is the sigmoid fit to the Comptonization flux, $f(t)=F/(1+e^{-k(t-t_0)})$, whose parameters give the 10–90% rise time $t_{\rm rise}=2\ln 9/k\approx1.8$ hr; this curve connects the observed recovery of persistent emission to the viscous refill timescale of the inner disk, and the disk potential-energy and viscous-timescale formulas from Ballantyne & Everett (2005) are used to show that the superburst energy can remove the inner disk and that refill from roughly 1000 gravitational radii takes about 2.3 hr. The second is the Gaussian absorption component (gabs) added to the burst spectral model; its line energy drifts from 4.15 to 3.62 keV, which the paper interprets as the gravitational redshift of the Ar XVIII rest energy, converting the drift into a radius estimate of about 17 km for a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star.

What would settle it

High-cadence X-ray coverage of a future superburst from 4U 1820–30 that includes the burst peak would settle the quenching claim: if the measured persistent (Comptonization) flux at peak exceeds $2.2\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ by orders of magnitude, the near-complete quenching conclusion collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the persistent X-ray emission of 4U 1820–30 was almost completely quenched during the 2021 superburst. Time-resolved NICER and MAXI spectra show the Comptonization flux climbing from $8.9\times10^{-10}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ to the preburst level of $7.3\times10^{-9}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ over 6.89 hr along a sigmoid curve with a 10–90% rise time $t_{\rm rise}\approx1.8$ hr; extrapolating that curve to the burst peak yields a lower limit of $2.2\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the persistent flux, which the authors take as evidence of near-complete quenching. They interpret the recovery as the viscous refill of the inner accretion disk, noting that the observed rise time matches the viscous timescale when the Shakura–Sunyaev viscosity parameter is $\alpha\approx0.135$. In the same data an absorption line drifts from 4.15 keV to 3.62 keV while the persistent emission recovers; the paper attributes the line to Ar XVIII in the inner disk and interprets the drift as gravitational redshift, implying the inner disk approached to roughly 17 km from the neutron star. The authors explicitly note that no NICER data cover the superburst peak, so the minimum flux is an extrapolated lower limit rather than a direct measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of near-complete quenching rests on a sigmoid curve extrapolated below the observed flux range, because no NICER data cover the superburst peak; if that extrapolation is wrong, the true persistent flux at peak could be orders of magnitude higher.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A superburst can reduce the persistent X-ray flux of an accreting neutron star by a factor of thousands, implying that the burst radiation removes or pushes back the inner accretion disk.
  • The rise time of the persistent flux, about 1.8 hr, provides a direct observational estimate of the viscous refill timescale for the inner disk, favoring $\alpha\approx0.135$ under the adopted disk model.
  • The gravitationally redshifted Ar XVIII line gives an inner-disk radius of about 17 km, which can be combined with an independent neutron star mass to constrain the mass–radius relation if the line identification is secure.
  • The inferred ignition column depth $y_{12}\sim0.29$ and recurrence time near 0.25–0.31 yr are consistent with carbon-powered superbursts in hydrogen-poor ultracompact binaries.
  • Because the superburst peak was not covered by NICER, the near-complete quenching scenario makes a specific prediction: future observations that catch a superburst peak should find the persistent emission at or below the extrapolated lower limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension of this work would be a systematic search of archival NICER and MAXI superburst light curves for the same S-shaped persistent-flux recovery; finding similar factor-of-ten rises in other sources would show that disk emptying is a generic superburst effect rather than a peculiarity of 4U 1820–30.
  • The 17 km radius, if confirmed, turns superburst absorption lines into a ruler for the inner disk location; applying the same redshift technique to other neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries could probe compactness across a range of masses.
  • The match between $t_{\rm rise}$ and the viscous timescale assumes a fixed $\alpha$ and ignores radiation feedback during refill; self-consistent simulations of disk evolution under burst irradiation could test whether the recovery time really equals the viscous time or is set by a different process.
  • The absorption line appears only in a narrow window of the recovery phase, suggesting that the line traces a limited range of disk radius and ionization; tracking similar lines through future bursts could map the radial migration of the inner disk in real time.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports NICER and MAXI observations of a superburst from the ultracompact X-ray binary 4U 1820-30 in 2021 August. From time-resolved spectroscopy, the authors derive burst parameters: a blackbody decay time of about 2.5 hr, an ignition column depth of about 0.3e12 g/cm2, an energy release per unit mass of about 2.4e17 erg/g, a fluence of about 4.1e-4 erg/cm2, and a total energy release of about 3.5e42 erg. During the burst tail, the Comptonization (persistent) flux is observed to rise from 8.95e-10 to 7.29e-9 erg/s/cm2. The authors interpret this as recovery of persistent emission after a near-complete quenching caused by the superburst radiation depleting the inner accretion disk. They also detect an absorption line that drifts from 4.15 to 3.62 keV and attribute it to gravitationally redshifted Ar XVIII from the inner accretion disk, implying that the disk approached to about 17 km from the neutron star.

