Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

X-ray polarization study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 349+2

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First IXPE measurement finds GX 349+2 polarized at 1.1 ± 0.3 percent with a position angle of 32 ± 6 degrees.

desk verdict First IXPE measurement for GX 349+2 gives a clean low-polarization data point for Sco-like Z sources; the detection is probably real but needs a systematics statement and a corrected Section 4.2. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00813 v2 pith:F7WC2GQW submitted 2025-05-01 astro-ph.HE

Unnati Kashyap , Thomas J. Maccarone , Mason Ng , Eliot C. Pattie , Swati Ravi , Herman L. Marshall This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarimetryneutronstarlow-massbinaryZsourceGX349+2IXPEaccretiondiskComptonizationspectro-polarimetry
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 X-ray polarization measurement of GX 349+2, a neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary in the Sco-like Z-source class, obtained with the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer. The central claim is a $3.9\sigma$ detection of polarization at PD = $1.1 \pm 0.3\%$ with position angle PA = $32 \pm 6^\circ$ in the 2–8 keV band. Simultaneous NuSTAR observations place the source on the normal branch, flaring branch, and soft apex of the Z track during the IXPE exposure. If the measurement holds, GX 349+2 joins Sco X-1 at roughly 1% polarization, distinctly lower than the Cyg-like Z sources, indicating a systematic difference in accretion geometry between the two subclasses.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by IXPE imaging polarimetry with a 60-arcsecond source aperture, analyzed in unweighted PCUBE mode using the ixpeobssim package, and following the published prescription for bright sources that no background rejection or subtraction is needed. Simultaneous NuSTAR observations provide the hardness-intensity and color-color diagrams used to classify each time interval as normal branch, soft apex, or flaring branch, enabling branch-resolved polarimetry. The spectro-polarimetric machinery is a joint fit of IXPE and NuSTAR spectra with an additive model of diskbb, bbodyrad, nthcomp, and diskline, each multiplied by a polconst factor that assigns a constant polarization degree and angle to that component.

What would settle it

An independent reanalysis of the same IXPE observation with a background-subtraction or stray-light-estimation scheme that yields a 2–8 keV polarization consistent with zero at the $3\sigma$ level would overturn the central detection. A longer, dedicated IXPE observation of GX 349+2 with simultaneous NuSTAR coverage that does not reproduce the $1.1\%$ signal (or the 6–8 keV excess) in any spectral state would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is the first detection of X-ray polarization from GX 349+2: integrated 2–8 keV emission is polarized at PD = $1.1 \pm 0.3\%$ with PA = $32 \pm 6^\circ$ (1$\sigma$ errors, $3.9\sigma$ significance), with a marginal rise to PD = $3.1 \pm 1.1\%$ in the 6–8 keV band that the authors associate with reflection of Comptonized photons off the accretion disk. Joint IXPE plus NuSTAR spectro-polarimetric fits reproduce the spectra with a multicolor disk blackbody, a blackbody from the neutron star surface, a thermally Comptonized component, and a ~6.7 keV diskline; individual component polarizations are only upper limits, so the paper cannot unambiguously assign the polarization to a single emitter. The authors interpret the low, energy-flat polarization as a property of Sco-like Z sources, in contrast to the higher polarization and stronger energy dependence reported for Cyg-like Z sources, and note a $\sim 60^\circ$ position-angle rotation between the flaring branch and the normal branch/soft apex that is not statistically significant.

