Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Long term optical variations in Swift J1858.6-0814: evidence for ablation and comparisons to radio properties

T0 review · 4 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 Swift J1858.6–0814's optical light curve, folded on its orbital period, peaks at phase 0.7 with the same amplitude in all bands—evidence the authors interpret as ablation of the companion star during the outburst.

desk verdict Solid new optical dataset and a statistically significant orbital phase curve, but the ablation interpretation is not uniquely supported and needs more modeling or a softer claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09347 v1 pith:TM726MV2 submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.HE

L. Rhodes , D. M. Russell , P. Saikia , K. Alabarta , J. van den Eijnden , A. H. Knight , M. C. Baglio , F. Lewis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretiondiscsX-raybinariesneutronstarsablationopticalvariabilityradiojetsmillisecondpulsarsorbitalphasecurve
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 long-term optical monitoring of the neutron-star X-ray binary Swift J1858.6-0814 across its 2018–2020 outburst and into quiescence, finding strong variability but a steady average flux. The authors fold the outburst light curve on the 21.34-hour orbital period and find a phase-dependent modulation that peaks at phase ~0.7, with the same ~0.7-magnitude amplitude in all four optical bands. They interpret this as reprocessed X-ray light from the disc, the companion star, and material ablated off the companion, which would make J1858 the first case of ablation observed in a neutron-star LMXB during active accretion. They also find comparable fractional variability in radio and optical bands, linking the variability to accretion-rate changes that propagate into the jet. If correct, the result extends the timescale over which companion evaporation can occur, making isolated millisecond pulsars easier to form.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the orbital-phase-folded light curve, built from roughly weekly optical photometry in four bands (g', r', i', y), folded on the orbital period of 0.88937 days derived from X-ray eclipse timings. An F-test comparing a flat phase curve to a skewed sinusoid selects the skewed sinusoid at 99.5% significance, and a Lomb-Scargle periodogram finds an independent peak at 0.889 ± 0.001 days, matching the orbital period. The interpretation is geometric: at phase 0.0 the companion star eclipses the neutron star, blocking reprocessed light, and near phase 0.7 the combined projected surface area of the companion and ablated material facing the observer is largest, so the reprocessed flux peaks. The equality of the modulation amplitude across bands is the diagnostic that separates a projected-area (geometry) effect from extinction, and the asymmetry relative to a sinusoid is the diagnostic for extra material (ablated gas) extending around the binary.