Significance. The paper provides a detailed, time-resolved spectral study of a superburst with joint NICER and MAXI coverage, which is rare and valuable. The observed increase of the Comptonization flux and the drifting absorption line are novel spectral findings that could open a new window on superburst-disk interactions. If the near-total quenching interpretation is correct, this would be strong evidence that superburst radiation can empty the inner disk and that the recovery occurs on the viscous timescale. However, the amplitude of the quenching is not directly measured: the 2.2e-13 erg/s/cm2 value is an extrapolation from a sigmoid fit to data that start 3.28 hr after the MAXI trigger, with no NICER coverage at the superburst peak. The observed data alone support strong suppression (first measured flux about 12% of the baseline) but not the factor-of-3e-5 reduction that the abstract implies. The paper is transparent about this limitation in Sect. 4.2, but the abstract and summary overstate the result. The absorption-line interpretation is also not unique. Overall, the paper is a useful observational contribution whose central interpretive claims need to be qualified and made more robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.2 and Abstract] The 'near-complete quenching' claim is based on an extrapolation. The value 2.2e-13 erg/s/cm2 is the zero-time asymptote of a sigmoid fitted to data beginning 3.28 hr after the MAXI trigger; no NICER data cover the superburst peak. The first measured Comptonization flux is 8.95e-10 erg/s/cm2, about 12% of the adopted preburst level of 7.29e-9 erg/s/cm2. This demonstrates strong suppression but not the factor-of-3e-5 quenching implied by 2.2e-13. The paper itself acknowledges in Sect. 4.2 that 'the actual flux could be orders of magnitude higher,' yet the abstract and Summary present near-complete quenching as an established result. The abstract and summary should be revised to state that the data show a strong suppression and that the lower limit is a model-dependent extrapolation.
  2. [Sects. 2 and 3.2] The preburst baseline is not contemporaneous. ObsID 02, observed 64.5 days before the burst, has a count rate of about 2935 counts/s, while ObsID 06, used as the recovered persistent level, has a count rate of about 1977 counts/s. The Comptonization flux of 7.29e-9 erg/s/cm2, labeled the 'preburst level,' is taken from ObsID 06, i.e., after the burst. 'Recovery to the preburst level' is therefore not anchored to the same source state. The authors should explicitly discuss the factor-of-1.5 difference in count rate between the two epochs and whether the persistent flux level was the same before and after the burst.
  3. [Sect. 4.3] The attribution of the drifting absorption line to gravitationally redshifted Ar XVIII is not unique. The line energy could vary because of changes in ionization balance, column density, or bulk Doppler motion in a wind or accretion stream. The authors do not test these alternatives; for example, they do not examine whether the observed decrease in line width (0.38 to 0.09 keV) and depth (0.13 to 0.03 keV) is consistent with a purely gravitational redshift at constant rest energy. The inferred inner-disk radius of about 17 km depends on the assumed rest energy of 4.15 keV and a neutron star mass of 1.4 solar masses. This claim should be framed as a plausible interpretation rather than a secure measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text repeatedly uses the spelling 'Componization' instead of 'Comptonization' (e.g., in the Abstract, Sect. 3.2, and Fig. 6/7 captions). This should be corrected.
  2. [Sect. 4.2] The comparison of the observed rise time (1.8 hr) with the viscous timescale uses alpha = 0.135, which is chosen a posteriori to match the observation. The authors should state clearly that alpha is not independently constrained in this study and that the agreement is therefore not a strong test of the model.
  3. [Fig. 7] The sigmoid fit is plotted over the data, but the extrapolated region below the first data point (from 2.2e-13 up to the first measured point) is not visually distinguished from the data region. Adding a dashed line for the extrapolated portion would help the reader see that the lower limit is not directly measured.
  4. [Sect. 4.1] The predicted recurrence time of about 0.31 yr is compared with the observed interval of about 0.25 yr between the two 2021 superbursts. The uncertainty on the observed recurrence time (based on two events) is not discussed; a single pair of bursts does not provide a strong statistical test of the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: independent NICER/MAXI measurements; the near-quenching floor is an acknowledged sigmoid extrapolation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are derived from independent NICER and MAXI observations. The burst parameters (decay time, ignition depth, energy release, fluence) come from fitting the cooling blackbody flux to the Cumming & Macbeth analytic model; the recurrence time is a consistency check between the fitted y_ign and the measured persistent flux, not a circular input. The near-complete quenching claim is the weakest point, but it is not circular: Section 3.2 explicitly states there are no NICER data at the superburst peak, and the 2.2e-13 value is the zero-time evaluation of a sigmoid fitted to the observed rise, with the authors adding that the true flux could be orders of magnitude higher. This is a model-dependent extrapolation and a caveat, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The choice alpha=0.135 to make the viscous timescale equal the observed rise time is post-hoc tuning of a free parameter within its standard range, not a circular derivation. The absorption-line identification uses the NIST database and a standard redshift formula; it does not assume the conclusion. The model Tbabs*(bbodyrad+compTT) is adopted from Yu et al. 2024, a self-citation, but this is a standard spectral model with independent support and is not load-bearing for the burst physics. No equation reduces to its own input; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for the spectral model choice, not circularity in the central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard X-ray spectral models, on the Cumming superburst cooling model, and on the Ballantyne-Everett disk and viscosity model; none are formally verified here, and no analysis code or data products are released. The most paper-specific assumptions are the atomic identification of the 4.15 keV line and the sigmoid extrapolation of the persistent flux.