Load-bearing premise

The 2–8 keV polarization detection assumes the 60-arcsecond IXPE aperture contains only the target source, so the analysis dispenses with background rejection and subtraction; any unmodeled stray light, pile-up, or polarized/unpolarized contamination inside that aperture would dilute or bias the measured $1.1\%$ signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $1.1\%$ polarization is real, Sco X-1 and GX 349+2 both sit near 1% in 2–8 keV, making low polarization a shared signature of Sco-like Z sources rather than a peculiarity of one object.
  • The marginal 6–8 keV excess ($3.1 \pm 1.1\%$) would indicate that the reflected iron-line component carries a higher polarization than the overall continuum, giving future broadband polarimeters a way to separate the reflection contribution.
  • If the $\sim 60^\circ$ position-angle rotation between flaring branch and normal branch/soft apex is confirmed with more exposure, polarization angle becomes a state-tracking diagnostic on the Z track, analogous to the branch-dependent polarization already seen in Cyg-like sources.
  • The planned Very Large Array observations can test whether GX 349+2's X-ray polarization angle aligns with the radio jet axis; a misalignment would echo the Sco X-1 result and suggest that the integrated angle is a blend of components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not make: if the 6–8 keV excess is really reflection, then the same hard-band excess should appear in other Z sources with strong iron lines, and its amplitude should scale with line equivalent width.
  • The paper's no-background assumption could be checked against the existing IXPE data by comparing source aperture polarization to that measured in a nearby blank field; that comparison is a natural next step.
  • If the Sco-like versus Cyg-like dichotomy in polarization degree is confirmed, it would imply that the boundary/spreading layer geometry differs between the subclasses, a prediction that could be modeled with the existing slab-versus-sphere corona codes.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The authors analyze simultaneous IXPE and NuSTAR observations of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 349+2 taken in September 2024. They report the first IXPE polarization measurement of the source: a 3.9σ detection in the 2–8 keV band with PD = 1.1 ± 0.3% and PA = 32 ± 6°, obtained with the model-independent PCUBE algorithm, plus energy-resolved values including a 2.5σ hint of higher polarization (PD = 3.1 ± 1.1%) in the 6–8 keV band. NuSTAR hardness–intensity analysis identifies normal-branch, flaring-branch, and soft-apex states during the IXPE exposures. Joint NuSTAR+IXPE spectral fitting uses a model consisting of bbodyrad, diskbb, diskline, and nthcomp, and the paper reports branch-resolved polarimetric upper limits. The discussion compares the result with other Sco-like and Cyg-like Z sources and notes a possible ~60° polarization-angle rotation in the flaring branch, while cautioning that the branch-level variations are not statistically significant.

