Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Estimating the Black Hole Spin for the X-Ray Binary MAXI J1727-203 Based on Insight-HXMT

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The black hole in MAXI J1727-203 spins at 0.34, not the near-extreme 0.99 claimed from reflection fits.

desk verdict First continuum-fitting spin for MAXI J1727-203, but the quoted error is conditional on an inclination choice the authors never justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15050 v1 pith:TRSMBUN4 submitted 2025-01-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRhep-ph

Haifan Zhu , Wei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph
keywords blackholespinMAXIJ1727-203X-raybinariescontinuum-fittingmethodaccretiondisksInsight-HXMTNICERNuSTAR
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

The paper sets out to measure the spin of the stellar-mass black hole in the X-ray binary MAXI J1727-203 using the continuum-fitting method, applied to Insight-HXMT data from the two observations that fell in the high soft state. It finds a best-fit spin of $a = 0.34$ ($1\sigma$: $+0.15$, $-0.19$), based on adopted parameters of distance $6\,\mathrm{kpc}$, inclination $30^\circ$, and mass $12\,M_\odot$. It also re-fits a NuSTAR spectrum from the low hard state with a simple disk-plus-power-law model and finds no significant iron line, concluding that previous reflection-model fits that reported a near-extreme spin of $0.986$ overestimate the spin. If right, this source is a moderately spinning black hole rather than an extremely fast one, and the tension illustrates how continuum and reflection methods can disagree when the system parameters are not dynamically measured.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the continuum-fitting method, which derives the black hole spin from the thermal disk continuum by assuming the inner disk radius equals the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO); the spin enters through the monotonic mapping between $R_{\mathrm{ISCO}}$ and $a_\star$. In the implementation here, the relativistic disk model kerrbb is fitted to the 1-8 keV LE and 10-30 keV ME Insight-HXMT spectra, with distance, inclination, mass, and hardening factor set or varied, and with NICER light curves used to classify the spectral states. The error budget is carried by Monte Carlo sampling over the unconstrained parameters plus a generalized logistic fit to the resulting spin distribution.

What would settle it

Measure the binary's orbital inclination and black hole mass directly, for example from optical/NIR spectroscopy of the companion during quiescence. If the inclination turns out to be near 60 degrees rather than 30 degrees, the continuum-fitting spin would be close to zero or retrograde, contradicting the paper's a approximately 0.34.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the black hole in MAXI J1727-203 has a moderate spin, $a = 0.34$ ($+0.15/-0.19$ at $1\sigma$), measured by the continuum-fitting method with the kerrbb model on Insight-HXMT spectra from the high soft state. The measurement relies on a Monte Carlo exploration of the poorly known distance, inclination, and mass, sampling over 3000 parameter sets within $D \sim (5.9-7)\,\mathrm{kpc}$, $i \sim (24^\circ-35^\circ)$, and $M \sim (10-14)\,M_\odot$, giving the combined spin distribution. The same paper reports that re-fitting the NuSTAR low-hard-state spectrum with tbabs*(diskbb+powerlaw) leaves no significant iron-line residuals, which it interprets as evidence that the reflection-based spin of $0.986$ and inclination of about $60^\circ$ from earlier work overestimate the true spin.