Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

First spectro-polarimetric study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 9+1

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GX 9+1 shows a significant 3.3-sigma polarization signal in the 2-3 keV band, which the authors attribute to a Comptonized blackbody component, making it the first atoll source with low-energy polarization in the soft state.

desk verdict First IXPE study of GX 9+1 with a 2-3 keV polarization hint that loses significance under a trials correction and a component attribution the fit doesn't actually support. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02078 v2 pith:C3U4344A submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.HE

V. P. Shyam Prakash , Vivek K. Agrawal , A. M. Vinodkumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarizationneutronstarlow-massbinaryatollsourceGX9+1ComptonizedblackbodyaccretiongeometryIXPEsoftstate
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 reports the first spectro-polarimetric study of the neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary GX 9+1, an atoll source observed in its soft state. It claims that the source shows no significant polarization across the full 2-8 keV band, but a 3.3-sigma detection appears in the 2-3 keV band with a polarization degree of 3.3±0.8% and an angle of 11±7°. If correct, this makes GX 9+1 the first atoll source with a low-energy polarized signal in the soft state, and it points to the Comptonized blackbody emission from the neutron-star boundary region as the polarizing component. The interest is that X-ray polarization is one of the few observables sensitive to the geometry of the boundary layer and corona, which spectral fitting alone cannot constrain; a low-energy polarized signal in a low-inclination atoll source would require an asymmetric shell-like geometry. The result also conflicts with the trend seen in earlier IXPE atoll-source observations, where polarization is low and typically increases with energy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the PCUBE algorithm, which extracts model-independent Stokes I, Q, and U parameters from IXPE data to measure polarization degree and angle in four energy bands (2-3, 2-4, 4-8, and 2-8 keV). This is combined with a joint XSPEC spectral fit of simultaneous NICER and IXPE spectra using the model tbabs*(compbb+nthcomp), where compbb represents Comptonized blackbody emission from the neutron-star surface and nthcomp represents thermal Comptonization of disc seed photons. The paper also uses published slab-versus-shell corona polarization simulations and sandwich-corona calculations to interpret which geometry, at the source's estimated inclination of about 30 degrees, can produce high polarization at low energies and a null detection at high energies.

What would settle it

Recompute the 2-3 keV significance with a trials correction for the four energy bands in Table 3 and for time-segment splits; if the corrected significance drops below about 2 sigma, the detection claim collapses. A longer IXPE observation that fails to reproduce a 2-3 keV polarization degree near 3 percent at an angle near 11 degrees would also rule out the proposed geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bright atoll source GX 9+1, observed simultaneously with IXPE and NICER while remaining in the soft state, shows a significant polarization signal only in the low-energy part of the IXPE band. The model-independent PCUBE analysis gives a polarization degree of 3.3±0.8% at a polarization angle of 11±7° in the 2-3 keV band at 3.3-sigma confidence, while the 2-8 keV band as a whole yields only a marginal 1.3±0.6% detection below the minimum detectable polarization. The authors attribute this low-energy polarization to the Comptonized blackbody component from the neutron-star surface or transition shell, not to the disc Comptonization component, which they constrain to a polarization degree below 2.9% at 3-sigma. They further argue that the energy dependence, with signal at low energies and no detection at 4-8 keV, favors a transition shell with polar caps removed plus a wedge-shaped corona above the accretion disc.