Significance. If the central detection holds, this is the first IXPE polarization measurement of GX 349+2 and adds a second Sco-like Z source with low 2–8 keV polarization (PD ~1%), comparable to Sco X-1 and markedly lower than the Cyg-like Z sources in Table 6. That comparison is of genuine astrophysical interest for accretion geometry in Z sources. The paper has several concrete strengths: the detection is made with a model-independent PCUBE analysis, so it does not depend on the spectral decomposition; the simultaneous NuSTAR coverage provides a meaningful Z-track state classification; and the authors are appropriately cautious about the non-significant branch-resolved polarimetric variations and component-level upper limits. The main quantitative claim, however, is currently supported only by statistical errors, with no explicit background or systematic-error assessment, and there are internal inconsistencies in the branch-resolved reporting that need to be resolved before the paper is archival.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.2] The central detection, PD = 1.1 ± 0.3% at 3.9σ in the 2–8 keV band, is quoted with statistical errors only. Section 2.1 states that because GX 349+2 is bright, the analysis follows Di Marco et al. (2023) and applies no background rejection or subtraction, but the paper reports no source-to-background ratio, no off-source aperture check, and no stray-light or pile-up estimate. Since the signal is at the 1% level, even a small polarized contamination inside the 60″ extraction region would bias the recovered Stokes parameters, and an unrecognized systematic uncertainty of order 0.3% in PD would be sufficient to reduce the significance below 3σ. The authors should either quantify the contamination and include IXPE systematic uncertainties (modulation-factor calibration, residual spurious polarization) in the quoted errors, or explicitly justify on the basis of measured counts that these effects are negligible for this source.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] The branch-resolved model-independent values are swapped between the NB and SA states. In Section 4.2 the text lists PD = 1.7 ± 0.9%, PA = 39 ± 15° as the SA result and PD = 2.4 ± 1.6%, PA = 45 ± 19° as the NB result, whereas Table 3 lists PD = 1.7 ± 0.9%, PA = 39 ± 15° for the NB state and PD = 2.4 ± 1.6%, PA = 45 ± 19° for the SA state. This misassignment directly affects the discussion of polarization variation along the Z-track and must be corrected so that the text and table are mutually consistent.
  3. [Table 4 and Section 3.3] Several spectral parameters are at model boundaries: Γ = 1.00 with one-sided errors in the SA and FB states, and diskline β = −10.0 in the FB state. The table caption describes Γ as being at the 'hard upper limit' of nthcomp, although Γ = 1.00 appears to be the lower boundary of that model in XSPEC; the phrasing should be checked and corrected. More importantly, because the component polarizations and upper limits in Table 5 are derived from this spectral decomposition, the boundary values propagate into the spectro-polarimetric constraints. The authors should state the parameter bounds explicitly and discuss how the boundary behavior affects the reliability of the component-level polarization limits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The sentence describing the linked-PA scenario, 'PAnthcomp=PAnthcomp and PAdiskbb=PAnthcomp+/-90◦', is self-referential and appears to contain a typo; the intended relation between PAdiskbb and PAnthcomp should be stated clearly.
  2. [Section 4.2] The parenthetical 'see Table 2' following the caution that the branch-resolved PA rotation estimates are below 2σ should refer to Table 3, because the branch-resolved quantities are reported in Table 3, not Table 2.
  3. [Table 5] The header describing the linked-PA setups is garbled, including the phrase 'PA nthcomp = PAdiskbb◦ set-up'; this header should be rewritten so that each of the five fitting cases is identifiable.
  4. [Section 4] There are minor typographical and grammatical issues, including 'differetiate' in Section 3.3 and 'The X-ray spectra of GX 349+2 is well described' in Section 4; these should be corrected during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central PD/PA is a model-independent IXPE measurement; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is PD = 1.1 ± 0.3%, PA = 32 ± 6° in the 2–8 keV band, obtained by PCUBE model-independent polarimetric analysis of IXPE data (Section 3.2, Table 2, Figure 3). No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the Stokes parameters are measured from event distributions using ixpeobssim and CALDB calibration, so the detection is not an output of the spectral model. The spectro-polarimetric decomposition (Section 3.3, Tables 4–5) yields mostly upper limits, and the authors explicitly state that they cannot statistically distinguish the assumed PA-linkage scenarios, so no geometry is declared as a forced derivation from the data. The only self-citation of note is the continuum model choice, which cites Kashyap et al. (2023) together with independent references (Coughenour et al. 2018; Lin et al. 2007); the model is not used to predict the 2–8 keV PD, and the 3.9σ significance does not rest on it. The in-prep citations (Kashyap et al. for GX 17+2; Pattie et al. for GX 5–1 radio) are ancillary to the main measurement. Section 2.1's statement that no background rejection or subtraction was implemented (following Di Marco et al. 2023) is a candid systematic limitation, not a circular argument. I therefore find no circular step that reduces the paper's derivation to its inputs; the score of 2 reflects only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model-independent PD measurement is calibration-based and has no fitted parameters. The listed parameters and axioms support the spectral decomposition and geometry interpretation, not the 2-8 keV detection. Interpretive claims additionally depend on the fixed inclination, the assumed continuum model, and the NuSTAR branch classification.

free parameters (8)
  • Inclination (fixed) = 35 degrees
    Adopted from Coughenour et al. 2018; parameters unconstrained if free (Table 4, Section 3.3).
  • Outer disk radius (fixed) = 1000 Rg
    Fixed to stabilize diskline fits in all states (Table 4).
  • tbabs nH = 1.87/2.38/1.88 x 1e22 cm-2 for NB/SA/FB
    Fitted column density in joint NuSTAR+IXPE spectra.
  • bbodyrad kT and norm = kT 1.29/1.24/1.30 keV; norm 262/418/381
    Fitted NS surface blackbody; norm in XSPEC units.
  • diskbb kTin and norm = kTin 0.74/0.62/0.70 keV; norm 1648/4626/2494
    Fitted multicolor disk blackbody.
  • diskline lineE, beta, Rin, norm = E 6.66-6.70 keV; beta -2.41 to -10.0; Rin 19-81 GM/c2; norm 0.005-0.010
    Fitted iron line; beta pinned at upper limit in FB.
  • nthcomp Gamma, kTe, norm = Gamma 1.33/1.00/1.00; kTe 2.42-2.62 keV; norm 0.01-0.33
    Fitted Comptonization; Gamma at lower model limit in SA/FB.
  • Cross-calibration constants = FPMB 0.98; DU1-DU3 0.81-0.87
    Fitted inter-instrument normalizations; not used in model-independent PCUBE result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption IXPE bright-source analysis with no background rejection or subtraction yields unbiased PD/PA.
    Invoked Section 2.1 via Di Marco et al. 2023; unmodeled background would bias the 1.1% detection.
  • domain assumption NuSTAR hardness-color bands correspond to the NB, SA, and FB branches of the Z-track.
    Section 3.1; branch labels come from the CCD, not from the full canonical Z-track.
  • domain assumption The continuum is described by tbabs*(bbodyrad+diskbb+diskline+nthcomp) with inclination 35 degrees and Rout=1000 Rg.
    Section 3.3 and Table 4; alternative relxillNS and relconv*reflionx models were tried but unconstrained.
  • domain assumption A blackbody from a symmetric NS surface is unpolarized in one set of scenarios.
    Table 5; not independently measured, only a scenario.
  • domain assumption Distance to GX 349+2 is 9.2 kpc.
    Section 4; used to estimate NS radius from the bbodyrad normalization.
  • domain assumption Slab-like coronal geometry from Gnarini et al. 2022 applies to Sco-like Z sources.
    Section 4.2; used for interpretation without direct polarimetric discrimination.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray polarization study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 349+2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7WC2GQW

