Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 62 references

4XMM J175136.8-275858: A New Magnetar Candidate?

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A transient X-ray source near the Galactic centre is best explained as a magnetar in outburst, the paper argues.

desk verdict A careful new magnetar candidate in archival X-ray data, but the analysis never tests the obscured-AGN alternative and the spectra are power-law degenerate. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04206 v1 pith:3UULNCTY submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.HE

Robbie Webbe , Norman Khan , N. A. Webb , E. Quintin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarX-raytransientneutronstaroutburstXMM-NewtonblackbodyspectrumGalacticcentrecandidate
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 discovery and multi-epoch study of a transient X-ray source, 4XJ1751-2759, that flared by two orders of magnitude over a few thousand seconds on 8 October 2022. It argues that the combination of rapid hard flares, a blackbody spectrum with temperatures from roughly 2 to more than 10 keV, a decay lasting months, the absence of an optical or infrared counterpart, and a high X-ray-to-optical flux ratio cannot be explained by stars, rotationally powered pulsars, or supergiant fast X-ray transients. Taking the source to be a Galactic object near the Galactic centre, the paper concludes that the most likely class is a magnetar in outburst, even though no pulsations are detected. If correct, this adds a candidate to a population of only about 31 known magnetars and demonstrates that a revised X-ray transient detector can find such objects in archival data.

What carries the argument

The central device is the outburst diagnostic: a pattern of rapid hard flaring followed by a long soft decay, combined with a high X-ray-to-optical flux ratio, used to place 4XJ1751-2759 on the luminosity-amplitude plane of confirmed magnetar outbursts. Clustering of photon arrival times resolves the flare train, absorbed-blackbody spectral fits provide temperatures, column densities, and fluxes, and the broad multi-epoch comparison to the known magnetar population carries the classification argument.

What would settle it

A secure distance measurement would settle the claim: if 4XJ1751-2759 were shown to lie at 20 kpc or beyond, the implied peak luminosity would exceed roughly $10^{36}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and move the source outside the observed magnetar outburst range, while a distance near 8 kpc or closer keeps it inside. Alternatively, a future outburst observed with enough counts to detect pulsations and measure the spin period and its derivative would distinguish a magnetar from a rotationally powered pulsar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 4XJ1751-2759 is a new magnetar candidate. In the October 2022 outburst, the source produced 15 resolved flares over roughly one kilosecond, with count rates 20 to 170 times the pre-outburst level; the flux rose by two orders of magnitude within a few kiloseconds, the rise dominated by emission above 2 keV, and the spectrum hardened to a blackbody temperature too hot to constrain with XMM-Newton and Chandra. Across five epochs the 2-10 keV flux varied by up to three orders of magnitude, with a quiescent level near $4\times10^{33}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and a peak near $2\times10^{35}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ at an assumed distance of 8 kpc. No pulsations were found, with upper limits on the pulsed fraction of 36 to 49 percent. The paper explicitly excludes stellar flares, rotationally powered pulsars, and supergiant fast X-ray transients as explanations, and states that the rapid, hard variability is closest to magnetar outbursts of any known class of X-ray transient; the stated caveat is that this classification assumes the source is a Galactic object.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes 4XJ1751-2759 is a Galactic object at roughly 8 kpc; if the distance were much greater or the source were extragalactic, the inferred luminosity and X-ray-to-optical flux ratio would change and the magnetar interpretation would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the source is a magnetar, it joins a population of only about 31 known objects, helping to constrain how many neutron stars are born with extreme magnetic fields and what fraction of them are detectable only through outbursts.
  • The successful use of a revised burst search on archival XMM-Newton data suggests that other fast, hard transients may be hidden in existing observations and accessible to the same approach.
  • The source becomes a prime target for future monitoring: a subsequent outburst observed with more counts could reveal pulsations, measure the spin period and its derivative, and yield an estimate of the magnetic field strength.
  • If the excess column density places 4XJ1751-2759 behind the Galactic bulge, its true luminosity would approach the upper end of the magnetar outburst range, making it a useful outlier for models of outburst energetics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If similar revised burst searches were applied across the full XMM-Newton archive, more magnetar candidates of this type might emerge; the paper demonstrates one case but does not estimate a rate.
  • The absence of pulsations, if intrinsic rather than a consequence of faintness, would make 4XJ1751-2759 a member of an 'outburst-only' magnetar population that is essentially invisible in quiescence, a possibility the paper leaves open.
  • The small fitted blackbody radii and high temperatures are consistent with a compact hot spot; future observations that resolve two blackbody components, as seen in some post-outburst magnetars, would tie the source to a specific cooling geometry.
  • A secure distance measurement would sharpen the classification: a distance near 8 kpc keeps the source inside the magnetar outburst luminosity range, while a much larger distance would move it into an unexplored regime.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery and multi-epoch X-ray follow-up of the fast, hard, transient source 4XMM J175136.8-275858, found in archival XMM-Newton data with a revised version of the EXOD outburst detector. In the October 2022 observation the source flares repeatedly, with 15 identified flares of roughly 10-100 s duration and amplitudes up to ~170 times the pre-outburst count rate. Spectral fits with an absorbed blackbody model give temperatures of ~1.8-5 keV in the lower-luminosity epochs, an unconstrained temperature during the flare phase, and a simultaneously fitted column density of 3.86e22 cm^-2, about three times the HI4PI Galactic value along this line of sight. The 2-10 keV flux varies by up to three orders of magnitude over one year, with a peak unabsorbed flux around 2.4e-11 erg s^-1 cm^-2, implying L_X ~ 2e35 erg s^-1 at an assumed 8 kpc distance. No X-ray pulsations are detected, with pulsed-fraction upper limits of ~36-49%. After arguing that stellar flares, rotationally powered pulsars, supergiant fast X-ray transients, and low-mass X-ray binaries are excluded, the authors classify the source as a magnetar candidate, explicitly conditioning the conclusion on the assumption that the object is a Galactic X-ray source.

