Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Detailed Time Resolved Spectral and Temporal Investigations of SGR J1550-5418 Bursts Detected with Fermi/Gamma-ray Burst Monitor

T0 review · 4 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 Using hardness-ratio light curves, this paper identifies five candidate quasi-periodic spectral oscillations in SGR J1550-5418 bursts, at about 15-68 Hz, with the strongest at 15.73 Hz and p = 0.0001.

desk verdict A solid time-resolved spectral study whose QPSO candidates are under-supported by the quoted statistics; only the red-noise-corrected candidate may survive a global trials correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04414 v1 pith:HEYEK4LJ submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.HE

Mustafa Demirer , Ersin Göğüş , Yuki Kaneko , Özge Keskin , Sinem Şaşmaz , Shotaro Yamasaki This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarsSGRJ1550-5418quasi-periodicspectraloscillationshardnessratiotime-resolvedspectroscopyk-meansclusteringFermiGamma-rayBurstMonitorX-raybursts
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 reports a time-resolved spectral and timing study of 44 bright bursts from the magnetar SGR J1550-5418, using a clustering-based segmentation method that replaces fixed or signal-to-noise time bins with segments defined by spectral change points. It finds that nearly all burst spectra are well described by a power law with an exponential cutoff (COMPT), with the peak energy in the νFν spectrum (Epeak) and the photon index following Gaussians centered near 30 keV and -0.5. The paper's new claim is the identification of five potential quasi-periodic spectral oscillations (QPSOs), meaning repeated variations in spectral hardness, in the hardness-ratio evolution of the bursts, with frequencies between about 15 and 68 Hz; the strongest, QPSOb at 15.73 Hz, has a wavelet-based chance probability of 0.0001 under a red-noise model. If these oscillations are real, they would be the first QPSOs reported for this magnetar and would suggest that the spectral oscillation phenomenon seen in SGR J1935+2154 is not unique.

What carries the argument

Two procedures carry the argument. First, spectral segmentation: overlapping time segments of at least 1200 background-subtracted counts are fit with COMPT, BB+BB, and MBB-RCS models; the COMPT parameters Epeak and photon index, together with segment midpoint times, are fed to k-means clustering, whose cluster boundaries define non-overlapping segments of varying length that mark genuine spectral change points. Second, the QPSO search: for each burst the hardness ratio HR = counts(Epiv−200 keV)/counts(8−Epiv) is built at 4 ms resolution for 16 pivot energies Epiv, detrended with a cubic polynomial, and searched between 10 and 250 Hz with both a Lomb-Scargle periodogram (with Baluev false-alarm probabilities) and the weighted wavelet Z-transform; for the red-noise-dominated QPSOb, significance is reassessed with the Torrence and Compo wavelet method. The key identity is the use of hardness ratio as a proxy for Epeak, justified by the near-constant photon index and validated on SGR J1935+2154 data.

What would settle it

Re-run the wavelet and Lomb-Scargle searches on simulated red-noise hardness-ratio light curves matched burst-by-burst in duration, sampling, and count statistics, applying the same 16-pivot scan and 10-250 Hz frequency grid, and count how often peaks as strong as the five reported ones appear anywhere in the search; if that global rate matches or exceeds the quoted p-values, the candidates should be regarded as noise. A simpler check: apply the same pipeline to the same bursts after randomizing the hardness-ratio phase ordering, and see whether any candidate survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the authors seek to establish is that SGR J1550-5418, a magnetar that emitted hundreds of bursts in 2008-2009, shows quasi-periodic oscillations not only in its light curves but in the spectral hardness of its bursts. Because the bursts yield too few spectral segments to track Epeak directly, the authors use the hardness ratio between counts above and below a pivot energy, scanning pivots from 15 to 30 keV, and analyse the detrended hardness curves with a Lomb-Scargle periodogram and a weighted wavelet transform. They report five candidate oscillations at 15.2-67.8 Hz across five bursts, each with coherence Q > 2 and single-trial p-values between 0.0001 and 0.13; the most secure candidate, QPSOb, is a 15.73 Hz oscillation in the brightest unsaturated burst, with p = 0.0001 computed with a red-noise wavelet method. The accompanying spectral analysis establishes that COMPT is the preferred model for about 93-95% of time segments, with Epeak distributed as a Gaussian of mean about 30 keV and photon index about -0.5, and that the BB+BB and MBB-RCS thermal parameters follow the distributions summarized in the paper.