@misc{pith2026250500813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray polarization study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 349+2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7WC2GQW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00813}
}
read the original abstract

We report the first X-ray polarimetric results of the neutron star (NS) low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB) Z-source GX 349+2 using the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE). We discovered that the X-ray source was polarized at PD = 1.1 +/- 0.3% (1-sigma errors) with a polarization angle of PA = 32 +/- 6 degree (1-sigma errors). Simultaneous Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) observations show that the source transitioned through the normal branch (NB), flaring branch (FB), and soft apex (SA) of the Z-track during our IXPE observations. The X-ray spectro-polarimetry results suggest a source geometry comprising an accretion disk component, a blackbody representing the emission from the NS surface, and a Comptonized component. We discuss the accretion geometry of the Z source in light of the spectro-polarimetric results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. First panel: IXPE (2-8 keV) light curve of GX 349+2. Second Panel: NuSTAR (3.0-79.0 keV) light curve during FB state of GX 349+2. Third Panel: NuSTAR (3.0-79.0 keV) light curve during NB state of GX 349+2. Fourth Panel: NuSTAR (3.0-79.0 keV) light curve during SA state of GX 349+2. Time bins of 128 s are used. cillary response files (ARFs) and modulation response files (MRFs) were generated for each DU using the ixp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hardness–intensity diagram showing constructed from the two NuSTAR observations of GX 349+2. Time bins of 128 s are used. servation details are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Contour plots of the polarization degree and angle, determined with the PCUBE algorithm, at the 68 %, 95 % and 99.7 % confidence levels, in the 2–8 (upper panel, blue) energy band. Right panel: Contour plots of the polarization degree and angle, determined with the PCUBE algorithm, at the 68 %, 95 % and 99.7 % confidence levels, in the 2–4 keV (blue), 4-8 keV (red), 4-6 keV (black), and 6-8 keV (orange) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model fitted deconvolved joint spectra of GX 349+2 as observed by IXPE DU1 (spring green), IXPE DU2 (green yellow), IXPE DU3 (dark green), and NuSTAR (magenta). The spectra are fitted with the tbabs*(bbodyrad+diskbb+diskline+nthcomp)*polconst *const model in the 2-30 k…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ''Gz*ƍ "!! ؾ ; K.*

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    K., & Bhattacharyya , S

    Agrawal , V. K., & Bhattacharyya , S. 2003, , 398, 223, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021709 2003

  5. [5]

    D., et al

    Baldini , L., Bucciantini , N., Lalla , N. D., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194, 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    2001, Advances in Space Research, 28, 307, 10.1016/S0273-1177(01)00414-8

    Barret , D. 2001, Advances in Space Research, 28, 307, 10.1016/S0273-1177(01)00414-8

    doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(01)00414-8 2001

  7. [7]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19324, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19324

    Bhargava , Y., Ng , M., Zhang , L., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19324, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19324

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19324 2024

  8. [8]

    D., Ng , M., et al

    Bhargava , Y., Russell , T. D., Ng , M., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00350, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00350

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00350 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16023, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16023

    Bobrikova , A., Poutanen , J., & Loktev , V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16023, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16023

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    M., Miller , J

    Cackett , E. M., Miller , J. M., Bhattacharyya , S., et al. 2008, , 674, 415, 10.1086/524936