Significance. If the classification holds, the paper adds a candidate to the very small magnetar population (~31 known sources) in a line of sight toward the Galactic centre, and it demonstrates the value of the revised EXOD approach for uncovering fast hard X-ray transients in archival data. The paper deserves credit for transparency: the analysis details and data products are publicly available in a linked Git repository, unconstrained parameters are reported with +Infinity/-Infinity errors rather than hidden, the pulsation nondetections are quantified with upper limits, and the exclusion arguments for stars, rotationally powered pulsars, and SFXTs are explicit and mostly sound. The paper also offers falsifiable predictions, namely that future detection of pulsations would confirm the magnetar classification and that simultaneous high-energy coverage during a future outburst would constrain the burst temperature. The significance is moderated, however, by the candidate status and by the degeneracy of the spectral evidence with a non-thermal (e.g., AGN-like) interpretation, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (Discussion) and Table A1] The central classification rests on the assumption, stated in §4, that 'this object is a Galactic X-ray source,' yet the leading extragalactic alternative—an obscured AGN seen through the Galactic plane toward the Galactic centre—is never tested. The source is only ~1.7 degrees from Sgr A*, so the line of sight transits the Galactic bulge; the fitted column density of 3.86e22 cm^-2 (Table 2) is equally consistent with an AGN behind the bulge with modest intrinsic absorption, and the absence of an optical/IR counterpart is expected in that case. Moreover, Table A1 shows that a power-law model fits every epoch with Cash statistics equal to or slightly better than the blackbody model (e.g., outburst: C = 383.3 versus 383.6; epoch 0886080801: C = 549.1 versus 550.8), so a hard power law plus absorption, as would describe an AGN, is fully consistent with the data. The log(FX/Fopt) ~ 2.77 value used to exclude stellar interpretations is also typical of X-ray-selected AGN. I request either a dedicated test of the AGN hypothesis (e.g., a search for a fluorescent Fe Ka line at 6.4 keV in the combined spectra, an estimate of the expected number of background AGN at this position from log N-log S, or a variability-timescale argument) or a systematic reframing of the claim so that 'magnetar candidate' is presented as conditional on the Galactic assumption in the abstract and conclusions, not only in §4.
  2. [§3.2 and Table 2] The spectral evidence is weaker than the abstract's claim that the emission is 'well characterised by a blackbody.' During the outburst the blackbody temperature is unconstrained (kT = 10.51 +Infinity/-Infinity keV in Table 2), and in other epochs the parameter uncertainties are very large (e.g., 0886120901: kT = 3.99 +Infinity/-Infinity keV with nH lower error -Infinity). Because Table A1 shows the power-law model is statistically equivalent in every epoch, the current fits do not demonstrate that the spectrum is thermal rather than non-thermal, and the evidence for a neutron-star-like blackbody is therefore not established. The comparison with magnetar spectral temperatures from Olausen & Kaspi (2014) should be accompanied by a likelihood-ratio or equivalent test of the blackbody versus power-law models, or the spectral argument should be explicitly downgraded to a consistency statement rather than a discriminator.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 2] The spectral fit for observation 0886120901 has nH = 0.89 +28.84/-Infinity x 10^22 cm^-2, i.e., a column density formally consistent with zero; because the quoted unabsorbed flux for this epoch is derived from this fit, the value 0.316 x 10^-12 erg s^-1 cm^-2 should be presented as an order-of-magnitude estimate and the sub-Galactic fitted column should be commented on.
  2. [Figure 6 and Figure 8] The three 'quiescent' epochs have 2-10 keV fluxes spanning roughly 0.2-10 x 10^-12 erg s^-1 cm^-2 (Figure 6), so the quiescent luminosity of ~4 x 10^33 erg s^-1 used in Figure 8 is an average over a poorly defined state; the authors should specify which epochs define quiescence and propagate the factor-of-ten spread in the anti-correlation comparison.
  3. [§3.1] The first-flare blackbody temperature of 100.0 keV with an unconstrained upper error is likely an xspec parameter boundary; the text should state this explicitly rather than reporting the value as a fitted temperature.
  4. [§3.2] The sentence noting that 'the temperature for the outburst is greater than 10 keV' restates an unconstrained parameter as a result; recommend reporting only the achievable lower bound.
  5. [§1] The introduction gives '24 confirmed and 6 candidate sources' while the abstract states ~31 known magnetars; the two numbers should be reconciled or the epoch of the source catalogue stated.
  6. [§2.2] The HDBSCAN clustering parameters (minimum 10 photons per cluster, alpha = 0.75) are chosen by visual inspection, but the robustness of the resulting 15-flare list to these choices is not discussed; a short sensitivity statement would strengthen the flare characterisation.
  7. [§3.3 and Figure 6] The elevated flux in Chandra observation 24193, 102.5 days before the October 2022 'outburst,' together with the 2017 XMM slew detection, shows the source was active well before the adopted day-zero epoch; the authors discuss this briefly in §4, but the term 'outburst' and the day-zero definition in Figure 6 should be justified or qualified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetar-candidate classification is an empirical source-class comparison against external benchmarks, not a derivation from fitted parameters or self-cited theorems.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from EXOD detection (Section 2.1) through spectral fitting (Section 3.2), flux and luminosity estimates (Sections 3.3 and 4), and the final classification (Section 4). The source is selected by variability, and variability is also cited as a magnetar-like property, but the magnetar conclusion is not forced by that selection: the paper additionally uses the hard spectrum, the blackbody temperature range, the X-ray-to-optical flux ratio from the Gaia non-detection, the absence of a stellar/SFXT/RPP analogue, the luminosity versus quiescent-luminosity placement on Figure 8 relative to Coti Zelati et al. (2018), the absence of detected pulsations, and the stated Galactic-source assumption. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction: the column density and blackbody temperature are fitted from the spectra and then compared to external magnetar samples, and the luminosity is computed from an assumed 8 kpc distance rather than from a magnetar model. The only self-citations (EXOD, Pastor-Marazuela et al. 2020; Khan et al. in prep; Webbe & Young 2023) are detection and analysis tools and are not invoked as theorems that forbid alternatives. The explicit sentence 'Assuming that this object is a Galactic X-ray source, the most likely candidate class for this combination of flux and luminosity ranges, temporal features and spectral temperatures is a magnetar' is a stated assumption rather than a circular reduction; the paper also acknowledges in Table A1 that power-law models fit comparably well and that the outburst temperature is unconstrained, which are robustness caveats rather than hidden inputs. I therefore find no step in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its conclusions rest on standard astrophysical assumptions about the source's Galactic nature, the applicability of a blackbody spectral model, and the representativeness of the known magnetar sample. The main free parameters are the fitted spectral model parameters and the assumed distance.