Load-bearing premise

The QPSO claim rests on treating each candidate's p-value as a single pre-chosen trial even though the analysis scanned 44 bursts, 16 pivot energies, and the 10-250 Hz band; without a correction for those many trials, several of the five candidates could be chance fluctuations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the QPSO candidates are real, SGR J1550-5418 becomes the second magnetar with quasi-periodic spectral oscillations, so the phenomenon is not unique to SGR J1935+2154.
  • The clustering of three candidates near 28 Hz, with one at about 15 Hz and one near 60 Hz, suggests a possible harmonic or subharmonic pattern, with roughly 28 Hz as a fundamental.
  • Under the flux-tube acoustic model, the observed frequencies translate to flux-tube lengths of roughly 90-260 neutron-star radii, giving a geometric probe of the burst emission region.
  • The spectral analysis confirms COMPT as the dominant emission model and shows that the Epeak-flux relation in this source is consistent with a single power law, placing a constraint on the earlier broken-power-law interpretation.
  • The success of hardness-ratio oscillations in tracking spectral variations means future QPSO searches need not require long, individually fit Epeak light curves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the quoted p-values are single-trial and the search scanned 44 bursts at 16 pivot energies, the expected number of chance peaks with p < 0.13 is substantial; a global false-discovery correction might leave only QPSOb standing.
  • Editorial inference: if the ~28 Hz frequency is reproducible in future bursts from this source and from SGR J1935+2154's ~42 Hz, the ratio between the two sources' fundamental frequencies could encode a structural property such as magnetic field or crust thickness, a test that requires more bursts.
  • Editorial inference: the same hardness-ratio pipeline could be applied to the full 386-burst catalog, including weaker bursts, to estimate the true QPSO occurrence rate; the prediction is that the rate is low, on the order of a few percent, if the five candidates are real but partially spurious.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a time-resolved spectral and temporal analysis of bright bursts from SGR J1550-5418 observed with Fermi/GBM. The authors use a two-stage approach: first fitting overlapping time segments, then applying k-means clustering to define non-overlapping segments, and fitting COMPT, BB+BB, and MBB-RCS models. They report Gaussian distributions of COMPT Epeak and photon index, correlations among BB+BB temperatures, and MBB-RCS temperature behavior. The final part searches for quasi-periodic spectral oscillations (QPSOs) using hardness-ratio light curves and reports five candidate QPSOs at frequencies between about 15 and 68 Hz.

Significance. If the QPSO candidates are real, this would be the first systematic report of quasi-periodic spectral oscillations in SGR J1550-5418 and would extend the QPSO phenomenon beyond SGR J1935+2154, with implications for magnetar flux-tube models. The spectral analysis is methodologically careful in several respects: the use of C-stat with the Kaastra correction, BIC-based model comparison, jackknife resampling for break-point stability, and fitting of three physically distinct spectral models. The analysis uses public Fermi/GBM data and is broadly reproducible. However, the QPSO search currently lacks a global statistical treatment, and several of the reported candidates rest on per-trial p-values that are not corrected for the large search volume. The central new claim therefore needs additional support before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1]
  2. [Section 4, QPSOb paragraph and Table 1]
  3. [Section 4, hardness ratio validation]
  4. [Section 5, harmonic interpretation]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1]
  2. [Section 5, last paragraph]
  3. [Section 4, LSP description]
  4. [Section 3.2, COMPT correlation]
  5. [Figure 6]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral fits and QPSO search are conducted against public Fermi/GBM data with independent statistical methods, and the self-citations used are methodological or model citations, not load-bearing proofs of the paper's claims.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The clustering-based segmentation (Keskin et al. 2024) is a methodology citation; it does not assert a result that the paper then 'predicts.' The MBB-RCS model (Yamasaki et al. 2020) is applied as an external spectral model, and its R2-kT comparison is a model-parameter trend, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The QPSO search uses hardness ratios; the claim that HR tracks Epeak is tested independently on SGR J1935+2154 data, where the authors recover the Roberts et al. (2023) frequency, so the premise is not defined in terms of the SGR J1550-5418 claim. No equation in the paper reduces to another by construction: the Lomb-Scargle and wavelet significances are computed from the HR time series, and the frequencies in Table 1 are peak positions from periodograms, not parameters fit to the same data used to define the claim. The absence of a global trials correction for the 16-pivot and 74-burst search is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity: the quoted p-values are still computed from the data, and overcorrecting or undercorrecting them does not make the search equivalent to its inputs. Self-citations (Keskin et al. 2024; Yamasaki et al. 2020) are used for technique and model context, and the central spectral and QPSO results remain independently testable from the same public data.