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    2011, , 730, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L23

    Chakraborty , M., & Bhattacharyya , S. 2011, , 730, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L23

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, , 418, 490, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19499.x

    Chakraborty , M., Bhattacharyya , S., & Mukherjee , A. 2011, , 418, 490, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19499.x

    2011

  5. [13]

    J., & Ba uci \'n ska-Church , M

    Church , M. J., & Ba uci \'n ska-Church , M. 2012, , 83, 170. 1110.1281

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J., Gibiec , A., & Ba uci \'n ska-Church , M

    Church , M. J., Gibiec , A., & Ba uci \'n ska-Church , M. 2014, , 438, 2784, 10.1093/mnras/stt2364

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Gibiec , A., Ba uci \'n ska-Church , M., & Jackson , N

    Church , M. J., Gibiec , A., Ba uci \'n ska-Church , M., & Jackson , N. K. 2012, , 546, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218987

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, , 674, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346275

    Cocchi , M., Gnarini , A., Fabiani , S., et al. 2023, , 674, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346275

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Cackett , E

    Coughenour , B. M., Cackett , E. M., Miller , J. M., & Ludlam , R. M. 2018, , 867, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae098

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

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

    Davis , S. W., Done , C., & Blaes , O. M. 2006, , 647, 525, 10.1086/505386

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, , 163, 170, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac51c9

    Di Marco , A., Costa , E., Muleri , F., et al. 2022, , 163, 170, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac51c9

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, , 165, 143, 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f

    Di Marco , A., Soffitta , P., Costa , E., et al. 2023, , 165, 143, 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done , C., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Kubota , A. 2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Rees , M

    Fabian , A. C., Rees , M. J., Stella , L., & White , N. E. 1989, , 238, 729, 10.1093/mnras/238.3.729

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, , 684, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347374

    Fabiani , S., Capitanio , F., Iaria , R., et al. 2024, , 684, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347374

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Farinelli , R., Frontera , F., Virgilli , E., et al. 2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 552, 5th INTEGRAL Workshop on the INTEGRAL Universe, ed. V. Schoenfelder , G. Lichti , & C. Winkler , 317

    2004

  17. [25]

    2024, , 684, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348915

    Farinelli , R., Waghmare , A., Ducci , L., & Santangelo , A. 2024, , 684, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348915

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, , 519, 3681, 10.1093/mnras/stac3726

    Farinelli , R., Fabiani , S., Poutanen , J., et al. 2023, , 519, 3681, 10.1093/mnras/stac3726

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Geldzahler , B

    Fomalont , E. B., Geldzahler , B. J., & Bradshaw , C. F. 2001, , 558, 283, 10.1086/322479

    2001 doi

  20. [29]

    2022, , 514, 2561, 10.1093/mnras/stac1523

    Gnarini , A., Ursini , F., Matt , G., et al. 2022, , 514, 2561, 10.1093/mnras/stac1523

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    J., Gilfanov , M., & Sunyaev , R

    Grimm , H. J., Gilfanov , M., & Sunyaev , R. 2002, , 391, 923, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020826

    2002 doi

  22. [31]

    1989, , 225, 79

    Hasinger , G., & van der Klis , M. 1989, , 225, 79

    1989

  23. [32]

    P., et al

    Homan , J., Wijnands , R., Rupen , M. P., et al. 2004, , 418, 255, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034258

    2004 doi

  24. [33]

    2007, , 656, 420, 10.1086/510447

    Homan , J., van der Klis , M., Wijnands , R., et al. 2007, , 656, 420, 10.1086/510447

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    2009, , 505, 1143, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911936

    Iaria , R., D'A \' , A., di Salvo , T., et al. 2009, , 505, 1143, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911936

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

    J., Poutanen , J., & Krawczynski , H

    Ingram , A., Maccarone , T. J., Poutanen , J., & Krawczynski , H. 2015, , 807, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/53

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    2023, , 523, 2788, 10.1093/mnras/stad1606

    Kashyap , U., Chakraborty , M., Bhattacharyya , S., & Ram , B. 2023, , 523, 2788, 10.1093/mnras/stad1606

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    S., Stern , D., Harrison , F

    Krawczynski , H. S., Stern , D., Harrison , F. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 75, 8, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.10.009