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the source distance, inclination, and black hole mass are close to 6 kpc, 30 degrees, and 12 solar masses; if the inclination is actually near the 60 degrees reported from reflection studies, the measured spin would drop substantially, possibly to zero or retrograde.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's measurement holds, MAXI J1727-203 joins the growing set of black hole binaries with moderate spins from continuum fitting, in contrast to the near-extreme spin claimed from reflection fitting.
  • The claimed absence of a significant iron line in the NuSTAR low-hard-state spectrum implies that the high reflection spin may be an artifact of continuum and parameter choices, not a physical feature of the source.
  • The spin result is contingent on the adopted system parameters, so a dynamical mass and inclination measurement would either confirm or shift the central value.
  • The robustness procedure—using NICER to classify states across the full outburst and HXMT for the continuum fit—shows how partial HXMT coverage can still yield a spin estimate.
  • The reported inverse correlation between hardening factor and spin means that fixing the hardening at 1.7 contributes systematic uncertainty comparable to the statistical one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that if the moderate spin is confirmed, MAXI J1727-203 would strengthen the case that reflection-based spin estimates can be systematically biased high, especially when the continuum is not modeled with the same care.
  • A direct test would be a joint NICER + NuSTAR spectral fit spanning 0.5-30 keV during the hard state; if no broad Fe K-alpha line emerges in a full-band fit, reflection models would need a re-examination of their continuum treatment.
  • We infer that the same strategy of using a state-classification light curve from one satellite and continuum spectra from another could be applied to other transient black holes with sparse HXMT coverage.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper aims to measure the black hole spin of the X-ray binary MAXI J1727-203 using the continuum-fitting method on two high-soft-state Insight-HXMT observations (LE 1-8 keV, ME 10-30 keV). After establishing the source state with NICER light curves and hardness ratios, the authors fit the spectra with tbabs*(kerrbb+powerlaw), fixing the black hole mass, distance, and inclination to (D, i, M) ≈ (6 kpc, 30°, 12 M☉) on the basis of a parameter-space exploration, and obtain per-observation spins of a ≈ 0.37-0.41. They propagate parameter uncertainties via a Monte Carlo procedure sampling D ∈ (5.9, 7) kpc, i ∈ (24°, 35°), M ∈ (10, 14) M☉, leading to a quoted final value a = 0.34+0.15/-0.19 (1σ). They also analyze one NuSTAR low-hard-state observation with a tbabs*(diskbb+powerlaw) model, find no significant iron line in the residuals, and conclude that the much higher spin (a ≈ 0.99) and inclination (≈ 60°) previously reported from reflection fitting (Draghis et al. 2023a) overestimate the true spin.