What would settle it

A sliding-window period search on the optical light curve that detects a drift in the modulation period by more than 0.001 days over the outburst would be inconsistent with a fixed orbital reprocessing geometry and would restore the superhump explanation, undermining the ablation evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optical light curve of Swift J1858.6-0814 during its outburst is modulated at the orbital period with an asymmetric shape—brightest near phase 0.7 and faintest at phase 0.0 when the neutron star is eclipsed—and that this modulation has the same amplitude (about 0.7 magnitudes) in the g', r', i', and y bands. Because the amplitude is color-independent, the authors argue it cannot be due to dust extinction, which would affect short wavelengths more strongly. Instead, they attribute the phase curve to a varying projected surface area of reprocessing material: the companion star plus material ablated from it by irradiation from the inner accretion flow. The same projected-area argument explains the asymmetry, since the ablated material and companion present different projected areas to the observer at different orbital phases. The paper therefore presents J1858 as evidence that ablation of the companion star can occur while the system is actively accreting as an LMXB, not only when the neutron star has turned on as a millisecond pulsar.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on the assumption that the orbital phase curve's equal amplitude across all optical bands is produced by a changing projected reprocessing area of the companion and ablated material, and that a superhump or asymmetric disc cannot produce the same signature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If real, the phase-dependent optical modulation provides the first detection of companion ablation in an actively accreting neutron-star LMXB, extending ablation from spider pulsars into the accretion phase.
  • The comparable fractional rms variability in radio and optical bands implies that the same accretion-rate fluctuations drive both the optical disc emission and the jet's radio emission, linking the two bands on long timescales.
  • The absence of color dependence in the modulation amplitude rules out extinction by the ablated material as the cause, leaving the changing reprocessing area as the preferred explanation.
  • Longer total ablation timescales make the formation of isolated millisecond pulsars through complete evaporation of the companion more plausible than previously estimated from spider pulsar mass-loss rates alone.
  • Phase-dependent optical modulation that disappears in quiescence implies the reprocessing mechanism requires an actively irradiating inner accretion flow, tying the ablation process to the outburst state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The claim rests on excluding the superhump alternative, which the paper does by comparing the 0.7-magnitude amplitude to a single other source (MAXI J1820-070, 0.5 mag) and by failing to see period evolution; a dedicated search for a drifting or stable superhump period would strengthen or refute this.
  • An asymmetric or warped disc with a phase-dependent projected area could in principle produce a similar phase curve; a radiative-transfer model of the disc alone, without ablated material, would test whether the color-independent 0.7-magnitude modulation is uniquely attributable to companion ablation.
  • The same monitoring technique applied to other high-inclination NS LMXBs with known orbital periods could establish how common outburst-phase ablation is, and whether the phase at which the optical flux peaks correlates with system parameters like inclination or mass ratio.
  • Spectroscopic follow-up during outburst, looking for extra absorption or emission lines from material trailing the companion, would provide a direct test of the ablated-material interpretation rather than relying on the morphology of the phase curve.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports optical monitoring of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary Swift J1858.6-0814 with the LCO/Faulkes telescope network during its 2018-2020 outburst and into quiescence. The authors find that the source remained strongly variable with roughly steady average brightness, that the optical fractional rms variability is comparable to radio variability, and that the optical SED is mostly blue with occasional red flares. Folding the outburst light curve on the known orbital period reveals an asymmetric modulation peaking near phase 0.7 with ~0.7 mag amplitude in all optical bands; this is interpreted as reprocessing off the disc, the companion, and material ablated from the companion. The paper concludes that this is evidence for ablation in an actively accreting neutron star LMXB and discusses implications for the formation of isolated millisecond pulsars.

Significance. If the ablation interpretation is correct, this would be a valuable demonstration that ablation operates during the neutron star LMXB phase and can be traced in optical phase-resolved photometry, with consequences for binary evolution and millisecond pulsar formation. The paper's strengths are the long, homogeneous multi-band dataset; the phase dependence is supported by an F-test and by a Lomb-Scargle peak consistent with the eclipse-derived orbital period; and the wavelength-independent modulation amplitude is a good empirical argument against extinction. The central limitation is that the interpretation as ablation is not quantitatively tested against alternative geometries, so the significance of the claimed evidence is conditional on further modeling and analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 (superhump exclusion)] The superhump exclusion is not quantitative enough to carry the ablation claim. The argument rests on a single comparison source, MAXI J1820-070, and on the statement that no period evolution is found, but no dynamic period search or upper limit on a period derivative is presented. At the system's inclination of about 81 degrees, projected-area and occultation effects can amplify an otherwise modest superhump or asymmetric disc structure to the observed ~0.7 mag amplitude. I request a sliding-window Lomb-Scargle or phase-dispersion-minimization search over outburst sub-intervals, a quantitative limit on the period derivative, and a comparison with a broader sample of high-inclination LMXB superhumps before concluding that the modulation cannot be a superhump.
  2. [Section 4 / Figure 9] The proposed reprocessing model is qualitative. No equation or calculation specifies the projected surface area of the companion and ablated material as a function of orbital phase, nor how that area converts into the observed flux amplitude and phase offset. The text therefore does not exclude alternatives such as an asymmetric disc rim, a fixed hotspot on the inner disc, or partial occultation of the disc by the companion. I recommend constructing at least a simple geometric model of the companion, disc, and an extended ablated region, fitting it to the phase curves, and reporting whether the peak phase and amplitude are reproduced; alternatively, the claim should be softened to state that the modulation is consistent with, but not uniquely evidence for, ablation.
  3. [Section 3.4 / Figure 7] The equal-amplitude-across-bands statement is load-bearing for ruling out extinction, but no quantitative comparison is presented. Please report best-fit modulation amplitudes and phases for each band with uncertainties, and demonstrate that the amplitudes are consistent within errors after accounting for the phase-bin sampling and the single-observation bins noted in the figure caption. This would also strengthen the conclusion that the phase dependence is geometric rather than caused by wavelength-dependent extinction.
  4. [Section 3.4 (F-test and periodogram)] The statistical support for the phase dependence needs more detail. The F-test comparing a flat model with a skewed sinusoid should state the number of data points, the free parameters, and the degrees of freedom. The Lomb-Scargle peak is quoted as 0.889 +/- 0.001 days, but the uncertainty appears to be the peak width rather than a formal period error; please report the false-alarm probability and assess the significance against red noise and irregular sampling. These additions are needed to make the central phase-curve result fully reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 (typo)] In the paragraph after Figure 9, 'compassion star' should read 'companion star'.
  2. [Table 1] In the optical r'-band row, the frequency range '2.7e-4 - 2.1e-8' appears to be reversed and inconsistent with the ranges given for the g', i', and y-band rows; please verify and correct the entries.
  3. [Section 4 (reference)] The skewed-sinusoid model is attributed to 'Israel 2016, personal communication'; please either provide a formal reference, describe the model explicitly in the text, or cite a public software implementation so the F-test is reproducible.
  4. [Figure 9] The schematic would be easier to assess if the observer's line of sight and the components (compact object, companion, disc, ablated material) were labeled explicitly, since the projected-area argument depends on the viewing geometry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optical phase curve is a new, independently measured dataset, and the ablation interpretation rests on prior external X-ray evidence rather than on a fitted or renamed version of the optical data itself.

