Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Is the Fermi source 4FGL J1824.2+1231 a transitional millisecond pulsar?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the unassociated gamma-ray source 4FGL J1824.2+1231 is a promising transitional millisecond pulsar candidate, whose likely X-ray/optical counterpart shows all the spectral and variability hallmarks of the…

desk verdict A solid, carefully hedged tMSP candidate identification; the missing chance-coincidence probability is a fixable gap, not a fatal one. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21142 v1 pith:2A5AG465 submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.HE

D. A. Zyuzin , A. V. Karpova , A. Yu. Kirichenko , Yu. A. Shibanov , I. F. Bikmaev , M. R. Gilfanov , E. N. Irtuganov , M. A. Gorbachev
show 4 more authors
M. V. Suslikov R. Karimov M. M. Veryazov M. Pereyra
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords transitionalmillisecondpulsargamma-raysourceX-raycounterpartopticalemissionlinesaccretiondiskunassociatedFermi
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the unassociated gamma-ray source 4FGL J1824.2+1231 is a transitional millisecond pulsar, a neutron star that switches between a rotation-powered radio pulsar and an accretion-powered X-ray state. It finds a single X-ray source inside the Fermi error ellipse, with an optical counterpart showing strong variability, significant proper motion, and double-peaked hydrogen and helium emission lines typical of an accretion disk. The X-ray spectrum is a power law with photon index $\Gamma\approx 1.7$ and the X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio is about $F_X/F_\gamma\approx 0.2$, both matching the subluminous disk state of the three known tMSPs. The paper concludes that if the X-ray/optical source is the true counterpart, then all of its properties point to a tMSP in that state, making J1824 a promising new candidate.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio $F_X/F_\gamma\approx 0.2$ plotted against the X-ray photon index $\Gamma\approx 1.7$, a parameter space that separates tMSPs in the subluminous disk state from redbacks and pulsar-state sources, adopted from the Miller et al. comparison sample. Around this sit the supporting signatures: double-peaked Doppler-broadened H and He emission lines from the accretion disk, rapid optical flickering with hour-long flares, significant proper motion, and the absence of X-ray variability within the short available exposures.

What would settle it

A high-resolution X-ray observation that resolves the 3.6-arcsecond error circle into two sources, one coinciding with the optical object and one not, or a gamma-ray localization (such as millisecond pulsations in Fermi-LAT data) that places the gamma-ray emission elsewhere in the ellipse, would directly falsify the counterpart association on which the tMSP classification rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the likely X-ray/optical counterpart to 4FGL J1824.2+1231 is SRGe J182408.9+123234 with optical counterpart PSO J276.0370+12.5426, a Galactic source at 1.3-3.8 kpc whose rapid optical flickering and flares, double-peaked H and He emission lines, X-ray photon index $\Gamma\approx 1.74$, and X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio $F_X/F_\gamma = 0.21\pm0.08$ reproduce the multiwavelength fingerprint of a tMSP in the subluminous disk state. The authors stress the conditional nature of the identification: if the X-ray source is indeed the gamma-ray emitter, the classification follows, but it remains a promising candidate until a transition to the pulsar state or X-ray bimodality is observed.

Load-bearing premise

That the lone X-ray source found inside the Fermi error ellipse is the actual emitter of the gamma rays from 4FGL J1824.2+1231; no chance-coincidence probability is computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the association holds, J1824 becomes a fourth tMSP candidate in the subluminous disk state, expanding the small sample that anchors the evolutionary link between low-mass X-ray binaries and radio millisecond pulsars.
  • The source's position on the $F_X/F_\gamma$ versus $\Gamma$ diagram places it in the disk-state region, so future X-ray monitoring should search for the high/low mode switches that are a unique marker of tMSPs.
  • Optical monitoring is the proposed path to catch a transition to the pulsar state, which would convert the candidate into a confirmed tMSP.
  • An independent study reported by Kyer et al. reached compatible conclusions, reinforcing the likelihood that this source is a genuine subluminous-disk-state tMSP.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If J1824 is confirmed, it would suggest that a sizable fraction of the roughly 2600 unassociated Fermi sources could host tMSPs, since the discovery relied only on catalog cross-matching plus follow-up of a single X-ray source.
  • The measured ~630 km/s peak separation in the double-peaked emission lines could be used to estimate the projected Keplerian velocity of the accretion disk and, combined with future radial-velocity curves, to constrain the binary mass ratio.
  • The lack of detected X-ray bimodality may simply reflect the short sub-kilosecond exposures; longer monitoring could reveal the high/low mode switches expected for a tMSP.
  • If the hour-long optical flares trace the pulsar's interaction with inflowing plasma, this system could serve as a natural laboratory for studying the disk-pulsar transition in real time.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches for the multiwavelength counterpart of the unassociated Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1824.2+1231. Using eROSITA and Swift X-ray catalogues together with Pan-STARRS, Gaia, ZTF, WISE, and GALEX data, the authors find a unique X-ray source inside the Fermi 68% error ellipse, SRGe J182408.9+123234, with a plausible optical counterpart, and propose it as the likely counterpart. They present new time-series photometry from OAN-SPM, Maidanak, and RTT-150, and optical spectroscopy from RTT-150 and Gemini-North. The optical source shows strong variability and significant proper motion, and its spectra show double-peaked H and He emission lines; the X-ray spectrum is fit by a power law with photon index 1.74 +/- 0.19, and the X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio is 0.21 +/- 0.08. The authors conclude that, if the X-ray/optical source is the true counterpart, its properties suggest a tMSP in the subluminous disk state, and they propose J1824 as a promising candidate while explicitly acknowledging that a cataclysmic variable cannot be completely excluded and that confirmation requires future observations.