Significance. If the result were robust, it would add a new continuum-fitting spin measurement for a relatively sparsely studied transient and would highlight a potential tension between continuum-fitting and reflection-fitting methods. The paper makes good use of public Insight-HXMT and NuSTAR data, shows detailed spectral fits, and explicitly demonstrates the sensitivity of the spin to the assumed system parameters. However, the central value and the comparison with reflection results are both strongly dependent on the adopted inclination of 30°, which is inconsistent with the only published reflection-based inclination of 60+10/-7° (Draghis et al. 2023b). Because the quoted 1σ range excludes this independent constraint, and because the MC error analysis is conditional on a parameter range chosen partly from the same data, the measurement as presented is not yet a reliable spin determination. The paper's own Figure 9 shows that at i ≈ 60° the same spectra yield a retrograde spin, which the authors themselves regard as requiring caution. The NuSTAR re-fit is also not a disproof of reflection-feature detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.3 and Fig. 9] The Monte Carlo error analysis samples only inclinations in the range 24°–35°, yet the only published inclination estimate for this source is 60+10/-7° from the relativistic reflection method (Draghis et al. 2023b, cited in §3.2.2). The paper's own Figure 9 shows that the fitted spin drops sharply with inclination and becomes negative for inclinations above roughly 45°–60°. Therefore the quoted 1σ result a = 0.34+0.15/-0.19 is a conditional error around the authors' adopted i = 30° assumption; it does not cover the currently best external constraint on the inclination. The authors must either justify i = 30° with an independent measurement or extend the error analysis over the full plausible inclination range (including ~60°) and recompute the spin distribution accordingly.
  2. [§4.2] The NuSTAR re-fit with tbabs*(diskbb+powerlaw) and the statement that no significant iron line features are present in the residuals are insufficient to support the conclusion that the reflection-model spin of Draghis et al. (2023a) overestimates the black hole spin. A featureless power-law continuum can hide weak reflection features, and the NuSTAR band starts at 3 keV, while the disk component is significant below 3 keV as the authors themselves note. Moreover, the authors state that detailed fitting parameters from Draghis et al. (2023a) were not presented, so they are 'unable to make a direct comparison.' In this situation, the strongest justified statement is that a simple two-component model leaves no visible residuals in this particular NuSTAR observation; the claim that the earlier reflection result is an overestimate is not established.
  3. [§3.2.3, Figs. 7-8] The MC procedure appears to combine spin values from all sampled parameter sets regardless of the quality of the individual spectral fits. The text reports that 'many parameters did not yield satisfactory results' and that several parameter spaces give retrograde spins, yet the histograms in Figures 7 and 8 include those values. If poorly fitting parameter sets are included, the resulting distribution is not a likelihood-weighted posterior and cannot be interpreted as a confidence interval; if they are excluded, the selection criterion is not stated and the quoted range does not represent the full MC spread. The authors should clarify the acceptance criterion and either present chi-squared-weighted distributions or treat the MC output explicitly as a sensitivity range rather than a statistical error.
  4. [§3.2.2 and §3.2.3] The adopted ranges for D and M, namely 5.9–7 kpc and 10–14 M☉, are far narrower than the previously published constraints (Wang et al. 2022: D ≥ 5.9 kpc, M ≥ 11.5 M☉, with much larger upper limits). The choice of these ranges appears to be motivated by obtaining the best continuum fit at (D, i, M) ≈ (6 kpc, 30°, 12 M☉) on the same data that are then used to measure the spin. This creates a circularity: the same dataset is used both to select the central parameter values and to define the parameter ranges over which the spin uncertainty is estimated. The resulting error bar therefore under-represents the systematic uncertainty in D, i, and M. The authors should either derive these ranges from independent constraints or expand the ranges to cover the published allowed region and show how the spin distribution changes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5] There are several typographical errors: the author name 'Wei W ang' in the header, 'MAXI J727-203' in the Conclusions, and 'anti-corelation' instead of 'anti-correlation'. These should be corrected.
  2. [§3.2.3] The text says the Monte Carlo parameters are 'evenly distributed' and also that they 'follow a uniform distribution'; please clarify whether the 3000 sets are drawn randomly from a uniform distribution or placed on a regular grid, and whether the three exposures are treated with the same parameter sets.
  3. [§3.2.2] The statement that freeing the hydrogen column density has a 'negligible effect' on the final spin is not shown quantitatively; consider reporting the resulting spin values or the change in chi-squared.
  4. [§4.1 and Fig. 10] The test with the hardening factor varying between 1.5 and 1.8 shows a large spin change (from about 0.65 to 0.2), but the 100-value scan is restricted to 1.65–1.75; the broader effect should be reflected in the quoted systematic error if the hardening factor is not independently fixed.
  5. [Fig. 7 and Fig. 8] The generalized logistic distribution is used to fit the MC histograms, but no goodness-of-fit measure is given for these fits, and the physical motivation for this functional form is unclear. Reporting the sample median (or the mean and standard deviation) would be more standard for an error estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: spin is a fitted parameter; system-parameter dependence is acknowledged and propagated via Monte Carlo, though the quoted uncertainty is conditional on the adopted prior.