full rationale

The paper's central new result is the folded optical light curve (Fig. 7) and its orbital-phase dependence. This is an external measurement: the photometry comes from LCO/Faulkes telescopes reduced with the XB-NEWS pipeline, and no model parameter is fitted to the optical data in order to produce the phase curve. The orbital period used for folding, 0.88937 d, comes from independent eclipse timing (Buisson et al. 2021), and the authors additionally run a Lomb-Scargle periodogram without supplying that period as a prior, recovering 0.889 ± 0.001 d. Thus the modulation is not an artifact of folding at an assumed period. The claimed flat modulation amplitude across bands is read directly from the data, not derived from the ablation hypothesis. The ablation interpretation is imported from prior X-ray work by overlapping authors (Knight et al. 2022, 2023), and the optical asymmetry is then interpreted as reprocessing from the companion plus ablated material (Fig. 9). That is an interpretive step, not a derivation whose output equals its input: no equation in the paper defines the phase curve in terms of ablation, and no ablation parameter is fitted to the optical data. The radio comparison also uses published radio measurements (van den Eijnden et al. 2020; Rhodes et al. 2022) as external data, not as a model fitted here. The self-citations to Knight et al. and Rhodes et al. are used for external data and prior evidence, not as a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in by citation. The superhump exclusion relies on a single comparison source and on the absence of detected period evolution, and the paper has no quantitative reprocessing model; those weaknesses affect the uniqueness of the ablation interpretation, but they are scientific-robustness concerns, not circularity. The paper itself even notes that similar phase dependence in transitional millisecond pulsars is often explained by irradiation without ablation, so it does not hide the degeneracy. No step reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central interpretation relies on standard assumptions of LMXB emission and on the previously published orbital ephemeris and ablation evidence. No new free parameters are fitted. The novel entity is the extended ablated material, which is adopted from prior work and remains undetected directly.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The orbital period and ephemeris from Buisson et al. (2021) are accurate and stable during the outburst.
    Used to fold the optical light curve in Section 3.4; no independent eclipse timing analysis is performed.
  • domain assumption The optical SED decomposition: blue emission is from an accretion disc, red flares are optically thin synchrotron from the jet.
    Standard LMXB interpretation adopted in Sections 3.2 and 4.
  • domain assumption The radio emission is produced by a compact jet, based on Rhodes et al. (2022) and van den Eijnden et al. (2020).
    The optical-radio rms comparison in Section 3.1 assumes radio traces jet activity.
  • domain assumption Extinction along the line of sight is described by the Galactic value AV=0.64, and intrinsic absorption does not affect optical bands.
    Section 3.2 discusses and adopts this, while noting alternative AV=1.0 from Castro Segura et al. (2024) does not change conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase curve shape is generated by reprocessing off the companion star and an extended distribution of ablated material, and not by a superhump or dust extinction.
    Section 4: this is the paper's interpretive hypothesis, supported by arguments against superhump and extinction, but not by a quantitative geometric model.
invented entities (1)
  • Extended ablated material around the binary independent evidence
    purpose: Explain the asymmetric orbital phase curve peaking at phase ~0.7 with equal amplitude in all optical bands.
    The component is not directly detected in this paper; it is invoked based on prior X-ray evidence for ablation in J1858 (Knight et al. 2022, 2023). The optical data here provide an indirect probe, and future high-resolution spectroscopy or imaging could provide a direct falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long term optical variations in Swift J1858.6-0814: evidence for ablation and comparisons to radio properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TM726MV2