Significance. If the proposed association with 4FGL J1824.2+1231 is correct, the paper adds a valuable new candidate to the small sample of transitional millisecond pulsars. The work is useful in combining archival data with new multi-site photometry and spectroscopy, and the authors are careful to state the conditional nature of their classification. The paper is transparent about its limitations: low X-ray photon statistics, absence of detected orbital modulation or bimodality, and the CV alternative. It also places the measured X-ray flux ratio and photon index in the published tMSP parameter space, which is a constructive way to frame the result. The main deficit is that the load-bearing X-ray/gamma-ray association is asserted on the basis of positional uniqueness inside a 68% containment ellipse without a quantified chance-coincidence probability, so the strength of the central claim is currently hard to evaluate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The identification of SRGe J182408.9+123234 as the counterpart of 4FGL J1824.2+1231 is the foundation of the paper, but no chance-coincidence probability is provided. The Fermi 68% error ellipse is only a containment region: there is a 32% chance that the true gamma-ray position lies outside it, and the search does not cover the 95% ellipse. Please compute the expected number of unrelated X-ray sources inside the adopted ellipse from the local eROSITA and Swift source density and report the Poisson probability that the observed source is a chance coincidence; if possible, repeat the search in the 95% error region. This is essential because all subsequent quantities, including FX/Fgamma and the derived luminosities, assume the association.
  2. [Section 5] The CV alternative is acknowledged but is ultimately discounted in part by arguing that few CVs are gamma-ray emitters. This argument is only as strong as the gamma-ray association itself; if the chance-coincidence probability is not quantified, then the claim that J1824 is a 'promising tMSP candidate' relies on an association that has not been independently tested. Please make explicit how the gamma-ray detection strengthens the tMSP interpretation relative to the X-ray and optical evidence alone, and ideally quantify the posterior odds of the association.
  3. [Section 4.3] The X-ray spectral fit is based on only 28 and 83 net counts from Swift/XRT and eROSITA, with the absorption column fixed to the maximum reddening value in the source direction. The resulting photon index of 1.74 +/- 0.19 is typical of several classes of accreting sources, not only tMSPs. Given the low count statistics, please show confidence contours for the spectral parameters or a fit with NH free, and state explicitly how much of the tMSP-versus-CV discrimination is contributed by the X-ray spectrum alone as opposed to the gamma-ray association.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] In the first paragraph, 'accreation' should be spelled 'accretion'.
  2. [Section 4.1] The photometric light-curve figures do not show error bars; please clarify whether the error bars are smaller than the plotted symbols or were omitted for clarity.
  3. [Section 4.2] The Gaia colour G_BP - G_RP = 1.43 mag is quoted without an uncertainty; please provide the formal uncertainty or state that it is negligible for the argument.
  4. [Figure 8] The figure caption says the spectra were grouped to at least 3 counts per bin for display, while the fit used bins with at least 1 count per bin; please state this distinction explicitly in the text so that readers do not conflate the two groupings.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence 'The reddening quickly increases with the distance and reaches its maximum at about 1.45 kpc, which is close to the lower limit on the distance of the source' is slightly ambiguous because the adopted E(B-V) is the maximum value in the source direction; please clarify whether this choice is conservative for the X-ray absorption correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tMSP classification rests on independent measured quantities compared with external tMSP parameter space, not on a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is explicitly conditional ("If the X-ray/optical