Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Modelling polarized X-ray pulses from accreting millisecond pulsars with X-PSI, using different hot spot locations and shapes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper uses simulated X-ray polarization observations to show that the geometry of accreting millisecond pulsars can be tightly constrained only when the emitting hot spot is small and favorably located, and that spot shape cannot be…

desk verdict Solid reproducible simulation study extending X-PSI to polarization, but the abstract's 'within a few degrees' claim does not match the paper's own ~17-18 degree colatitude posteriors. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12190 v2 pith:Y7IIFCNM submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.HE

Tuomo Salmi , Bas Dorsman , Anna L. Watts , Anna Bobrikova , Alessandro Di Marco , Vladislav Loktev , Alessandro Papitto , Maura Pilia
show 2 more authors
Juri Poutanen John Rankin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretingmillisecondpulsarsX-raypolarimetrypulseprofilemodelingneutronstarequationofstatehotspotgeometryStokesparametersComptonscatteringsimulatedobservations
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 asks whether X-ray polarization measurements—currently possible for accreting millisecond pulsars—can actually determine the geometry of the neutron star's hot emitting regions. Using simulated observations designed to match the sensitivity of a current X-ray polarimetry mission, it finds that the answer depends strongly on the spot. When the emitting region is large and the polarization degree low, the data barely move the posterior away from the priors. When the spot is small and located so that the emission is viewed at high angles, the polarization degree is higher, and the observer inclination and spot colatitude can be constrained to within a few degrees. The paper also shows that the exact shape of the hot region—a filled circle versus a ring—is not distinguishable even in the most favorable scenario, and that polarization alone does not constrain mass or radius.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the upgraded pulse profile simulation code that computes phase-resolved Stokes I, Q, and U fluxes from a rotating, oblate neutron star with one or more emission regions. The emission is described by pre-computed tables of intensity and linear polarization from Compton scattering in a plane-parallel isothermal electron slab, with Stokes U set to zero by azimuthal symmetry at the surface. The polarization angle is transported through the curved spacetime to a distant observer, including the oblateness of the star, and the final Stokes q and u are compared to synthetic measurements via a Gaussian likelihood. This machinery allows the full parameter set—including mass, radius, inclination, spot colatitude and size, phase zero, and spin axis position angle—to be sampled jointly, which is what makes the geometry constraints (or lack thereof) meaningful.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to apply the same analysis pipeline to real IXPE polarization data from a bright accreting millisecond pulsar with an independently known geometry—for instance, a source whose inclination and spot colatitude are already constrained by radio timing or phase-resolved spectroscopy. If the posteriors from the polarization-only fit exclude the independently measured values by more than the quoted credible intervals, the slab emission model or the polarization transport assumptions would be falsified. Alternatively, a future mission with higher polarization sensitivity could detect a clear difference between the phase-resolved q and u curves of a circular versus ring-like spot, contradicting the paper's conclusion that shape is unconstrained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that phase-resolved X-ray polarization from accreting millisecond pulsars carries substantial geometric information, but only under favorable conditions. In the four simulated scenarios, the data quality varies from practically zero polarization degree (a large spot with cancellation across its surface) to over 5 per cent polarization at all phases (a small spot viewed at high emission angles). For the favorable small-spot configurations, the 68 per cent credible intervals on the observer inclination shrink to about three degrees, and the hot spot colatitude is constrained to about nine degrees; in the large-spot case the posteriors are indistinguishable from the priors. A key negative result is that a circular spot and a ring-like spot of similar angular size produce nearly identical phase-resolved polarization curves—the Bayesian evidence differs by only 0.04 in log units—so shape is effectively unconstrained. The paper concludes that polarization data alone cannot determine neutron star mass or radius, but that they can break the geometry degeneracy that limits pulse profile modeling, thereby enabling joint analyses that do constrain mass and radius.