@misc{pith2026241209347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long term optical variations in Swift J1858.6-0814: evidence for ablation and comparisons to radio properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TM726MV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09347}
}
read the original abstract

We present optical monitoring of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary Swift J1858.6-0814 during its 2018-2020 outburst and subsequent quiescence. We find that there was strong optical variability present throughout the entire outburst period covered by our monitoring, while the average flux remained steady. The optical spectral energy distribution is blue on most dates, consistent with emission from an accretion disc, interspersed by occasional red flares, likely due to optically thin synchrotron emission. We find that the fractional rms variability has comparable amplitudes in the radio and optical bands. This implies that the long-term variability is likely to be due to accretion changes, seen at optical wavelengths, that propagate into the jet, seen at radio frequencies. We find that the optical flux varies asymmetrically about the orbital period peaking at phase ~0.7, with a modulation amplitude that is the same across all optical wavebands suggesting that reprocessing off of the disc, companion star and ablated material is driving the phase dependence. The evidence of ablation found in X-ray binaries is vital in understanding the long term evolution of neutron star X-ray binaries and how they evolve into (potentially isolated) millisecond pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: Optical light curves of the J1858 system during outburst and quiescence. Artificial offsets have been placed to make the data easier to visualise. The vertical dotted, dashed and solid blue lines indicate the outburst’s beginning, state transition and return to quiescence, respectively. Middle panel: The radio data from van den Eijnden et al. (2020); Rhodes et al. (2022). Lower panel: The 0.5-10 keV NICE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Short-term optical variability observed near the start of the out￾burst, demonstrating that the source can vary as much as 0.9 magnitudes on timescales of a few minutes. Magnitude errors are plotted, but are generally smaller than the symbols. Flares and dips on these timescales are similar to those reported in Muñoz-Darias et al. (2020), Vincentelli et al. (2023) and Shahbaz et al. (2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The radio (top panel) and optical (bottom panel) Frms variability as a function of time. We calculate a moving average rms variability with a bin size of 60 days. MNRAS 000, 1–10 (2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical SEDs of J1858 for all epochs where data were collected in at least three bands. The black, brighter data points correspond to when the source was in outburst. There are substantial changes in the spectral index during outburst. The fainter grey points are from …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Colour magnitude diagram of J1858 showing optical brightness 𝑔 ′ vs color 𝑔 ′ -𝑖 ′ where the bluer colours that correspond to higher spectral indices are shown to the left, and redder colors are shown to the right, over￾plotted with a simple model of a single temperatu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A Lomb-Scargle Periodogram for the optical light curve data for J1858. Between periods of 0.1 and 5.0 days, we find the strongest peak at 0.889 days with an estimated peak width of 0.001 days (VanderPlas & Ivezić 2015; Vanderplas 2015). This result is consistent with t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of how the phase curve ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Further Evidence for Variable Synchrotron Emission in XTE J1118+480 in Outburst