source is the true counterpart to 4FGL J1824.2+1231, then all its properties suggest that it is a tMSP in the subluminous disk state"), and the classification logic is a comparison of independently measured quantities (Fermi catalog gamma-ray flux, fitted X-ray photon index and flux, optical variability and emission-line properties) against published tMSP parameter space from Papitto & de Martino 2022 and Miller et al. 2020. The X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio is computed from two independent measurements, not recovered from a fitted parameter. The only author-overlapping citation found is Kolbin et al. 2024, used to note that polars and intermediate polars show prolonged low-emission states; this is peripheral to the tMSP conclusion and not load-bearing. The absence of a chance-coincidence probability for the X-ray counterpart inside the Fermi 68% ellipse is a real association weakness, but it is an observational identification uncertainty, not a circular derivation step. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the target conclusion, so the chain of reasoning is self-contained apart from standard external anchoring in the literature.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the positional association and on literature-based classification criteria; the main fitted parameters are the X-ray photon index and flux used to compute the X-ray-to-gamma-ray ratio, plus the adopted reddening. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Interstellar reddening E(B-V) = 0.14 mag (adopted maximum in source direction)
    Chosen as the maximal line-of-sight value from the 3D dust map (Green et al. 2019), fixed in X-ray fitting to set NH = 1.2e21 cm^-2; affects the unabsorbed X-ray flux and hence FX/Fgamma.
  • X-ray photon index Gamma = 1.74 +/- 0.19
    Fitted jointly to Swift/XRT and eROSITA spectra; this value is central to the tMSP classification because tMSPs in the subluminous disk state show Gamma ~ 1.7.
  • Power-law normalization (unabsorbed 0.5-10 keV flux) = FX = 5.8(+1.2,-1.0) x 10^-13 erg s^-1 cm^-2
    Fitted jointly to the X-ray spectra; used to compute the X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio of 0.21 and the claimed X-ray luminosity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The only X-ray source inside the Fermi 68% error ellipse is the true gamma-ray counterpart to 4FGL J1824.2+1231.
    No chance-coincidence probability is computed; all subsequent classification depends on this positional identification (Section 2, first paragraph).
  • domain assumption The Pan-STARRS optical source PSO J276.0370+12.5426 is the same physical object as the X-ray source.
    Spatial coincidence within the X-ray 98% uncertainty circle, with no discussion of chance alignment (Section 2, second paragraph).
  • domain assumption The Gaia proper motion of 18.5 mas/yr indicates a Galactic source.
    Used to argue the source cannot be a background extragalactic object; this is a standard astrophysical inference from large proper motion.
  • domain assumption E(B-V) = 0.14 mag is the maximum reddening along the line of sight and is used to fix the X-ray absorption column.
    The paper adopts the maximum value from the 3D dust map and converts it to NH via Foight et al. (2016); the systematic uncertainty from this choice is not propagated into the final flux ratio (Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
  • domain assumption The classification criteria for tMSPs in the subluminous disk state from Papitto & de Martino (2022) and Miller et al. (2020) are correct and applicable.
    The conclusion depends on this literature parameter space, specifically the photon index ~1.7 and FX/Fgamma ~ 0.2 signature shown in Fig. 9.
  • domain assumption Few cataclysmic variables are gamma-ray emitters, so a CV interpretation is unlikely for a source associated with a Fermi object.
    Used to exclude the main alternative classification; the paper notes the two confirmed tMSPs were initially classified as CVs, making this exclusion less secure than it might appear (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is the Fermi source 4FGL J1824.2+1231 a transitional millisecond pulsar?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2A5AG465