Load-bearing premise

The entire simulation assumes that the X-ray polarization from the accretion-heated spot is correctly described by Compton scattering in a plane-parallel isothermal electron slab, with no magnetic-field-induced polarization and no scattering in the accretion column; if that surface emission model is wrong for real pulsars, the predicted polarization curves—and the resulting constraints—would not transfer to actual IXPE data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Geometry constraints from IXPE polarization will be achievable only for sources with small, favorably oriented hot spots and high flux; large-spot sources will contribute little on their own.
  • Polarization measurements can be combined with non-polarized pulse profile data (from high-throughput timing missions) to break the inclination–spot degeneracy and thereby tighten mass–radius inference for neutron stars.
  • The ring-versus-circle distinction is not testable with current IXPE-like data; modeling pipelines may treat the spot shape as a nuisance parameter rather than a target.
  • Even in the most optimistic scenario, mass and radius remain unconstrained by polarization alone; the benefit is purely geometric.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: The pipeline described here is a natural fit for analyzing the first IXPE detection of polarized X-rays from an accreting millisecond pulsar (the source SRGA J144459.2−604207), whose observed constraints resemble the paper's Scenario B; the paper notes such an analysis is in progress, but the implication is that refined geometry priors for that source are within reach.
  • Beyond the paper: The inability to distinguish ring from circle suggests that phase-resolved polarization curves are dominated by the overall spot location and size rather than its fine structure; this could be tested by generating synthetic data for crescent-like or banded spots, which magnetohydrodynamic simulations suggest are more realistic than circles or rings.
  • Beyond the paper: If future missions increase sensitivity, energy-resolved Stokes parameters (rather than a single 2–8 keV bin) could be modeled with a forward-folding approach, which the paper says is possible but not yet applied; this would likely recover some of the lost shape information.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the open-source X-PSI code to model polarized X-ray pulses, generating synthetic IXPE data for four accreting-millisecond-pulsar scenarios: a large low-polarization spot (Scenario A), a smaller hotter spot (Scenario B), and two bright (100 mCrab) cases with a small circular spot (Scenario C) or a thin ring (Scenario D). The authors fit the simulated Stokes q and u data with Bayesian inference and report geometry posteriors. The central results are that a large spot yields almost no geometry information, that the optimistic small-spot cases constrain inclination to about +/-3 degrees, that the colatitude is constrained only to about +/-9-10 degrees at 68% credibility, that mass and radius remain essentially unconstrained by polarization alone, and that a circular and a ring-like spot cannot be distinguished (log-evidence difference 0.04 in favor of the true ring model).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a quantitative, reproducible forecast of IXPE's ability to constrain AMP geometry and a technical route toward joint pulse-profile and polarization analyses. The strengths include the public code extension with polarimetry, the explicit mismatched-model test with Bayesian evidence, and the Zenodo reproduction package. The main caveat is that all forecasts are conditional on the assumed plane-parallel slab emission model with Stokes U=0 in the surface frame; the paper acknowledges this in Section 4. The abstract's claim that hot spot colatitude can be constrained to within a few degrees is not supported by the paper's own posteriors, which is a load-bearing issue for the main message.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.2] The abstract states that in the optimistic cases 'the observer inclination and hot spot colatitude can be constrained to a precision of within a few degrees.' The reported posteriors do not support this for the colatitude. In Scenario C the 68% credible interval is theta_p = (107+9/-8) degrees, i.e. roughly 99-116 degrees (width about 17 degrees), and in Scenario D it is theta_p = (120+10/-8) degrees (width about 18 degrees), with the injected value of 105 degrees outside the 68% interval. Only the inclination, i = 10 +/- 3 degrees, is constrained to within a few degrees. Please revise the abstract and the conclusions to state the actual colatitude precision (roughly +/-9-10 degrees at 68%) and to acknowledge the offset in Scenario D.
  2. [Section 3.2; Section 4] The recovery performance in the optimistic scenarios should be characterized more carefully because it underpins the forecast claim. In Scenario D the injected theta_p lies outside the 68% interval and the posterior median is offset by about 15 degrees, while in Scenario C the true primary spot radius zeta_p = 1 degree is excluded by the posterior (zeta_p = (18+12/-11) degrees). A single simulated realization cannot distinguish a statistical 68%-coverage fluctuation from a systematic bias. Please add either an ensemble of injected-realization checks with coverage fractions, or a discussion of the degeneracies (for example between colatitude, spot size, and phase) that can bias the recovered parameters. Without this, the statement that the input parameters are recovered in the optimistic scenarios is only partially supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4] The likelihood assumes that the normalized Stokes parameters q and u are uncorrelated and normally distributed; since q = Q/I and u = U/I, their errors are in general correlated, so please justify this approximation or test it using the covariance output of ixpeobssim, or state explicitly that the covariance is neglected.
  2. [Section 3.2] The notation i = 10 +/- 3 degrees used for Scenarios C and D should be defined as a 68% credible interval around the median, as is done for Scenario B, to avoid confusion with Gaussian standard deviations.
  3. [Figure 2] The abbreviations 'iqu' and 'qu' used in the Scenario B panel are not defined in the caption; please define them on first use.
  4. [Section 2.1] The statement that the magnetic field does not affect polarization properties in AMPs is central to the Stokes U = 0 assumption; a brief justification or reference beyond the azimuthal-symmetry argument would help.
  5. [Section 2.2] For Scenario D, the ring is described by inner radius 9 degrees and outer radius 10 degrees, which is a very thin annulus; please state this explicitly so that readers do not generalize the 'ring-like' conclusion to broader rings.
  6. [Section 4] The statement that future X-ray polarization missions will improve the constraints is plausible but is not simulated in this paper; please mark it explicitly as an expectation rather than a result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: posterior widths are recovered from synthetic data generated with the same model, and the adopted emission model is an input with stated assumptions, not a derived output.