free parameters (4)
  • E17 (energy release per unit mass) = ~2.37 in units of 10^17 erg/g
    Fitted to the superburst cooling light curve with the Cumming & Macbeth (2004) model; used to compute fluence and recurrence time.
  • y12 (ignition column depth) = ~0.29 in units of 10^12 g/cm2
    Fitted to the same cooling curve; used to compute fluence, decay time, and recurrence time.
  • sigmoid parameters F, k, t0 = F=(7.74+/-0.01)e-9 erg/s/cm2, k=2.38+/-0.01 hr^-1, t0=4.41+/-0.01 hr
    Fitted to the time-resolved Comptonization flux; used to extrapolate the peak persistent flux lower limit and recovery timescale.
  • alpha (viscosity parameter) = 0.135 chosen in Eq. 4
    Although alpha=0.1-0.4 is plausible, the value 0.135 is selected so that the viscous timescale matches the observed rise time of about 1.8 hr; the agreement is partly constructed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The superburst cooling is described by the Cumming & Macbeth (2004) analytic model with free parameters E17 and y12.
    Used in Sect. 4.1 to get E17 and y12 from the decay; the fit has large chi2_nu and is described as 'broadly consistent', so the model is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The persistent X-ray continuum is Tbabs*(bbodyrad+compTT), as adopted from Yu et al. (2024).
    Sect. 3.1; all persistent and burst spectral parameters, including the absorption line, are interpreted within this model.
  • domain assumption The disk surface density and viscous timescale follow Ballantyne & Everett (2005), Eqs. 3 and 4, with alpha and accretion efficiency 0.1.
    Sect. 4.2; used to argue the observed 1.8 hr rise is a viscous refilling time.
  • ad hoc to paper The 4.15 keV absorption line is Ar XVIII with rest energy 4.15 keV, and the observed energy decrease is gravitational redshift rather than Doppler or opacity effects.
    Sect. 4.3; no atomic model or line-series identification is shown, and the 17 km distance follows directly from this identification.
  • domain assumption The event is a carbon-fueled superburst.
    Sect. 2: inferred from exponential decay time of about 0.97 hr and burst energetics; this frames all subsequent energy and depth estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quenching and recovery of persistent X-ray emission during a superburst in 4U 1820$-$30." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JZTG5H4