Load-bearing premise

The detection stands or falls on the assumption that no statistical penalty is needed for searching several energy bands and time segments, and that the spectral decomposition correctly assigns the low-energy flux to the Comptonized blackbody component rather than to the disc component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GX 9+1 becomes the first atoll source with a detected polarization signal at 2-3 keV in the soft state, breaking the pattern of low polarization and rising polarization degree with energy seen in other atoll sources observed by IXPE.
  • The low-energy polarization is attributed to the Comptonized blackbody component, while the disc Comptonization component is constrained to a polarization degree below 2.9% at 3-sigma, placing the polarizing region at the neutron-star boundary rather than in the disc corona.
  • The energy dependence, with a signal at 2-3 keV and no detection at 4-8 keV, favors a transition shell with polar caps removed over a simple full shell or slab corona.
  • A longer IXPE observation could map the energy-dependent polarization behavior and test whether the 2-3 keV signal persists and whether higher-energy bands remain null.
  • The result implies that narrow low-energy bands, not just the full 2-8 keV band, are needed to reveal polarization in atoll sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the detection survives a proper trials correction for the multiple energy bands and time segments searched, the 2-3 keV band becomes a diagnostic window into the boundary or spreading layer in atoll sources, a region that full-band polarization averages could easily wash out.
  • Because earlier IXPE atoll analyses emphasized the full 2-8 keV band, reanalyzing archival IXPE data in narrow low-energy bins might reveal similar low-energy polarization signals in other atoll sources.
  • The proposed shell-with-polar-caps-removed geometry predicts a specific dependence of polarization angle on source inclination and possibly on flux state; future simultaneous timing and polarization observations of GX 9+1 could test that prediction directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first spectro-polarimetric study of the atoll-type neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 9+1, using simultaneous IXPE and NICER observations. The authors find that the source remained in the soft state throughout the observation. Model-independent PCUBE analysis shows no significant polarization in the 2-8 keV band, but reports a 3.3 sigma detection in the 2-3 keV band with PD = 3.3 +/- 0.8% and PA = 11 +/- 7 degrees. A joint NICER and IXPE spectral fit using tbabs*(compbb+nthcomp) describes the 0.6-11 keV spectrum. In a model-dependent polarimetric fit, the authors assign polarization to the Comptonized blackbody component (compbb) with PD = 5 +/- 4% at 90% confidence and place a 3 sigma upper limit of 12.2%, while the nthcomp component is measured at PD = 1.2 +/- 0.9%. On this basis, they propose that the low-energy polarization originates from the Comptonized blackbody emission and discuss coronal geometries, favoring a wedge-shaped corona above the disc and a transition shell with polar caps removed.