full rationale

The paper does not present a first-principles derivation of the spin; it fits the kerrbb continuum model to Insight-HXMT spectra, so the spin value is a measured/fitted parameter, not a prediction that could reduce to its inputs by construction. The system parameters (D, i, M) are uncertain, and the paper is transparent about this: it explores the parameter space, fixes the best-fitting values, and then uses Monte Carlo sampling over stated ranges to propagate the uncertainty. The MC ranges are centered on the authors' best fit and exclude the independent reflection-based inclination of ~60 deg, which makes the quoted 1-sigma error conditional on the adopted prior rather than a fully systematic error; however, this is an assumption/robustness issue, not a circularity, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the lack of dynamical measurements. The NuSTAR re-analysis in Section 4.2 is an independent model comparison and, whatever its merits, does not rely on the spin result by construction. Self-citations (Wu et al. 2023; Chen & Wang 2024; Sai et al. 2024) appear only as supporting references for standard methods or comparison values and are not load-bearing. No step in the claimed derivation is equivalent, by the paper's own equations, to its inputs.

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

The central spin measurement rests on four adopted values (M, D, i, f_col) that are not independently measured for this source, plus the standard ISCO assumption of the continuum-fitting method. The most fragile is the inclination, which is inconsistent with a published reflection-based estimate and drives the spin value.

free parameters (5)
  • Black hole mass M = 12 M_sun
    Adopted after exploring the parameter space to achieve a good spectral fit; previous constraints allow a much wider range (11.5 to 350 M_sun per Wang et al. 2022), so this is a hand-chosen value that directly scales the spin result.
  • Distance D = 6 kpc
    Adopted as best fit; previous lower limit is 5.9 kpc with an upper bound of 57.3 kpc, so this is a choice near the lower limit that affects the disk luminosity and spin.
  • Inclination i = 30 degrees
    Adopted as best fit; inconsistent with the reflection-based measurement of 60+10/-7 degrees by Draghis et al. (2023b). The spin decreases sharply with inclination, so this choice strongly affects the result.
  • Hardening factor f_col = 1.7
    Fixed at the standard value from Shimura & Takahara (1995); the authors show that varying it between 1.65 and 1.75 changes the spin in the range ~0.2-0.65, so the fixed value is influential.
  • MC parameter ranges = D 5.9-7 kpc, i 24-35 deg, M 10-14 M_sun
    These ranges are chosen around the best-fit values and do not reflect the full uncertainty in the parameters, notably excluding the published inclination of ~60 degrees.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The inner edge of the accretion disk is at the ISCO radius
    Assumed by the continuum-fitting method; stated in Section 1 as the fundamental assumption for measuring spin.
  • domain assumption The disk emission is described by the Novikov-Thorne thin disk model with a color correction factor (hardening) of 1.7
    The kerrbb model (Li et al. 2005) is used with f_col=1.7; the validity of this approximation for the observed state is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk inclination equals the adopted 30 degrees and is the same as the binary inclination
    No dynamical measurement supports this; it is inconsistent with the reflection-derived inclination of 60+10/-7 degrees from Draghis et al. (2023b). This is a load-bearing assumption for the spin value.
  • domain assumption The two HXMT observations used for spin fitting are in the high soft state with a clean thermal continuum
    State classification is based on NICER hardness ratios; the first HXMT observation is excluded because it is in the intermediate state.
  • domain assumption The re-fitted NuSTAR spectrum in the hard state is adequately described by tbabs*(diskbb+powerlaw), so the absence of an iron line in residuals rules out strong reflection
    The authors conclude that previous reflection fits overestimate spin based on this simple model, without fitting a reflection model to the same data or quantifying an upper limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating the Black Hole Spin for the X-Ray Binary MAXI J1727-203 Based on Insight-HXMT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRSMBUN4

@misc{pith2026250115050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating the Black Hole Spin for the X-Ray Binary MAXI J1727-203 Based on Insight-HXMT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRSMBUN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15050}
}
abstract