@misc{pith2026241205785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quenching and recovery of persistent X-ray emission during a superburst in 4U 1820$-$30},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JZTG5H4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05785}
}
abstract

We report the superburst from 4U 1820--30 in 2021 observed by the Monitor of All-sky X-ray Image and Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER). During the tail of the superburst, we found that the NICER light curve unexpectedly increased from 1080 to 2204 ${\rm counts~s^{-1}}$ over 6.89 hr. From the time-resolved superburst spectra, we estimated the burst decay time of $\approx2.5$ hr, the ignition column depth of $\approx0.3\times 10^{12}~{\rm g ~cm^{-2}}$, the energy release per unit mass of $\approx2.4\times 10^{17}~{\rm erg~g^{-1}}$, the fluence of $\approx4.1\times 10^{-4}~{\rm erg~cm^{-2}}$, and the total energy release of $\approx3.5\times10^{42}$ erg. Notably, we found a gradual increase in the Componization flux from $8.9\times 10^{-10}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}}$ to the preburst level during the superburst. This increase can be interpreted as a consequence of superburst radiation depleting the inner accretion disk, leading to a near-complete quenching of the persistent emission. As the burst radiation decayed, the inner accretion disk gradually returned to its preburst state, as evidenced by the best-fit spectral parameters. Additionally, we observed a prominent absorption line that exhibited a gravitational redshift, shifting from 4.15 to 3.62 keV during the recovery phase of persistent emission. This absorption feature likely originates from the inner accretion disk rather than from burst emission on the neutron star (NS) surface. The observed changes in the absorption line energy suggest that the inner disk approached the NS to a distance as close as $\approx17$ km.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curve of the superburst from 4U 1820– 30 observed by NICER (with a time bin size of 1 s in 0.5–10 keV; blue and green dots for ObsIDs 05 and 06, respectively) in units of counts s−1 and MAXI (∼250 s, 2–20 keV; open red squares) in units of photons sec−1 cm−2 . The NICER archived data from 4U 1820–30 were searched for the period before and during the su￾perburst.3 We found three observations, includ￾1 http:… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hardness ratio of the superburst. We show the NICER hardness ratio between 3.8–6.8 and 2.0–3.8 keV. Each blue and green point represents a 64 s segment of data of NICER ObsID 05 and NICER ObsID 06, respectively. ing ObsID 4663010102 (MJD 59385.10–59385.39), Ob￾sID 4050300105 (MJD 59449.61–59449.90), and Ob￾sID 4050300106 (MJD 59450.26–59450.86), starting at -64.5 days, 3.28 hr and 18.78 hr since the MAXI trig￾ger, r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spectral parameters of the persistent emis￾sion from ObsID 02. From top to bottom, the blackbody temperature and the blackbody radius, which were calcu￾lated using a distance of 8.4 kpc; the temperatures of the seed photons; the temperatures of the hot electrons; the op￾tical thickness of the electron slab; the normalization; and the goodness of fit per dof, χ 2 ν, are shown. (TBabs; Wilms et al. 2000) with abun… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectral parameters of the superburst in 4U 1820–30 evolve with time. From top to bottom, the black￾body temperature and blackbody radius, which were calcu￾lated using a distance of 8.4 kpc; the temperatures of the seed photons; the temperatures of the hot electron…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The absorbed best-fit persistent spectrum obtained between MJD 59385.10133–59385.10249 and the residuals from NICER ObsID 02 in 0.5–10 keV. The spec￾trum is fitted with the model Tbabs*(bbodyrad+compTT). The red solid, blue dashed–dotted, and green dashed lines represe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the Comptonization flux fitted by the sigmoid model f(t) = F/(1 + e −k(t−t0) ). The red, blue, and green points represent the data from MAXI and ObsIDs 05 and 06, respectively. The total, blackbody, and Comptonization fluxes from MAXI and NICER are shown i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: From top to bottom, the evolution of the flux represented as the total, the blackbody, and the Comptoniza￾tion flux from ObsIDs 05 and 06. The dotted line marks the moment of the lowest blackbody flux. We show the best-fitting parameters and χ 2 ν of the MAXI and NICER…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The burst spectrum obtained between MJD 59449.76493–59449.76609 and its best-fitting model from ObsID 05. In the top panel, we show the folded spectrum and the model TBabs(bbodyrad+compTT)gabs, while the blue dashed line, the green dashed line, and the red solid line r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: During this period, 39 out of 59 burst spectra were fitted with the addition of the gabs model. The line energy, El , is decreased from 4.15 to 3.62 keV ac￾companied by the reduction of the line width, σ, and depth, Ed, from 0.38 to 0.09 keV and from 0.13 to 0.03 keV, …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The decay of the superburst blackbody flux fit￾ted by the model from Cumming & Macbeth (2004). The red and blue points represent the data from MAXI and NICER, respectively. column depth yign, fb = 4πyignR2 NSQnuc 4πd2(1 + z) , (1) where RNS = 10 km, Qnuc ≈ 1.31 MeV nu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1996