free parameters (5)
  • Distance (d) = 8 kpc (assumed; possibly larger up to ~17 kpc)
    Used to convert observed flux to luminosity. The paper adopts 8 kpc as the Galactic centre distance for luminosity estimates, but notes the column density may imply a larger distance.
  • Hydrogen column density (nH) = 0.59-5.71 x 10^22 cm^-2 (epoch-dependent)
    Best-fit absorbed blackbody model parameter; affects flux, luminosity, and temperature estimates. Some values have unbounded upper limits.
  • Blackbody temperature (kT) = 1.80-10.51 keV (epoch-dependent, outburst value unconstrained)
    The spectral temperature is compared with magnetar temperatures; the outburst temperature has an infinite upper error and is poorly constrained.
  • Blackbody normalization (R_bb) = 0.01-0.06 km
    Derived radius of the emitting region; small values are typical when fitting blackbody spectra of neutron stars.
  • HDBSCAN clustering parameters (min cluster size, alpha) = min cluster size = 10 photons, alpha = 0.75
    Chosen by hand to separate flares in the light curve; they determine the number and durations of individual flares.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The source is a Galactic X-ray object.
    Invoked in Section 4: 'Assuming that this object is a Galactic X-ray source...' If false, the inferred luminosities and X-ray-to-optical ratio would not support a magnetar classification.
  • domain assumption The spectral model tbabs * bbodyrad is an adequate description of the X-ray spectra for classification purposes.
    Used throughout Section 3.2 to derive temperature and luminosity. Alternative models (powerlaw, apec, bremsstrahlung) give comparable fit statistics in several epochs, so the blackbody model is not uniquely preferred.
  • domain assumption Known magnetar outburst properties from the literature (e.g., Coti Zelati et al. 2018) are representative and can be used to classify new sources.
    The paper compares the source's flux, luminosity, variability, and anti-correlation to the known magnetar sample (Figures 7 and 8). This assumes the sample is complete enough for such comparisons.
  • domain assumption The absence of a detected optical or infrared counterpart with given survey limits implies the source is not a star or supergiant.
    Uses Gaia, 2MASS, and WISE non-detections to set an upper limit on optical flux and derive log(F_X/F_opt) ~ 2.77. Relies on the survey depth and on the assumption that any stellar companion would be at the same position and within the detection limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 4XMM J175136.8-275858: A New Magnetar Candidate?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3UULNCTY