    Hynes R. I., 2005, ApJ, 623, 1026 @article hynes2005, author = Hynes, R. I. , journal = , volume = 623 , pages = 1026 , year = 2005 , @article hynes2019, author = Hynes, R I and Robinson, E L and Terndrup, D M and Gandhi, P and Froning, C S and Wagner, R M and Starrfield, S and Dhillon, V S and Marsh, T R , title = " Optical and X-ray correlations during ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    A., Cheng A

    Alpar M. A., Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., Shaham J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300728a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..728A 300, 728

    doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1172740 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...324.1411A 324, 1411

    Archibald A. M., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1172740 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...324.1411A 324, 1411

    doi:10.1126/science.1172740 2009

  4. [4]

    N., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...197..675A 197, 675

    Avni Y., Bahcall J. N., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...197..675A 197, 675

    doi:10.1086/153558 1975

  5. [5]

    C., D'Avanzo P., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Breton R

    Baglio M. C., D'Avanzo P., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Breton R. P., Campana S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322442 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322442 2013

  6. [6]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A.109B 600, A109

    Baglio M. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A.109B 600, A109

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629524 2017

  7. [7]

    C., Russell D

    Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Pirbhoy S., Bahramian A., Heinke C. O., Roche P., Lewis F., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12180....1B 12180

    2018

  8. [8]

    C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...87B 905, 87

    Baglio M. C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...87B 905, 87

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc685 2020

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930...20B 930, 20

    Baglio M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930...20B 930, 20

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Bagnoli T., in't Zand J. J. M., D'Angelo C. R., Galloway D. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..268B 449, 268

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Edited by Cosimo Bambi and Andrea Santangelo

    Bahramian A., Degenaar N., 2023, in , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. Edited by Cosimo Bambi and Andrea Santangelo. Springer , p. 120, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_94-1

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Jonker P

    Bassa C. G., Jonker P. G., Steeghs D., Torres M. A. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15395.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399.2055B 399, 2055

    2009

  5. [13]

    R., van der Klis M., van Paradijs J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479L.145B 479, L145

    Belloni T., M \'e ndez M., King A. R., van der Klis M., van Paradijs J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479L.145B 479, L145

    1997 doi

  6. [15]

    Bright J., Fender R., Motta S., Rhodes L., Titterington D., Perrott Y., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12184....1B 12184, 1

    2018

  7. [16]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    Brown T. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    2013 doi

  8. [17]

    Buisson D. J. K., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499..793B 499, 793

    doi

  9. [18]

    Buisson D. J. K., Altamirano D., Remillard R., Arzoumanian Z., Gendreau K., Gandhi P., Vincentelli F., 2020b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13536....1B 13536, 1

  10. [19]

    Buisson D. J. K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5600B 503, 5600

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1127C 710, 1127

    Cantrell A. G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1127C 710, 1127

    2010 doi

  12. [21]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  13. [22]

    Carotenuto F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504..444C 504, 444

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    Casella P., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00826.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404L..21C 404, L21

    2010

  15. [24]

    Castro Segura N., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-021-04324-2 , 603, 52

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Castro Segura N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2508C 527, 2508

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341870 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573L..35C 573, L35

    Corbel S., Fender R. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341870 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573L..35C 573, L35

    2002 doi

  18. [29]

    u ver T., \

    Foight D. R., G \"u ver T., \"O zel F., Slane P. O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/66 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826...66F 826, 66

    2016 doi

  19. [30]

    S., Stinebring D

    Fruchter A. S., Stinebring D. R., Taylor J. H., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333237a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..237F 333, 237

    1988 doi

  20. [31]

    Gandhi P., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0273-3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1..859G 1, 859

    2017 doi

  21. [32]

    Ginzburg S., Quataert E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.3656G 495, 3656

    2020 doi

  22. [33]

    J., et al., 2020a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200602872G p

    Goodwin A. J., et al., 2020a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200602872G p. arXiv:2006.02872

    2006 arXiv

  23. [34]

    J., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3429G 498, 3429

    Goodwin A. J., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3429G 498, 3429

    doi

  24. [35]