  2. [2]

    R., & Everett, J

    Ballantyne, D. R., & Everett, J. E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 364, doi: 10.1086/429860

    doi:10.1086/429860 2005

  3. [3]

    R., & Strohmayer, T

    Ballantyne, D. R., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2004, ApJL, 602, L105, doi: 10.1086/382703

    doi:10.1086/382703 2004

  4. [4]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4

    Bult, P., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c4 2021

  5. [5]

    P., Zhang, S., Qu, J

    Chen, Y. P., Zhang, S., Qu, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJL, 864, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadc0e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadc0e 2018

  6. [6]

    2001, ApJL, 559, L127, doi: 10.1086/323937

    Cumming, A., & Bildsten, L. 2001, ApJL, 559, L127, doi: 10.1086/323937

    doi:10.1086/323937 2001

  7. [7]

    2004, ApJL, 603, L37, doi: 10.1086/382873

    Cumming, A., & Macbeth, J. 2004, ApJL, 603, L37, doi: 10.1086/382873

    doi:10.1086/382873 2004

  8. [8]

    Cumming, A., Macbeth, J., in ’t Zand, J. J. M., & Page, D. 2006, ApJ, 646, 429, doi: 10.1086/504698

    doi:10.1086/504698 2006

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    M., Wijnands, R., Altamirano, D., & Fabian, A

    Degenaar, N., Miller, J. M., Wijnands, R., Altamirano, D., & Fabian, A. C. 2013, ApJL, 767, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L37

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Belloni, T., et al

    Degenaar, N., Ballantyne, D. R., Belloni, T., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 15, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0448-3

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Ballantyne, D

    Fragile, P. C., Ballantyne, D. R., & Blankenship, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 541, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0987-5