@misc{pith2026250504206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 4XMM J175136.8-275858: A New Magnetar Candidate?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3UULNCTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04206}
}
abstract

Magnetars are very rare astrophysical objects, with $\sim$31 known to date. They are best understood as highly magnetised neutron stars, but a greater number need to be found to constrain their role in stellar evolution pathways. We apply a novel approach for the detection of fast, transient X-ray sources, using a revised version of the EPIC XMM-Newton Outburst Detector (EXOD) with the aim of detecting and identifying new and rare variable compact objects. We detect a transient, variable source notable for its strong variability and hard spectrum. The emission from 4XMM J175136.8-275858 is well characterised by a blackbody, with temperatures between $\sim$1.8--5\,keV during its lower luminosity phase. Its temperature is poorly constrained during its brightest phase, and we observe an increase in luminosity by two orders of magnitude over timescales of a few ks. This is driven by increased emission of X-rays at energies above 2\,keV, with a luminosity decay potentially over weeks or months. Derived luminosities for 4XJ1751-2759 range up to $\sim10^{35} \text{\,erg s}^{-1}$ at 8\,kpc at the Galactic centre, but neutral hydrogen column densities are greater than predicted Galactic values possibly implying a greater distance to the source, still within our galaxy, further increasing its luminosity. A consideration of optical and IR information in combination with the X-ray observations allow us to exclude the possibility that 4XJ1751-2759 is a star, rotationally powered pulsar or supergiant fast X-ray transient. This rapid, hard, variability is closest to that of outbursts in magnetars than any other known class of X-ray transient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of the source 4XJ1751-2759 as detected by the EPIC pn camera during observation 0886121001 with XMM-Newton. The solid line represents the source region used by the XMM-Newton processing pipeline, with the dashed line delineating the background region used in creating automated timing and spectral products [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 3𝜎 error circle of the X-ray position of 4XJ1751-2759 (white circle), overlaid on a PanSTARRS DR1 colour image of size 30"×24". X-ray position overlaid, created using ESASky6 . There are no optical counterparts within the 3𝜎 X-ray position of the source. There are no Gaia, 2MASS, or WISE catalogue sources within the 3𝜎 X-ray positional error. The closest optically detected source 6 https://sky.esa.int/ is at a dista… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Count rate for the energy range from 0.2–12.0 keV as detected by the XMM-Newton EPIC pn camera during the observation 0886121001. The time is relative to that for the start of the pn camera exposure, and counts are shown in time bins of 20 s. The black solid line shows the background￾corrected source count rate, and the red dashed line shows the background count rate. on sub-second timescales seen in magnetars. Thes… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy dependent behaviour during the outburst detected on 8th October 2022. Panels show the count rate in the bands (a) 0.2-2.0 keV, (b) 2.0-4.5 keV, and (c) 4.5-12.0 keV. The lightcurves begin at 18 ks following the start of the exposure time, as per the pn camera, a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectrum of the source 4XJ1751-2759 during the outburst period seen in observation 0886121001, and during the quiescent period throughout observation 0886080801. The black data points represent the spectrum of the source during observation 0886080801, and associated er…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated flux of 4XJ1751-2759 in the 2.0-10.0 keV band as a function of distance. We overlay the typical fluxes seen in stellar flaring activity and during magnetar outbursts. The solid blue line shows the flux during the outburst detected on 8th October 2022, and the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quiescent X-ray luminosity for confirmed and candidate magnetar sources, and 4XJ1751-2759 in comparison with the proportional increase in X-ray luminosity during outbursts. The outburst details for known or candidate magnetars are plotted as red circles, using the data…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 14 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]