Significance. If the 2-3 keV polarization detection were robust, this would be the first detection of low-energy polarized emission in an atoll source in the soft state, and it would provide new constraints on the geometry of the Comptonizing region and the emission from the neutron star surface. The paper uses established IXPE and NICER data reduction pipelines and reports model-independent Stokes measurements, which is a strength. The joint spectral fit with two Comptonization components represents a reasonable description of the data, and the comparison with previous IXPE observations of atoll sources is useful. However, the central statistical claim rests on a multi-band search with no trials correction, and the component-level attribution is not independently supported by the model-dependent fit. These issues currently limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 3] The 2-3 keV detection (PD = 3.3 +/- 0.8%, reported as 3.3 sigma and >99% confidence) is selected from a search over four energy bands (2-3, 2-4, 4-8, 2-8 keV) shown in Table 3, and the text also mentions additional searches splitting the data in time. No trials factor is applied; the quoted MDP99 is a per-bin threshold. For four approximately independent bands, the post-trial significance of the single most favorable bin is about 2.9 sigma (p ~ 0.004), below the conventional 3 sigma threshold. The 2-4 keV bin also exceeds MDP99, but it overlaps the 2-3 keV bin and therefore does not provide an independent confirmation. Since the claimed detection is the paper's central novelty, the authors should either apply a look-elsewhere correction and report the trials-corrected significance, or explicitly present the 2-3 keV signal as an upper limit or marginal evidence rather than a significant detection.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Table 4] The attribution of the 2-3 keV polarization to the Comptonized blackbody component is not supported by the model-dependent fit. Table 4 gives compbb PD = 5 +/- 4% at 90% confidence (3 sigma upper limit 12.2%) and nthcomp PD = 1.2 +/- 0.9% (3 sigma upper limit 2.9%). Both values are consistent with zero polarization, and the difference between the two components is not statistically significant. Furthermore, this decomposition uses the same spectral model that was fitted to the data, so it is not an independent test of the origin of the 2-3 keV signal. The abstract's statement that the polarization is 'attributed to the strong polarization of the Comptonized blackbody component' is therefore too strong given the quoted uncertainties.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 2 caption] The model used for the joint spectral fit is described in the text as tbabs*(compbb + nthcomp), but the caption of Table 2 writes 'tbabs*(compbb*nthcomp)'. If the fitted model is actually the product, this is a qualitatively different physical model; if it is a typographical error, it must be corrected because the spectral interpretation and the component-level polarization analysis depend on the correct additive combination. Please state the exact XSPEC model expression unambiguously.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] The text states that NICER has an effective exposure of 175 s, while Table 1 lists the NICER exposure as '203 630' without a decimal or unit clarification. This inconsistency should be resolved, as the exposure time is a basic data-quality parameter.
  2. [References] Several references appear twice in the reference list with inconsistent formatting (e.g., Ursini et al. 2023 and Fabiani et al. 2024). Please consolidate duplicate entries and standardize the author-year style.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption reads 'Energy independent dependent polarization behavior derived using PCUBE'; this appears to be a typo, likely 'Energy-dependent polarization behavior'.
  4. [Section 1] In the introduction, the phrase 'provide insight in regrading the emission mechanisms' contains a typo; 'regrading' should be 'regarding'.
  5. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'The value of PD (1.3 +/- 0.6) obtained from the analysis is found to be less than MDP99' does not specify the energy band, which should be stated for clarity.
  6. [Table 4] The confidence level is labeled '1.6 sigma (90%)'; the usual one-sided or two-sided conversion near 90% is approximately 1.645 sigma, so the notation '1.6 sigma' is informal and should be made consistent with standard confidence intervals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization measurement is model-independent and the component attribution is an explicitly model-dependent fit, not a constructed prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central polarization measurement is self-contained: Section 3.3 computes PD and PA via the PCUBE algorithm directly from Stokes I, Q, and U, so the reported 2-3 keV excess is not a fitted quantity or a renamed input. The component-level polarization in Table 4 is a model-dependent fit to the same Stokes spectra using the spectral decomposition, and the paper explicitly labels the analysis as model-dependent rather than presenting it as an independent prediction. Citations to prior work by the same authors (e.g., Agrawal & Sreekumar 2003; Agrawal et al. 2022; Chatterjee et al. 2023) are used for spectral-modeling context and atoll-source polarization behavior, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or as the source of the central result. No equation in the paper reduces to a prior output by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The acknowledged limitations—such as the inability to constrain polarization above 4 keV, frozen seed temperatures, and the 90% confidence compbb PD of 5 +/- 4% being consistent with zero—are statistical and model-selection concerns rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The measurement is largely model-independent, but the component attribution rests on a fitted spectral model with several frozen parameters, and the geometry discussion uses a prior inclination estimate.