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Witry, J. W. L. 2018, ApJL, 867, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeb99

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    1992, Accretion Power in Astrophysics., Vol

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 1992, Accretion Power in Astrophysics., Vol. 21

    1992

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05779

    Fu, T., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05779

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, in Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions, ed. T. M

    2021

  8. [16]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 209–262, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 5

    doi

  9. [17]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, ApJS, 179, 360, doi: 10.1086/592044

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al

    Galloway, D. K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9f2e

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    1974, ApJS, 27, 37, doi: 10.1086/190288

    Giacconi, R., Murray, S., Gursky, H., et al. 1974, ApJS, 27, 37, doi: 10.1086/190288

    1974 doi

  12. [20]

    2003, A&A, 410, 217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031141 in’t Zand, J

    Gilfanov, M., Revnivtsev, M., & Molkov, S. 2003, A&A, 410, 217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031141 in’t Zand, J. 2017, in 7 years of MAXI: Monitoring X-ray Transients, ed. M. Serino, M. Shidatsu, W. Iwakiri, & T. Mihara, 121, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.04899 10 in’t Zand, J. J. M.,...

    2003 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    K., Bostancı, Z

    Jaisawal, G. K., Bostancı, Z. F., Boztepe, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad794e

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Kajava, J. J. E., N¨ attil¨ a, J., Poutanen, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw167

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Kuulkers, E., & Strohmayer, T

    Keek, L., Ballantyne, D. R., Kuulkers, E., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2014a, ApJL, 797, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L23 —. 2014b, ApJ, 789, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/121

    doi

  16. [24]

    R., Pringle, J

    King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Livio, M. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1740, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11556.x

    2007

  17. [25]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., & Taam, R. E. 1993, SSRv, 62, 223, doi: 10.1007/BF00196124

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f15

    Li, Z., Pan, Y., & Falanga, M. 2021, ApJ, 920, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f15

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Poutanen, J., et al

    Li, Z., Suleimanov, V. F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aade8e

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d86

    Lu, Y., Li, Z., Yu, W., Pan, Y., & Falanga, M. 2024, ApJ, 969, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d86

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    J., & Coppi, P

    Maccarone, T. J., & Coppi, P. S. 2003, A&A, 399, 1151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021881

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    2001, ApJ, 547, 355, doi: 10.1086/318336

    Popham, R., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, ApJ, 547, 355, doi: 10.1086/318336

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J

    Remillard, R. A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al

    Russell, T. D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 763, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07133-5

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    R., & Fragile, P

    Speicher, J., Ballantyne, D. R., & Fragile, P. C. 2024, ApJ, 976, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad863d

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    R., & Malzac, J

    Speicher, J., Ballantyne, D. R., & Malzac, J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3137

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & Ballantyne, D

    Speicher, J., Fragile, P. C., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2684

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Stella, L., Priedhorsky, W., & White, N. E. 1987, ApJL, 312, L17, doi: 10.1086/184811

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    2006, in Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, ed

    Strohmayer, T., & Bildsten, L. 2006, in Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Vol. 39, 113–156

    2006

  30. [38]

    E., & Brown, E

    Strohmayer, T. E., & Brown, E. F. 2002, ApJ, 566, 1045, doi: 10.1086/338337

    2002 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al

    Strohmayer, T. E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2019, ApJL, 878, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25eb

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    R., & Origlia, L

    Valenti, E., Ferraro, F. R., & Origlia, L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 815, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08249.x

    2004

  33. [41]

    Walker, M. A. 1992, ApJ, 385, 642, doi: 10.1086/170969

    1992 doi

  34. [42]

    N., & Bildsten, L

    Weinberg, N. N., & Bildsten, L. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1291, doi: 10.1086/522111

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, A&A, 683, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348195

    Yu, W., Li, Z., Lu, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348195

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, A&A, 660, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142801

    Zhao, G., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142801

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.