We constrain the spin of the black hole (BH) candidate MAXI J1727-203 using Insight-HXMT data. Due to limited HXMT observations covering only part of the outburst, NICER data were used to analyze the full outburst's state transitions, we identified two of three HXMT observations in the high soft state and applied the continuum-fitting method to measure the spin. Based on previous estimates and continuum spectral fittings, we explored the parameter space and found that the best-fitting values were $(D, i, M) \approx (6\ \text{kpc}, 30^\circ, 12 M_{\odot})$. We also tested the variation of these parameters using Monte Carlo simulations, sampling over 3000 sets within the parameter ranges: $5.9 \text{kpc}< D<7 \text{kpc}$, $24^\circ<i< 35^\circ$, and $10 M_{\odot}<M<14 M_{\odot}$, yielding a spin measurement of $a=0.34_{-0.19}^{+0.15}$ (1$\sigma$). In addition, we analyzed NuSTAR data in low hard state and found a good fit with the {\tt tbabs*(diskbb+powerlaw)} model, with no significant iron line features observed in the residuals, then the previous reflection model results suggesting an extremely high spin would over-estimate the BH spin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: NICER 1-10 keV light curve. All data points have been rebinned to one-day intervals, with IMS, HSS, and LHS represented in red, blue, and yellow, respec￾tively. The three arrows indicate the times corresponding to the observations by Insight-HXMT. Bottom panel: Hardness ratios derived from NICER data using (4-10 keV)/(1-4 keV). The arrows and colors have the same meanings as in the top panel. The errors f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spectrum and residuals for non-relativistic model are shown as an example. The green and blue data points correspond to LE and ME, respectively. The observa￾tion time and expoID are labeled on the plot. nH = 0.33 +0.01 0.01 0.4625 0.4650 0.4675 0.4700 Tin Tin = 0.47 +0.00 0.00 17600 18400 19200 20000 N dis k Ndisk = 18808.25 +428.72 411.40 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 = 2.37 +0.05 0.05 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 nH 0.25 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The fitted disk temperature in the first two ob￾servations is approximately 0.46 keV, while in the third observation, it decreased to 0.44 keV. Concurrently, the spectral index remained around 2.3 during the first two 10−2 10−1 100 101 keV(Photons cm −2s−1keV −1) MJD: 58279.68 expoID: P011475800201 100 101 Energy (keV) −5 0 (data − model) /error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectrum and residuals for the relativistic model are shown as an example. The green and blue data points correspond to LE and ME, respectively. The observa￾tion time and expoID are labeled on the plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The corner plot of the posterior probability distri￾butions derived from the MCMC analysis for the parameters in the relativistic model. When fitting the spin using the continuum-fitting method, parameters such as distance, inclination, and mass have a significant impa…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of a⋆ from the Monte Carlo method for the fitting results of the three exposures. The red dash lines represent the 1σ error, the black dashed lines indicate the best-fitting value, and the red line shows the generalized logistic distribution fitting. T…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The summed distribution of a⋆ from the Monte Carlo method for the fitting results of the three exposures, with a total of 9000 data points. The red dash lines represent the 1σ error, the black dashed lines indicate the best-fitting value, and the red line shows the gen…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation plots illustrating the impact of varying M, i, and D on measuring the spin. 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.74 hardening factor 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 Spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation plots illustrating the impact of vary￾ing hardening factor on measuring the spin. spin parameter and the hardening factor which is pre￾sented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The top panel shows the spectrum of MAXI J1727-203, with the NuSTAR FPMA spectrum in green and the FPMB spectrum in blue. The reported best-fit model tbabs*(diskbb +powerlaw ) is represented by the blue solid lines, while the contribution of the diskbb component is sh…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3896

    Alabarta, K., Altamirano, D., M´ endez, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3896

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 178, pp. 347-370 (1972), 178, 347

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    Belloni, T. M. 2010, in The Jet Paradigm: From Microquasars to Quasars (Springer), 53–84

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    2020, Science China

    Cao, X., Jiang, W., Meng, B., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  5. [5]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 238

    Chen, J., & Wang, W. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 238

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2020, Science China

    Chen, Y., Cui, W., Li, W., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  7. [7]

    E., et al

    Chen, Z., Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 45

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    W., Done, C., & Blaes, O

    Davis, S. W., Done, C., & Blaes, O. M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 647, 525

    work page 2006

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    A., Miller, J

    Draghis, P. A., Miller, J. M., Costantini, E., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 40

    2024

  2. [10]

    Fabian, A., Rees, M., Stella, L., & White, N. E. 1989, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 238, 729

    1989

  3. [11]

    2004, Annu

    Fender, R., & Belloni, T. 2004, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 317

    2004

  4. [12]

    F., Ramirez, S

    Feng, Y., Steiner, J. F., Ramirez, S. U., & Gou, L. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5803

    2023

  5. [13]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2074

    Feng, Y., Zhao, X., Li, Y., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2074

    2022

  6. [14]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to gamma ray, Vol. 9905, SPIE, 420–435

    2016

  7. [15]

    E., Steiner, J

    Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 718, L122

    2010

  8. [16]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 61

    Guan, J., Ma, R., Tao, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 61

    2024

  9. [17]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3125

    Jia, N., Zhao, X., Gou, L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3125