free parameters (12)
  • tbabs N_H = 1.71 x 10^22 cm^-2 (frozen after fit)
    Interstellar column density, free in the fit then fixed at the best-fit value; used for the spectral model.
  • compbb seed photon temperature kT_bb = 0.79 keV (frozen)
    Could not be constrained; fixed at the best-fit value; affects component normalization and polarization attribution.
  • nthcomp seed photon temperature kT_bb = 0.77 keV (frozen)
    Same as above; fixed at the best-fit value.
  • compbb electron temperature kT_e = 2.4 (+0.4/-0.7) keV
    Free spectral parameter; determines the Comptonized blackbody component.
  • compbb optical depth tau = 10.0 +/- 0.46
    Free spectral parameter; determines the Comptonized blackbody component.
  • compbb normalization = 2.1 (+0.9/-1.6) x 10^3
    Flux normalization of compbb; linked to component polarization attribution.
  • nthcomp photon index Gamma = 1.72 (+0.02/-0.05)
    Free spectral parameter of the disc Comptonization component.
  • nthcomp electron temperature kT_e = 1.81 +/- 0.06 keV
    Free spectral parameter of the disc Comptonization component.
  • nthcomp normalization = 1.37 (+0.07/-0.03)
    Flux normalization of nthcomp.
  • IXPE cross-calibration constants = DU1 0.832, DU2 0.841, DU3 0.832
    Multiplicative constants to cross-calibrate NICER and IXPE detector units; free in the fit.
  • compbb polarization degree and angle (model-dependent) = PD 5 +/- 4%, PA 3 +/- 37 deg at 90% CL; 3 sigma upper limit 12.2%
    Fitted to IXPE Stokes spectra using polconst; basis for the attribution claim.
  • nthcomp polarization degree and angle (model-dependent) = PD 1.2 +/- 0.9%, PA 4 +/- 24 deg at 90% CL; 3 sigma upper limit 2.9%
    Fitted with polconst; used to compare component polarization.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The PCUBE algorithm and MDP99 statistic give unbiased polarization estimates with the adopted binning.
    Used in Section 3.3 to define detection significance; the multiple-band search is not corrected for trials.
  • domain assumption The spectrum is adequately described by tbabs*(compbb+nthcomp), with compbb representing the neutron-star boundary layer or spreading layer and nthcomp representing disc-seed Comptonization.
    Section 3.2; this decomposition is required for the component polarization attribution in Table 4.
  • domain assumption IXPE background is negligible and NICER background is well represented by the nibackgen3C50 simulation.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2; background errors could affect Stokes parameters, especially at low energies.
  • domain assumption The source inclination is near 30 degrees from Thomas et al. 2023.
    Section 4 uses this inclination to compare measured PD with geometric predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First spectro-polarimetric study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 9+1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3U4344A

@misc{pith2026250202078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First spectro-polarimetric study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 9+1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3U4344A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02078}
}
read the original abstract

We present the first spectro-polarimetric study of the bright atoll source GX 9+1, using the simultaneous Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE), and Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) observations. The source was observed to remain in the soft state, with no changes in state throughout the observation period. The source does not show significant polarization in the 2-8 keV energy range. However, a significant polarization (3.3 sigma) was detected in the 2-3 keV range, with a polarization degree of 3.3 +/- 0.8% and a polarization angle of 11 +/- 7 deg. We used the simultaneous energy spectra from NICER (0.6 - 11 keV) and IXPE (2-8 keV) to study the spectral properties of the source during observations. The observed spectrum of the source can be well described by a combination of Comptonized blackbody emission from the neutron star surface (compbb model in XSPEC) and thermal Comptonized component with seed photons from the accretion disc. The spectral properties of GX 9+1 during the observation are consistent with those of other bright atoll-sources in the soft state. However, the high polarization degree observed in the low-energy band does not align with previous IXPE observations of other atoll-sources. This observed polarization in the source is attributed to the strong polarization of the Comptonized blackbody component. We discuss the results from the spectro-polarimetric studies in the context of various accretion disc and coronal geometries of the source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MAXI/GSC light curve in the 2–20 keV energy range. The epochs of the IXPE and NICER observations are marked by cyan and orange color vertical lines respectively. presents the results obtained from spectral and spectro-polarimetric analysis. We discuss the results and present a summary of the paper, in Sections 4. 2 OBSERVATION AND DATA REDUCTION 2.1 IXPE The Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) is capable of pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IXPE light curve of GX 9+1 (combining the three detector units) plotted for a binsize of 150 s in the 2-8 keV energy band. The start time of the observation is taken as zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IXPE HID plotted with a bin size of 150 s. The color represents the time reference with respect to the start of observation. The source stays in the banana state throughout the observation. spectra in XSPEC. The IXPE observation (refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum of GX 9+1 in EF𝐸 representation. The NICER data is plotted in orange color. IXPE spectra from three DUs are plotted in cyan, blue and magenta. The model is reported in black lines. The bottom panel shows the residuals between the data and the best-fit model […
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy independent dependent polarization behavior derived using PCUBE combining the three DUs. The shaded region denotes the MDP99 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The PD and PA values obtained using the model-independent PCUBE analysis in four energy bands (2-3, 2-4, 4-8 and 2-8 keV). The contour represent 1𝜎 confidence interval. To estimate the fraction of polarization for each spectral compo￾nent, we multiplied polconst with e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic representation of the coronal geometries inferred from the polarimetric properties. A sandwich and shell geometry with polar caps removed are proposed for the source. In all atoll-sources observed so far using IXPE, a low polarization is found in the 2–4 keV …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    K., Sreekumar P., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07147.x , 346, 933