    D., Orosz J

    Greene J., Bailyn C. D., Orosz J. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554.1290G 554, 1290

    2001 doi

  25. [36]

    G., Giles A

    Greenhill J. G., Giles A. B., Coutures C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10544.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370.1303G 370, 1303

    2006

  26. [37]

    V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1871G 470, 1871

    Gusinskaia N. V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1871G 470, 1871

    2017 doi

  27. [38]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.116H 594, A116

    2016 doi

  28. [39]

    Hare J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...57H 890, 57

    2020 doi

  29. [40]

    I., 2005, , 623, 1026

    Hynes R. I., 2005, , 623, 1026

    2005

  30. [41]

    R., Motta S

    Ingram A. R., Motta S. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NewAR..8501524I 85, 101524

    2019

  31. [42]

    Israel R., 2016, personal communication

    2016

  32. [43]

    A., Krimm H

    Kennea J. A., Krimm H. A., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12160....1K 12160

    2018

  33. [44]

    H., Ingram A., Middleton M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1908K 514, 1908

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., Middleton M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1908K 514, 1908

    2022 doi

  34. [45]

    H., Ingram A., van den Eijnden J., Buisson D

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., van den Eijnden J., Buisson D. J. K., Rhodes L., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.3416K 520, 3416

    2023 doi

  35. [46]

    A., et al., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12151....1K 12151

    Krimm H. A., et al., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12151....1K 12151

    2018

  36. [47]

    Lasota J.-P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00112-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001NewAR..45..449L 45, 449

    2001 doi

  37. [48]

    Lewis F., 2018, Robotic Telescope, Student Research and Education Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RTSRE...1..237L 1, 237

    2018

  38. [49]

    M., Fender R

    Lewis F., Russell D. M., Fender R. P., Roche P., Clark J. S., 2008, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0811.2336L p. arXiv:0811.2336

    2008 arXiv

  39. [50]

    D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..537M 688, 537

    Maitra D., Bailyn C. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688..537M 688, 537

    2008 doi

  40. [51]

    Malzac J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2054M 480, 2054

    2018 doi

  41. [52]

    P., Rupen M., Wachter S., Jonker P

    Migliari S., Fender R. P., Rupen M., Wachter S., Jonker P. G., Homan J., van der Klis M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07768.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..186M 351, 186

    2004

  42. [53]

    Mu \ n oz-Darias T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1133M 432, 1133

    2013 doi

  43. [54]

    Mu \ n oz-Darias T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..19M 893, L19

    2020 doi

  44. [55]

    R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4843O 488, 4843

    Oates S. R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4843O 488, 4843

    2019 doi

  45. [56]

    A., Gandhi P., Dhillon V

    Paice J. A., Gandhi P., Dhillon V. S., Marsh T. R., Green M., Breedt E., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12197....1P 12197, 1

    2018

  46. [57]

    Papitto A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.501..517P 501, 517

    2013 doi

  47. [58]

    S., Wijnands R., Altamirano D., 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13725....1P 13725, 1

    Parikh A. S., Wijnands R., Altamirano D., 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13725....1P 13725, 1

    2020

  48. [59]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2861 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2707P 456, 2707

    Plotkin R. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2861 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2707P 456, 2707

    2016 doi

  49. [60]

    J., Breton R

    Polzin E. J., Breton R. P., Stappers B. W., Bhattacharyya B., Janssen G. H., Os owski S., Roberts M. S. E., Sobey C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..889P 490, 889

    2019 doi

  50. [61]

    J., Breton R

    Polzin E. J., Breton R. P., Bhattacharyya B., Scholte D., Sobey C., Stappers B. W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2948P 494, 2948

    2020 doi

  51. [62]

    Rahoui F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20763.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.2202R 422, 2202

    2012

  52. [63]

    Rajwade K., Kennedy M., Breton R., Stappers B., Sanpa-arsa S., Irawati P., Dhillon V., Marsh T., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12186....1R 12186, 1

    2018

  53. [64]