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    1998, , 50, 667, 10.1093/pasj/50.6.667

    Kubota , A., Tanaka , Y., Makishima , K., et al. 1998, , 50, 667, 10.1093/pasj/50.6.667

    1998 doi

  30. [39]

    1998, , 332, 845

    Kuulkers , E., & van der Klis , M. 1998, , 332, 845. astro-ph/9712311

    1998 arXiv

  31. [40]

    1994, , 289, 795

    Kuulkers , E., van der Klis , M., Oosterbroek , T., et al. 1994, , 289, 795

    1994

  32. [41]

    Kuulkers , E., van der Klis , M., Oosterbroek , T., van Paradijs , J., & Lewin , W. H. G. 1997, , 287, 495, 10.1093/mnras/287.3.495

    1997 doi

  33. [42]

    o hringer , G. E. Morfill , & J. E. Tr \

    Kuulkers , E., & Vander Klis , M. 1995, in Seventeeth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology, ed. H. B \"o hringer , G. E. Morfill , & J. E. Tr \"u mper , Vol. 759, 344, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1995.tb17560.x

    1995

  34. [43]

    2024, in EAS2024, 140

    La Monaca , F. 2024, in EAS2024, 140

    2024

  35. [44]

    2024, , 960, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad132d

    La Monaca , F., Di Marco , A., Poutanen , J., et al. 2024, , 960, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad132d

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    A., & Homan , J

    Lin , D., Remillard , R. A., & Homan , J. 2007, , 667, 1073, 10.1086/521181

    2007 doi

  37. [46]

    S., Chanan , G

    Long , K. S., Chanan , G. A., Ku , W. M., & Novick , R. 1979, , 232, L107, 10.1086/183045

    1979 doi

  38. [47]

    2022, , 924, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4673

    Long , X., Feng , H., Li , H., et al. 2022, , 924, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4673

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    P., Rupen , M., et al

    Migliari , S., Fender , R. P., Rupen , M., et al. 2004, , 351, 186, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07768.x

    2004

  40. [49]

    1984, , 36, 741

    Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., Koyama , K., et al. 1984, , 36, 741

    1984

  41. [50]

    K., Homan , J., et al

    Ng , M., Hughes , A. K., Homan , J., et al. 2024, , 966, 232, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bd

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    M., Kuulkers , E., Sood , R

    O'Neill , P. M., Kuulkers , E., Sood , R. K., & van der Klis , M. 2002, , 336, 217, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05729.x

    2002

  43. [52]

    J., Cooke , B

    Ponman , T. J., Cooke , B. A., & Stella , L. 1988, , 231, 999, 10.1093/mnras/231.4.999

    1988 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, , 961, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1832

    Rankin , J., La Monaca , F., Di Marco , A., et al. 2024, , 961, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1832

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    R., di Salvo , T., Burderi , L., & Iaria , R

    Robba , N. R., di Salvo , T., Burderi , L., & Iaria , R. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 251, New Century of X-ray Astronomy, ed. H. Inoue & H. Kunieda , 400

    2001

  46. [55]

    E., Bradt , H

    Shirey , R. E., Bradt , H. V., & Levine , A. M. 1999, , 517, 472, 10.1086/307188

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    2000, , 542, L111, 10.1086/312935

    Titarchuk , L., & Osherovich , V. 2000, , 542, L111, 10.1086/312935

    2000 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 43, 10.3390/galaxies12040043

    Ursini , F., Gnarini , A., Capitanio , F., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 43, 10.3390/galaxies12040043

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    2004, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0410551

    van der Klis , M. 2004, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0410551

    2004 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    1999, , 522, 965, 10.1086/307698

    Wijnands , R., & van der Klis , M. 1999, , 522, 965, 10.1086/307698

    1999 doi

  51. [60]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  52. [61]

    A., Johnson , W

    Zdziarski , A. A., Johnson , W. N., & Magdziarz , P. 1996, , 283, 193, 10.1093/mnras/283.1.193

    1996 doi

  53. [62]

    E., & Swank , J

    Zhang , W., Strohmayer , T. E., & Swank , J. H. 1998, , 500, L167, 10.1086/311423

    1998 doi

  54. [63]

    T., Done , C., & Smith , D

    \.Z ycki , P. T., Done , C., & Smith , D. A. 1999, , 309, 561, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.