    Agrawal V. K., Sreekumar P., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07147.x , 346, 933

    work page arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    K., Nandi A., Katoch T., 2022, @doi [Mon

    Agrawal V. K., Nandi A., Katoch T., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac2579 , 518, 194

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2579 2022

  5. [5]

    Altamirano D., et al., 2010, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ATel.2952....1A 2952, 1

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

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

    1996

  7. [7]

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Barret D., Olive J.-F., 2002, @doi [apj] 10.1086/341626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576..391B 576, 391

    doi:10.1086/341626 2002

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    F., Boirin L., Done C., Skinner G

    Barret D., Olive J. F., Boirin L., Done C., Skinner G. K., Grindlay J. E., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/308651 , 533, 329

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    Bradt H., Naranan S., Rappaport S., Spada G., 1968, @doi [apj] 10.1086/149613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...152.1005B 152, 1005

    1968 doi

  3. [11]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [apj] 10.1086/524936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..415C 674, 415

    Cackett E. M., et al., 2008, @doi [apj] 10.1086/524936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..415C 674, 415

    2008 doi

  4. [13]

    Capitanio F., et al., 2023b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acae88 , 943, 129

    doi

  5. [14]

    K., Jayasurya K

    Chatterjee R., Agrawal V. K., Jayasurya K. M., Katoch T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521L..74C 521, L74

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Cocchi M., et al., 2023b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, L10

  7. [16]

    Cocchi M., et al., 2023a, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674L..10C 674, L10

    doi

  8. [17]

    Di Marco A., et al., 2023, @doi [apjl] 10.3847/2041-8213/acec6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..22D 953, L22

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Di Salvo T., et al., 2009, @doi [mnras] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15240.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.2022D 398, 2022

    2009

  10. [19]

    N., 2012, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..50D 543, A50

    D \' az Trigo M., Sidoli L., Boirin L., Parmar A. N., 2012, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..50D 543, A50

    2012 doi

  11. [21]

    Fabiani S., et al., 2024, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.137F 684, A137

    2024 doi

  12. [22]

    Farinelli R., et al., 2023, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/stac3726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3681F 519, 3681

    2023 doi

  13. [23]

    T., Chubb T

    Friedman H., Byram E. T., Chubb T. A., 1967, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.156.3773.374 , 156, 374

    1967 doi

  14. [24]

    C., Arzoumanian Z., Okajima T., 2012, in Takahashi T., Murray S

    Gendreau K. C., Arzoumanian Z., Okajima T., 2012, in Takahashi T., Murray S. S., den Herder J.-W. A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 844313, @do...

    2012 doi

  15. [25]

    Gnarini A., Ursini F., Matt G., Bianchi S., Capitanio F., Cocchi M., Farinelli R., Zhang W., 2022, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/stac1523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2561G 514, 2561

    2022 doi

  16. [26]

    Gnarini A., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.230G 690, A230

    doi

  17. [27]

    Gnarini A., et al., 2024b, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.123G 692, A123

    doi

  18. [28]

    Hasinger G., van der Klis M., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...225...79H 225, 79

    1989

  19. [29]

    Homan J., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/201 , 719, 201

    2010 doi

  20. [30]

    R., Lavagetto G., Burderi L., Stella L., van der Klis M., 2005, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...439..575I 439, 575

    Iaria R., di Salvo T., Robba N. R., Lavagetto G., Burderi L., Stella L., van der Klis M., 2005, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...439..575I 439, 575

    2005 doi

  21. [31]

    M., Agrawal V

    Jayasurya K. M., Agrawal V. K., Chatterjee R., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad2601 , 525, 4657

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    Kashyap U., Chakraborty M., Bhattacharyya S., Ram B., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1606 , 523, 2788