full rationale

This is a simulation-based forecasting study, not a claim to have derived new physics from external data. The authors generate synthetic IXPE observations from specified input models (Table 1) using their own X-PSI/ixpeobssim pipeline, then fit the same pipeline to those synthetic data to obtain posteriors. The recovered parameter constraints are therefore internal consistency checks of the inference machinery, not predictions of independently generated observables. The emission model from Bobrikova et al. (2023), cited with overlapping authorship, is adopted as a modeling input with explicit physical assumptions (plane-parallel isothermal electron slab, Compton scattering, azimuthal symmetry); it is not fitted to the synthetic data, and the paper's central claims about constraining power do not reduce to that model's outputs. Similarly, scenario choices from Dorsman et al. (2025) and Bobrikova et al. (2023) are inputs, not results. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation; the paper explicitly labels its model choices and caveats (e.g., slab approximation, neglect of accretion-column scattering) in Section 4. The skeptical attack about the abstract's 'within a few degrees' claim is an internal-consistency or reporting issue relative to the reported 17-18° colatitude intervals, not a circularity: the paper's own posteriors contradict an overstatement, but they do not reduce a derived result to an input. Thus no circular step is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the concentric single-temperature ring is a geometric configuration of the emitting region, not a new particle, field, or force. The free parameters are hand-chosen synthetic scenario inputs from Table 1 that set the conditions for the claims. The key axioms are the emission and likelihood models inherited from prior work, all stated in Sections 2.1 and 2.4.

free parameters (7)
  • Scenario C/D brightness scaling = 100 mCrab
    Hand-set to create an optimistic high-signal case; the few-degree constraints are conditional on this brightness.
  • Spot angular radius (scenarios C/D) = 1 deg circle (C), 10 deg ring outer radius (D)
    Small spot chosen to raise polarization degree; larger spots wash out polarization in Scenario A.
  • Ring mask radius (Scenario D) = 9 deg inner radius
    Defines the ring shape; the circle-versus-ring indistinguishability result depends on this geometry.
  • Viewing geometry (scenarios C/D) = i=10 deg, colatitude=105 deg
    Chosen so the spot is viewed at high emission angle, maximizing polarization degree; constraints would change in other geometries.
  • Electron temperature and optical depth = T_e=51.1 keV, tau=2.0
    Tuned to boost polarization degree above IXPE detectability; central to the optimistic forecast.
  • Seed photon temperature = T_seed=1.28 keV (B/C/D), 0.52 keV (A)
    Input to emission tables; changes photon energies and hence detected counts and polarization signal.
  • ISM column density = N_H=1.17e21 cm^-2
    Absorption input affecting low-energy flux; included as a free parameter in fits but not central to polarization geometry constraints.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Plane-parallel isothermal electron slab emission model (Bobrikova et al. 2023)
    Section 2.1; the polarization degree and angle of every simulated photon come from pre-computed tables of this model.
  • domain assumption Azimuthal symmetry of the surface radiation field, so Stokes U=0 in the local frame
    Section 2.1; eliminates one Stokes component and restricts PA to 0 or pi/2; would fail if magnetic fields or non-axisymmetric accretion structure affected polarization.
  • domain assumption Compton scattering produces no circular polarization, so Stokes V=0
    Section 2.1; standard treatment for Comptonized thermal radiation in this context.
  • domain assumption Accretion disc contribution at IXPE energies is negligible (a few per cent at 2 keV)
    Section 2.1; verified with a similar disc model and parameters, but not included in the main simulations and could matter for future instruments.
  • domain assumption A single hot spot is sufficient because the accretion disc can block the secondary spot
    Section 4; two-spot cases were studied in Salmi et al. 2021 and are not treated here.
  • domain assumption Normalized Stokes q and u are uncorrelated and normally distributed about the model values
    Section 2.4; standard approximation for IXPE binned data, stated explicitly by the authors.
  • domain assumption General-relativistic ray tracing and oblate star shape from prior literature are correct
    Section 2.1, following Poutanen 2020 and Loktev et al. 2020; all simulated observables inherit this framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling polarized X-ray pulses from accreting millisecond pulsars with X-PSI, using different hot spot locations and shapes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7IIFCNM