    P., Motta S., van den Eijnden J., Williams D

    Rhodes L., Fender R. P., Motta S., van den Eijnden J., Williams D. R. A., Bright J., Sivakoff G. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2708R 513, 2708

    2022 doi

  54. [65]

    Roberts M. S. E., 2012, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S174392131202337X , 8, 127–132

    2012 doi

  55. [66]

    M., Fender R

    Russell D. M., Fender R. P., Jonker P. G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12008.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379.1108R 379, 1108

    2007

  56. [67]

    M., Casella P., Fender R., Soleri P., Pretorius M

    Russell D. M., Casella P., Fender R., Soleri P., Pretorius M. L., Lewis F., van der Klis M., 2011, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1104.0837R ( @eprint arXiv 1104.0837 )

    2011 arXiv

  57. [68]

    M., Qasim A

    Russell D. M., Qasim A. A., Bernardini F., Plotkin R. M., Lewis F., Koljonen K. I. I., Yang Y.-J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d8c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852...90R 852, 90

    2018 doi

  58. [69]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..278R 340, 278

    Russell D. M., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..278R 340, 278

    2019 doi

  59. [70]

    M., Baglio M

    Saikia P., Russell D. M., Baglio M. C., Bramich D. M., Lewis F., 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13719....1S 13719, 1

    2020

  60. [71]

    Saikia P., et al., 2022, ApJ, 932, 38

    2022

  61. [72]

    M., Pirbhoy S

    Saikia P., Russell D. M., Pirbhoy S. F., Baglio M. C., Bramich D. M., Alabarta K., Lewis F., Charles P., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4543S 524, 4543

    doi

  62. [73]

    M., Pirbhoy S

    Saikia P., Russell D. M., Pirbhoy S. F., Baglio M. C., Bramich D. M., Alabarta K., Lewis F., Charles P., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949..104S 949, 104

    doi

  63. [74]

    Shahbaz T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520..542S 520, 542

    2023 doi

  64. [75]

    W., Bailes M., Lyne A

    Stappers B. W., Bailes M., Lyne A. G., Camilo F., Manchester R. N., Sandhu J. S., Toscano M., Bell J. F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04074.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..576S 321, 576

    2001

  65. [76]

    G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2174S 507, 2174

    Stringer J. G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2174S 507, 2174

    2021 doi

  66. [77]

    J., Casella P., Miller-Jones J

    Tetarenko A. J., Casella P., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Sivakoff G. R., Tetarenko B. E., Maccarone T. J., Gandhi P., Eikenberry S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.2987T 484, 2987

    2019 doi

  67. [78]

    K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513L..35T 513, L35

    Thomas J. K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513L..35T 513, L35

    2022 doi

  68. [79]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..105T 867, 105

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..105T 867, 105

    2018 doi

  69. [80]

    T., Ivezi \'c Z ., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...18V 812, 18

    VanderPlas J. T., Ivezi \'c Z ., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...18V 812, 18

    2015 doi

  70. [81]

    Vanderplas J., 2015, gatspy: General tools for Astronomical Time Series in Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.14833 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14833

    2015 doi

  71. [82]

    Vasilopoulos G., Bailyn C., Milburn J., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel12164....1V 12164, 1

    2018

  72. [83]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    Vaughan S., Edelson R., Warwick R. S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    2003

  73. [84]

    Veledina A., Poutanen J., Vurm I., 2011, , 737, L17

    2011

  74. [85]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.615...45V 615, 45

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.615...45V 615, 45

    2023 doi

  75. [86]

    Whitehurst R., King A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/249.1.25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.249...25W 249, 25

    1991 doi

  76. [87]

    Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..344W 394, 344

    1998 doi

  77. [88]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....5Z 876, 5

    Zhang G. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....5Z 876, 5

    2019 doi

  78. [89]

    Zurita C., Casares J., Shahbaz T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344534 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..369Z 582, 369

    2003 doi

  79. [90]

    de Martino D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A..36D 691, A36

    2024 doi

  80. [91]

    van den Eijnden J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4127V 496, 4127

    2020 doi

  81. [92]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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