@misc{pith2026250521142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is the Fermi source 4FGL J1824.2+1231 a transitional millisecond pulsar?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2A5AG465}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21142}
}
read the original abstract

Transitional millisecond pulsars (tMSPs) in tight binary systems represent an important evolutionary link between low-mass X-ray binaries and radio millisecond pulsars. To date, only three confirmed tMSPs and a few candidates have been discovered. Most of them are gamma-ray sources. For this reason, searching for multiwavelength counterparts to unassociated Fermi gamma-ray sources can help to find new tMSPs. Here we investigate whether the unassociated gamma-ray source 4FGL J1824.2+1231 belongs to the tMSP family. To find the counterpart to 4FGL J1824.2+1231, we used data from SRG/eROSITA and Swift X-ray catalogues, and from different optical catalogues. We also performed time-series photometric optical observations of the source with the 2.1-m telescope of the Observatorio Astronomico Nacional San Pedro Martir, the 1.5-m telescope of the Maidanak Astronomical Observatory and the 1.5-m Russian-Turkish telescope. In addition, we carried out optical spectroscopic observations with the Russian-Turkish telescope and used archival spectroscopic data obtained with the Gemini-North telescope. Within the position error ellipse of 4FGL J1824.2+1231, we found only one X-ray source which coincides with an optical object. We consider it as a likely multiwavelength counterpart to 4FGL J1824.2+1231. The source shows strong optical variability and significant proper motion. The latter strongly implies that this is a Galactic source. Double-peaked H and He emission lines are detected in its spectrum with a flat continuum, as often observed in accretion disks of compact binary systems. The X-ray spectrum is well fitted by a power law with the photon index 1.7. The derived intrinsic X-ray-to-gamma-ray flux ratio is about 0.2. If the X-ray/optical source is the true counterpart to 4FGL J1824.2+1231, then all its properties suggest that it is a tMSP in the subluminous disk state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of the J1824 field. Left: 20′ × 20′ eROSITA image in the 0.3–2.3 keV range. The J1824 γ-ray position is marked by the cross while the ellipse shows the 68% position uncertainty. The likely X-ray counterpart of J1824 is marked by the arrow. Right: 1′ × 1 ′ Pan-STARRS image in the r band. The circle shows the 98% position uncertainty of the X-ray source obtained with eROSITA. The likely optical counterpart is s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical light curves of the J1824 counterpart candidate based on the data from the Pan-STARRS (PS) and ZTF catalogs in different filters indicated in the legend. May, June and September 2023. The field of view (FoV) of the de￾tector is 6′ × 6 ′ with an image scale of 0. ′′34 in the 2×2 CCD pixel binning mode. The photometric calibration was performed using the Landolt standards SA 109-949, 954, 956 (Landolt 1992). 3… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heliocentric light curves of the likely optical companion to J1824 obtained with the OAN-SPM (dots) and Maidanak (triangles) telescopes in the V band on different dates indicated in the panels. The dashed line shows the level of the possible stable state of the source (V = 20.0 mag) which is the median magnitude defined excluding flaring episodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heliocentric light curves of the likely optical companion to J1824 obtained with the RTT-150 (squares; top and bottom panels) and OAN￾SPM (dots; middle panel) telescopes on different dates indicated in the panels. G, B and R-band magnitudes are given in the Vega system…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Unabsorbed optical spectra of the likely optical counterpart to J1824 obtained with RTT-150 on different dates. Positions of H and He lines are shown. 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 Wavelength [˚A] 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 Flux density [10 −16 e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Unabsorbed optical spectrum of the likely optical counterpart to J1824 obtained with the Gemini-North. Positions of H and He lines are shown. In the insets, the zoomed-in regions around He I 7065 and Pa 11 lines are presented. The separations between the two peaks are …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: X-ray light curves of the likely counterpart to J1824 obtained with Swift/XRT and SRG/eROSITA. 105 104 103 0.01 0.1 counts s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: X-ray spectrum of the J1824 likely counterpart obtained with eROSITA and Swift, the best-fitting PL model (top panel) and residuals (bottom panel). For illustrative purposes, the spectra were grouped to ensure at least 3 counts per bin. ≲2σ level5 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ratio of X-ray to γ-ray flux vs X-ray photon index for tMSPs or their candidates in the subluminous disk state (blue squares) and RBs or tMSPs in the pulsar regime (orange circles; adopted from Miller et al. 2020). The position of J1824 is shown by the magenta triangle…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Cheng, A

    Alpar, M. A., Cheng, A. F., Ruderman, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1982, Nature, 300, 728

    1982

  2. [2]

    M., Stairs, I

    Archibald, A. M., Stairs, I. H., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2009, Science, 324, 1411

    2009

  3. [3]

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

    1996

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  5. [5]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    G., Patruno, A., Hessels, J

    Bassa, C. G., Patruno, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1825

    2014

  7. [7]

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. & Komberg, B. V . 1974, Soviet Astronomy, 18, 217

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 28

    Bogdanov, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 28

    2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    T., Miller-Jones, J

    Bogdanov, S., Deller, A. T., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 54 Article number, page 8 of 9 Zyuzin et al.: Is 4FGL J1824.2+1231 a tMSP?