@misc{pith2026250112190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling polarized X-ray pulses from accreting millisecond pulsars with X-PSI, using different hot spot locations and shapes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7IIFCNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12190}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analysis of polarized X-ray pulses based on simulated data for accreting millisecond pulsars (AMPs). We used the open-source X-ray Pulse Simulation and Inference code (previously applied to NICER observations), which we upgraded to allow polarization analysis. We provide estimates of how well neutron star (NS) parameters can be constrained for the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) and find that strong limits on the hot region geometries can be hard to obtain if the emitting hot region is large and the number of polarized photons relatively small. However, if the star is bright enough and the hot regions are small and located so that polarization degree is higher, the observer inclination and hot spot colatitude can be constrained to a precision of within a few degrees. We also found that the shape of the hot region, whether a circle or a ring, cannot be distinguished in our most optimistic scenario. Nevertheless, future X-ray polarization missions are expected to improve the constraints, and already the recent AMP polarization detections by IXPE should help to infer the NS mass and radius when combined with modelling of X-ray pulse data sets that do not contain polarization information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Synthetic PD (𝑃obs) and normalized Stokes 𝑞, 𝑢 data for scenarios A (top left), B (top right), C (bottom left), and D (bottom right). See Section 2.2 for the input model explanation. The blue curves show the model curve using the injected parameters, the purple dots and error bars show the synthesized observed data, and the red bars show the MDP values (see Section 3.1 for a definition) for the corresponding phase p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior distributions of the geometry parameters for scenarios A (top left), B (top right), C (bottom left), and D (bottom right). See Section 2.2 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of the remaining free parameters for Sce￾nario B (in case iqu). See the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probing Neutron Star Interiors and the Properties of Cold Ultra-dense Matter with the SKAO

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO's sensitivity, surveys and sub-arraying will deliver tighter NS mass, MoI, spin, glitch and precession constraints that, with X-ray and GW data, probe cold ultra-dense matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ahlberg V., Poutanen J., Salmi T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..60A 682, A60

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348153 2024

  2. [2]

    Baldini L., et al., 2022, @doi [SoftwareX] 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022SoftX..1901194B 19, 101194

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    D., Song Y., Takatsuka T., 2018, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aaae14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RPPh...81e6902B 81, 056902

    Baym G., Hatsuda T., Kojo T., Powell P. D., Song Y., Takatsuka T., 2018, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aaae14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RPPh...81e6902B 81, 056902

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aaae14 2018

  4. [4]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Astrophysical Journal...887L..23B 887, L23

    Bilous A. V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Astrophysical Journal...887L..23B 887, L23

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 2019

  5. [5]

    Bobrikova A., Loktev V., Salmi T., Poutanen J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..99B 678, A99

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346833 2023

  6. [6]

    Bogdanov S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..26B 887, L26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968 2019

  7. [7]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A\

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  8. [8]

    Choudhury D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L..20C 971, L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2411.16528

    Das P., Salmi T., Davelaar J., Porth O., Watts A., 2024, @doi [ , submitted] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241116528D p. arXiv:2411.16528

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library

    Di Salvo T., Sanna A., 2022, in Bhattacharyya S., Papitto A., Bhattacharya D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library. pp 87--124, @doi 10.1007/978-3-030-85198-9_4

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    arXiv:2409.07908

    Dorsman B., et al., 2025, @doi [ , in press] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240907908D p. arXiv:2409.07908

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..449F 384, 449

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..449F 384, 449

    2008

  5. [14]