    M., Archibald R., Cumming A., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/82 , 763, 82

    An H., Kaspi V. M., Archibald R., Cumming A., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/82 , 763, 82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/82 2013

  3. [3]

    A., 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, A.S.P

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, A.S.P. Conference Series, 101, 17

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    ascl:1805.019

    Bachetti M., 2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1805.019

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    Becker W., Truemper J., 1997, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708169 , 326, 682

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9708169 1997

  7. [7]

    Borghese A., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1236 , 504, 5244

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1236 2021

  8. [8]

    Cash W., 1979, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/156922 , 228, 939

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    L., et al., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/183221 , 237, L1

    Cline T. L., et al., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/183221 , 237, L1

    1980 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Campana S., Esposito P., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2679 , 474, 961

    Coti Zelati F., Rea N., Pons J. A., Campana S., Esposito P., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2679 , 474, 961

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    M., et al., 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, II/246

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, II/246

    2003

  4. [12]

    M., Scholz P., Gavriil F

    Dib R., Kaspi V. M., Scholz P., Gavriil F. P., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/3 , 748, 3

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    H., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/529017 , 680, 1394

    Durant M., van Kerkwijk M. H., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/529017 , 680, 1394

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    G., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/77 , 742, 77

    Durant M., Kargaltsev O., Pavlov G. G., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/77 , 742, 77

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    D., et al., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/183222 , 237, L7

    Evans W. D., et al., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/183222 , 237, L7

    1980 doi

  8. [16]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9 , 247, 54

    Evans P. A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9 , 247, 54

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Antoniou V., Dubus G., 2023, High-mass X -ray Binaries , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2308.02645 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02645

    Fornasini F. M., Antoniou V., Dubus G., 2023, High-mass X -ray Binaries , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2308.02645 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02645

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration 2022, @doi [VizieR Online Data Catalog] 10.26093/cds/vizier.1355 , 1355, I/355

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Goldstein A., et al., 2019, Updates to the Fermi GBM Targeted Sub -threshold Search in Preparation for the Third Observing Run of LIGO / Virgo , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1903.12597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190312597G

    2019 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    V., Halpern J

    Gotthelf E. V., Halpern J. P., Buxton M., Bailyn C., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/382232 , 605, 368

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    Göğüş E., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8205/829/2/L25 , 829, L25

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Kouveliotou C., van Paradijs J., Briggs M

    Göǧüş E., Woods P. M., Kouveliotou C., van Paradijs J., Briggs M. S., Duncan R. C., Thompson C., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/312583 , 532, L121

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , 594, A116

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Huang R. H. H., Becker W., Edmonds P. D., Elsner R. F., Heinke C. O., Hsieh B. C., 2010, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811245 , 513, A16

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    Huppenkothen D., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d , 881, 39

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Hurley K., et al., 1999, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/16199 , 397, 41

    1999 doi

  19. [27]

    Hurley K., et al., 2005, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature03519 , 434, 1098