    2022

  10. [18]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11697, 1

    Kennea, J., Bahramian, A., & Beardmore, A. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11697, 1

    2018

  11. [19]

    Kerr, R. P. 1963, Physical review letters, 11, 237

    1963

  12. [20]

    K., Penna, R

    Kulkarni, A. K., Penna, R. F., Shcherbakov, R. V., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 1183

    2011

  13. [21]

    R., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J

    Li, L.-X., Zimmerman, E. R., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 157, 335

    2005

  14. [22]

    2020, Science China

    Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, X., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  15. [23]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11689, 1

    Ludlam, R., Bult, P., Gendreau, K., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11689, 1

    2018

  16. [24]

    E., Narayan, R., & Steiner, J

    McClintock, J. E., Narayan, R., & Steiner, J. F. 2015, The Physics of Accretion onto Black Holes, 295

    2015

  17. [25]

    R., Miller, J

    Morningstar, W. R., Miller, J. M., Reis, R. C., & Ebisawa, K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 784, L18

    2014

  18. [26]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11696, 1

    Negoro, H., Shidatsu, M., Mihara, T., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11696, 1

    2018

  19. [27]

    C., Krolik, J

    Noble, S. C., Krolik, J. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 411

    2009

  20. [28]

    Novikov, I., Thorne, K., Dewitt, C., & Dewitt, B. 1973

    1973

  21. [29]

    F., McKinney, J

    Penna, R. F., McKinney, J. C., Narayan, R., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 752 Spin of MAXI J1727-203 11

    2010

  22. [30]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 44, 49

    2006

  23. [31]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 117

    2021

  24. [32]

    S., & Fabian, A

    Reynolds, C. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, 1048

    2008

  25. [33]

    S., & Nowak, M

    Reynolds, C. S., & Nowak, M. A. 2003, Physics Reports, 377, 389

    2003

  26. [34]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 43, 44

    Sai, N., Wang, W., & Wu, H. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 43, 44

    2024

  27. [35]

    Salvesen, G., & Miller, J. M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3640

    2021

  28. [36]

    1995, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Shimura, T., & Takahara, F. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 445, no. 2, p. 780-788, 445, 780

    1995

  29. [37]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 6041

    Song, Y., Jia, N., Yang, J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 6041

    2023

  30. [38]

    F., Narayan, R., McClintock, J

    Steiner, J. F., Narayan, R., McClintock, J. E., & Ebisawa, K. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121, 1279

    2009

  31. [39]

    F., Walton, D

    Steiner, J. F., Walton, D. J., Garc ´ ıa, J. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 154

    2016

  32. [40]

    F., Reis, R

    Steiner, J. F., Reis, R. C., McClintock, J. E., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 941

    2011

  33. [41]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11881, 1

    Tomsick, J., Shaw, A., Garcia, J., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11881, 1

    2018

  34. [42]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2174

    Steeghs, D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2174

    2021

  35. [43]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 5320

    Wang, S., Kawai, N., Shidatsu, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 5320

    2022

  36. [44]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914

    2000

  37. [45]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4323

    Wu, H., Wang, W., Sai, N., Zhu, H., & Chen, J. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4323

    2023

  38. [46]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1410

    Yang, J., Jia, N., Qiao, E., Song, Y., & Gou, L. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1410

    2024

  39. [47]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11683, 1

    Yoneyama, T., Negoro, H., Nakajima, M., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11683, 1

    2018

  40. [48]

    N., Cui, W., & Chen, W

    Zhang, S. N., Cui, W., & Chen, W. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 482, L155

    1997

  41. [49]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 108

    Zhao, X., Gou, L., Dong, Y., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 108

    2021

  42. [50]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 53 12 APPENDIX A

    Zhao, X.-S., Dong, Y.-T., Gou, L.-J., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 53 12 APPENDIX A. NUSTAR OBSER V ATION MAXI J1727-203 was observed by NuSTAR on July 26, 2018 (ObsID: 90401329002). In accordance with standard procedures 3, we processed the NuSTAR dat...

    2020

Pith tools

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