    P., Cameron E., Pettitt A

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Cameron E., Pettitt A. N., 2019, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.1306.2144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019OJAp....2E..10F 2, 10

    2019 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Ibragimov A., Poutanen J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15477.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400..492I 400, 492

    2009

  7. [16]

    K., Kazanas D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec010.48550/arXiv.2009.08567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...63K 907, 63

    Kalapotharakos C., Wadiasingh Z., Harding A. K., Kazanas D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec010.48550/arXiv.2009.08567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...63K 907, 63

    2021 doi arXiv

  8. [17]

    Kini Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1507K 535, 1507

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    Kislat F., Clark B., Beilicke M., Krawczynski H., 2015, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015APh....68...45K 68, 45

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    M., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science] 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARNPS..62..485L 62, 485

    Lattimer J. M., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science] 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARNPS..62..485L 62, 485

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    a ttil \

    Loktev V., Salmi T., N \"a ttil \"a J., Poutanen J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200908852L 643, A84

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Loktev V., Veledina A., Poutanen J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A..25L 660, A25

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    C., Lamb F

    Miller M. C., Lamb F. K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311335 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998ApJ...499L..37M&db_key=AST 499, L37

    1998 doi

  14. [23]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.353M 690, A353

    Molkov S. V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.353M 690, A353

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Leahy D

    Morsink S. M., Leahy D. A., Cadeau C., Braga J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518648 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663.1244M 663, 1244

    2007 doi

  16. [25]

    Ng M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4edb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968L...7N 968, L7

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Papitto A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A..37P 694, A37

    2025 doi

  18. [27]

    L., 2021, in Belloni T

    Patruno A., Watts A. L., 2021, in Belloni T. M., M \'e ndez M., Zhang C., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions. pp 143--208 ( @eprint arXiv 1206.2727 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_4

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    R., Ftaclas C., Cohen J

    Pechenick K. R., Ftaclas C., Cohen J. M., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1983ApJ...274..846P&db_key=AST 274, 846

    1983 doi

  20. [29]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 168--175, @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511750809.026

    Poutanen J., 2010, in Bellazzini R., Costa E., Matt G., Tagliaferri G., eds, X-ray Polarimetry: A New Window in Astrophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 168--175, @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511750809.026

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    Poutanen J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.166P 641, A166

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    Poutanen J., Gierli \'n ski M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06773.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003MNRAS.343.1301P&db_key=AST 343, 1301

    2003

  23. [32]

    Poutanen J., Svensson R., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177865 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470..249P 470, 249

    1996 doi

  24. [33]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..21R 887, L21

    Riley T. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..21R 887, L21

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..27R 918, L27

    Riley T. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..27R 918, L27

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ Journal of Open Source Software ] 10.21105/joss.04977 , 8, 4977

    Riley T. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ Journal of Open Source Software ] 10.21105/joss.04977 , 8, 4977

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    M., Ustyugova G

    Romanova M. M., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20055.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421...63R 421, 63

    2012

  28. [37]

    a ttil \

    Salmi T., N \"a ttil \"a J., Poutanen J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833348 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    S., Poutanen J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..23S 646, A23

    Salmi T., Loktev V., Korsman K., Baldini L., Tsygankov S. S., Poutanen J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..23S 646, A23

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Salmi T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf49d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..138S 956, 138

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Salmi T., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..294S 974, 294

    doi

  32. [41]

    Salmi T., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976...58S 976, 58

    doi

  33. [42]

    A., Titarchuk L

    Sunyaev R. A., Titarchuk L. G., 1985, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985A

    1985

  34. [43]

    Viironen K., Poutanen J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004A

    2004 doi

  35. [44]

    Vinciguerra S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83 , 961, 62

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-017-9188-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6229503W 62, 29503

    Watts A. L., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-017-9188-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6229503W 62, 29503

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    C., Elsner R

    Weisskopf M. C., Elsner R. F., O'Dell S. L., 2010, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 77320E ( @eprint arXiv 1006.3711 ), @doi 10.1117/12.857357

    2010 arXiv

  38. [47]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [JATIS] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211201269W 8, 026002

    Weisskopf M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [JATIS] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211201269W 8, 026002

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  40. [49]

    N., et al., 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray

    Zhang S. N., et al., 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99051Q ( @eprint arXiv 1607.08823 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2232034

    2016

  41. [50]

    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 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.