    2018

  2. [10]

    E., White, R

    Bond, H. E., White, R. L., Becker, R. H., & O’Brien, M. S. 2002, PASP, 114, 1359

    2002

  3. [11]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939 Coti Zelati, F., Papitto, A., de Martino, D., et al

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939 Coti Zelati, F., Papitto, A., de Martino, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A211

    1979

  4. [12]

    E., Shaw, A

    Covington, A. E., Shaw, A. W., Mukai, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 164

    2022

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127

    Doroshenko, V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177

    2009

  7. [15]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 174

    2023

  8. [16]

    P., Padmanabhan, N., Schlegel, D

    Finkbeiner, D. P., Padmanabhan, N., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2577

    2004

  9. [17]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7

    2020

  10. [18]

    R., Güver, T., Özel, F., & Slane, P

    Foight, D. R., Güver, T., Özel, F., & Slane, P. O. 2016, ApJ, 826, 66 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2016

  11. [19]

    Galazutdinov, G. A. 2022, Astrophysical Bulletin, 77, 519

    2022

  12. [20]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

    2019

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Kerby, S., Kaur, A., Falcone, A. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 75

    2021

  14. [22]

    I., Karpova, A

    Kolbin, A. I., Karpova, A. V ., Suslikov, M. V ., et al. 2024, Astronomy Letters, 50, 351

    2024

  15. [23]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 112

    Kyer, R., Roy, S., Strader, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 112

    2025

  16. [24]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214

    Labrie, K., Simpson, C., Cardenes, R., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214

    2023

  17. [25]

    Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340

    1992

  18. [26]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  19. [27]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L1

    2005

  20. [28]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  21. [29]

    2006, A&A, 459, 21

    Masetti, N., Morelli, L., Palazzi, E., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 21

    2006

  22. [30]

    Mason, P. A. & Santana, J. B. 2015, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects - III (Golden2015), 16

    2015

  23. [31]

    Mayer, M. G. F. & Becker, W. 2024, A&A, 684, A208

    2024

  24. [32]

    J., Madzime, S

    Meintjes, P. J., Madzime, S. T., Kaplan, Q., & van Heerden, H. J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 14

    2023

  25. [33]

    M., Swihart, S

    Miller, J. M., Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 49

    2020

  26. [34]

    2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1202

    Ness, J.-U. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1202

    2020

  27. [35]

    & de Martino, D

    Papitto, A. & de Martino, D. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. S. Bhattacharyya, A. Papitto, & D. Bhattacharya, 157–200

    2022

  28. [36]

    2013, Nature, 501, 517

    Papitto, A., Ferrigno, C., Bozzo, E., et al. 2013, Nature, 501, 517

    2013

  29. [37]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    2021

  30. [38]

    Roberts, M. S. E. 2013, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 291, Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van Leeuwen, 127–132

    2013

  31. [39]

    Rodriguez, A. C. 2024, PASP, 136, 054201

    2024

  32. [40]

    S., Bhattacharyya, B., et al

    Roy, J., Ray, P. S., Bhattacharyya, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, L12

    2015

  33. [41]

    P., De Luca, A., et al

    Salvetti, D., Mignani, R. P., De Luca, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 466

    2017

  34. [42]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  35. [43]

    V ., Johnson, T

    Sokolovsky, K. V ., Johnson, T. J., Buson, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5453

    2023

  36. [44]

    V ., Li, K.-L., Lopes de Oliveira, R., et al

    Sokolovsky, K. V ., Li, K.-L., Lopes de Oliveira, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2239

    2022

  37. [45]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 89

    Strader, J., Li, K.-L., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 89

    2016

  38. [46]

    J., Urquhart, R., et al

    Strader, J., Swihart, S. J., Urquhart, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 69

    2021

  39. [47]

    2021, A&A, 656, A132

    Sunyaev, R., Arefiev, V ., Babyshkin, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A132

    2021

  40. [48]

    J., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 199

    2022

  41. [49]

    1997, in Accretion Disks - New Aspects, ed

    Tanaka, Y . 1997, in Accretion Disks - New Aspects, ed. E. Meyer-Hofmeister & H. Spruit, V ol. 487, 1

    1997

  42. [50]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Con- ference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Con- ference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  43. [51]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  44. [52]

    2000, MNRAS, 319, 771

    Wegner, W. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 771

    2000

  45. [53]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914 Article number, page 9 of 9

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.