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17001.x , 408, 1387

    Israel G. L., et al., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17001.x , 408, 1387

    2010

  21. [29]

    M., Stelzer B., Magaudda E., Martínez T

    Joseph W. M., Stelzer B., Magaudda E., Martínez T. V., 2024, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449405 , 688, A49

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Beloborodov A

    Kaspi V. M., Beloborodov A. M., 2017, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329 , 55, 261

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Kramer M., 2016, Radio Pulsars : The Neutron Star Population & Fundamental Physics , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1602.07738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160207738K

    Kaspi V. M., Kramer M., 2016, Radio Pulsars : The Neutron Star Population & Fundamental Physics , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1602.07738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160207738K

    2016 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    M., Gavriil F

    Kaspi V. M., Gavriil F. P., Woods P. M., Jensen J. B., Roberts M. S. E., Chakrabarty D., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/375683 , 588, L93

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    F., 2024, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-024-00039-4 , 21, 1

    Kowalski A. F., 2024, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-024-00039-4 , 21, 1

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Lyutikov M., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07110.x , 346, 540

    2003

  27. [35]

    M., Wolter A., Zamorani G., Stocke J

    Maccacaro T., Gioia I. M., Wolter A., Zamorani G., Stocke J. T., 1988, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/166127 , 326, 680

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    Maehara H., et al., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature11063 , 485, 478

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Mereghetti S., 1999, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911252 , pp astro--ph/9911252

    1999 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mondal T., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfb75 , 913, L12

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Motta S

    Muñoz-Darias T., Fender R. P., Motta S. E., Belloni T. M., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1334 , 443, 3270

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Hertz P., Wood K

    Norris J. P., Hertz P., Wood K. S., Kouveliotou C., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/169556 , 366, 240

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Kaspi V

    Olausen S. A., Kaspi V. M., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6 , 212, 6

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Wojtowicz D

    Pastor-Marazuela I., Webb N. A., Wojtowicz D. T., van Leeuwen J., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936869 , 640, A124

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Rosen S., Fyfe D., Schröder A

    Pye J. P., Rosen S., Fyfe D., Schröder A. C., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526217 , 581, A28

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Rea N., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/65 , 770, 65

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , 44, 49

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rigoselli M., Mereghetti S., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732408 , 615, A73

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Rigoselli M., Mereghetti S., Anzuinelli S., Keith M., Taverna R., Turolla R., Zane S., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1130 , 513, 3113

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Sakamoto T., et al., 2011, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2010.08.004 , 47, 1346

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Schmitt J. H. M. M., Czesla S., Schneider P. C., Freund S., Robrade J., 2022, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142876 , 661, A88

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Y., Livingstone M

    Scholz P., Ng C. Y., Livingstone M. A., Kaspi V. M., Cumming A., Archibald R. F., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/66 , 761, 66

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    Sidoli L., 2017, @doi [XII Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources Workshop] 10.22323/1.306.0052 , pp 1--14

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Gavriil F

    Tam C. R., Gavriil F. P., Dib R., Kaspi V. M., Woods P. M., Bassa C., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/528368 , 677, 503

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    C., 1995, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255 , 275, 255

    Thompson C., Duncan R. C., 1995, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255 , 275, 255

    1995 doi

  46. [54]

    C., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/323256 , 561, 980

    Thompson C., Duncan R. C., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/323256 , 561, 980

    2001 doi

  47. [55]

    Tsuboi Y., et al., 2016, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psw081 , 68, 90

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    I., Jenkins J

    Vines J. I., Jenkins J. S., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac956 , 513, 2719

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Leahy D., Guillot S., d’Etivaux N

    Webb N. A., Leahy D., Guillot S., d’Etivaux N. B., Barret D., Guillemot L., Margueron J., Miller M. C., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732040 , 627, A141

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 , 641, A136

    Webb N. A., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 , 641, A136

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    J., 2023, @doi [RAS Techniques and Instruments] 10.1093/rasti/rzad015 , 2, 238

    Webbe R., Young A. J., 2023, @doi [RAS Techniques and Instruments] 10.1093/rasti/rzad015 , 2, 238

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    E., Pavlov G

    Zavlin V. E., Pavlov G. G., Shibanov Y. A., 1996, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9604072 , 315, 141

    1996 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/122 , 749, 122

    van der Horst A. J., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/122 , 749, 122

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.