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

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

    2015 doi

  24. [34]

    Kuulkers E., van der Klis M., Oosterbroek T., Asai K., Dotani T., van Paradijs J., Lewin W. H. G., 1994, aap, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...289..795K 289, 795

    1994

  25. [35]

    Langmeier A., Sztajno M., Truemper J., Hasinger G., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00179842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985SSRv...40..367L 40, 367

    1985 doi

  26. [36]

    A., Homan J., 2009, @doi [apj] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1257L 696, 1257

    Lin D., Remillard R. A., Homan J., 2009, @doi [apj] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1257L 696, 1257

    2009 doi

  27. [37]

    A., Homan J., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1350 , 719, 1350

    Lin D., Remillard R. A., Homan J., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1350 , 719, 1350

    2010 doi

  28. [38]

    Long X., et al., 2022, @doi [apjl] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924L..13L 924, L13

    2022 doi

  29. [39]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/140 , 836, 140

    Ludlam R. M., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/140 , 836, 140

    2017 doi

  30. [40]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f , 165, 143

    Marco A. D., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f , 165, 143

    2023 doi

  31. [41]

    Mitsuda K., et al., 1984, pasj, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PASJ...36..741M 36, 741

    1984

  32. [42]

    S., Pahari M., Dewangan G

    Mondal A. S., Pahari M., Dewangan G. C., Misra R., Raychaudhuri B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4991M 466, 4991

    2017 doi

  33. [43]

    Nishimura J., Mitsuda K., Itoh M., 1986, pasj, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASJ...38..819N 38, 819

    1986

  34. [44]

    Popham R., Sunyaev R., 2001, @doi [apj] 10.1086/318336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...547..355P 547, 355

    2001 doi

  35. [45]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 , 163, 130

    Remillard R. A., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6 , 163, 130

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235a , 963, 133

    Saade M. L., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235a , 963, 133

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    D., Krolik J

    Schnittman J. D., Krolik J. H., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/908 , 712, 908

    2010 doi

  38. [48]

    M., van den Heuvel E

    Tauris T. M., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2006, in Lewin W. H. G., van der Klis M., eds, , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. Cambridge University Press, pp 623--665, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    2006 doi arXiv

  39. [49]

    T., Gudennavar S

    Thomas N. T., Gudennavar S. B., Bubbly S. G., 2023, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/stad2379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2355T 525, 2355

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    Titarchuk L., Lapidus I., Muslimov A., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305642 , 499, 315

    1998 doi

  41. [51]

    G., Bradshaw C

    Titarchuk L. G., Bradshaw C. F., Geldzahler B. J., Fomalont E. B., 2001, @doi [apjl] 10.1086/323160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...555L..45T 555, L45

    2001 doi

  42. [53]

    Ursini F., et al., 2023, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A..20U 676, A20

    2023 doi

  43. [54]

    Ursini F., et al., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12040043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...43U 12, 43

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JATIS...8b6002W 8, 026002

    Weisskopf M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JATIS...8b6002W 8, 026002

    2022 doi

  45. [56]

    E., Stella L., Parmar A

    White N. E., Stella L., Parmar A. N., 1988, @doi [apj] 10.1086/165901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...324..363W 324, 363

    1988 doi

  46. [57]

    Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/307698 , 522, 965

    1999 doi

  47. [58]

    A., Johnson W

    Zdziarski A. A., Johnson W. N., Magdziarz P., 1996, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/283.1.193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283..193Z 283, 193

    1996 doi

  48. [59]

    van den Berg M., Homan J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...71V 834, 71

    2017 doi

  49. [60]

    van der Klis M., 1989, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505 , 27, 517

    1989

  50. [61]

    van der Klis M., 1995, in Lewin W. H. G., van Paradijs J., van den Heuvel E. P. J., eds, X-ray Binaries. pp 252--307

    1995

  51. [62]

    van der Klis M., 2006, in Lewin W. H. G., van der Klis M., eds, , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. Cambridge University Press, pp 39--112

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.