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

The paper does not derive new physics from first principles; it fits standard spectral models to public data and searches for periodicities. The main free parameters are analysis choices: the count threshold, the k-means cluster number, the QPSO pivot energy (scanned, not fixed), and the wavelet window. The physical assumptions are the applicability of the three spectral models, the constant-photon-index assumption that lets hardness ratio stand in for Epeak, and the standard statistics used for significance. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • 1200-count threshold = 1200 background-subtracted counts
    Selection threshold for burst inclusion, adopted from Keskin et al. (2024); affects sample size (74 of 386 bursts).
  • Cluster number k for k-means = 2 to 9 per burst, mean 3
    Chosen from inertia-versus-k graph in Keskin et al. (2024); determines non-overlapping time segments.
  • QPSO pivot energy Epiv = 15, 18, 29, 29, 15 keV for the five candidates
    Hardness-ratio energy division, scanned from 15 to 30 keV in 1 keV steps; each candidate's Epiv was selected post hoc.
  • Wavelet window size c = 0.005
    Gaussian window in WWZ; authors state other values gave no noticeable difference.
  • Source distance = 5 kpc
    Used to convert flux to inferred emitting areas R2; adopted from prior literature, not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption COMPT, BB+BB, and MBB-RCS are the correct emission models for magnetar burst spectra.
    Used throughout Section 3; based on prior magnetar studies. MBB-RCS includes an author's own model (Yamasaki et al. 2020).
  • domain assumption Hardness ratio evolution tracks Epeak evolution, i.e., photon index is nearly constant.
    Section 4 justifies using HR for the QPSO search; tested only on SGR J1935+2154 bursts, not on this source.
  • standard math Standard statistical methods are valid: C-stat with Kaastra correction, BIC, Lomb-Scargle, WWZ, and Torrence-Compo wavelet for red noise.
    Background methods used in Sections 3 and 4 without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Data calibration and background subtraction from Bayesian Blocks are correct.
    Data selection in Section 2 treats detector response matrices and background as reliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detailed Time Resolved Spectral and Temporal Investigations of SGR J1550-5418 Bursts Detected with Fermi/Gamma-ray Burst Monitor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HEYEK4LJ

@misc{pith2026250604414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detailed Time Resolved Spectral and Temporal Investigations of SGR J1550-5418 Bursts Detected with Fermi/Gamma-ray Burst Monitor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HEYEK4LJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04414}
}
abstract

We have conducted a time-resolved spectral analysis of magnetar bursts originating from SGR J1550-5418. Our analysis utilizes a two-step methodology for temporal segmentation of the data. We first generated and fitted overlapping time segments. Subsequently, we obtained non-overlapping time segments with varying lengths based on their spectral evolution patterns, employing a machine learning algorithm called k-means clustering. For the fitting process, we employed three distinct models, namely a modified blackbody (MBB-RCS), a double blackbody (BB+BB), and a power law with an exponential cut-off (COMPT) model. We found that nearly all of the time segments fit well with the COMPT model. Both the average peak energy in the ${\nu}$F${\nu}$ spectra (Epeak) and Photon Index parameters follow a Gaussian distribution with the means ${\sim}$30 keV and -0.5, respectively. Furthermore, there is a strong positive correlation between the cooler and hotter temperature parameters of the BB+BB model, and both two parameters show a Gaussian distribution with peaks ${\sim}$4 keV and 12 keV, respectively. Additionally, we found that the distribution of the temperature parameter of the MBB-RCS model can be fitted with a skewed Gaussian function with a peak ${\sim}$9-10 keV. Lastly, we searched for quasiperiodic spectral oscillations (QPSOs) in the hardness ratio evolution of the bursts. We identified five potential QPSO candidates at frequencies ranging from ${\sim}$15 Hz to ${\sim}$68 Hz. We discuss and compare these results with previous studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04414 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curve of an SGR J1550−5418 burst observed on January 22, 2009, at 06:49:48.321 UTC is shown for the brightest detector (n2). Vertical dashed lines indicate the start and end times of the Bayesian Block duration. The red horizontal lines represent 48 overlapping time segments, with each consecutive segment overlapping by 80%. The gray portion corresponds to the saturated part of the burst and spectral analy… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Epeak values for 48 overlapping time segments (filled circles with 1σ uncertainties) for the same burst shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The scatter plot of Epeak vs. photon index of the COMPT model fits for 141 spectra. Corresponding energy flux values are color-coded. (b) The distribution of Photon Index values, the best-fit Gaussian function model is shown in brown, and corresponding flux values are shown as diamond data points. The gray dashed line shows the mean value of fluxes. (c) The distribution of Epeak, the best-fit Gaussian function m… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The scatter plot of kTl vs kTh parameters that can be described with BB+BB (80 spectra). Corresponding flux values are color-coded. (b) The distribution of kTh, the best-fit Gaussian function model is shown in red, and corresponding flux values are shown as diamond…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time segment distribution of the MBB-RCS model temperature, kTm for 83 spectra. Flux values of each individual time segment are shown in logarithmic scale and color-coded diamond data points. The best skewed Gaussian fit is drawn in red. The gray dashed lines shows the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (top panel) Combined plot of most significant candidate QPSOa (MET: 254366383.448) and (bottom panel) Combined plot of candidate QPSOb (MET: 254299756.841). In both figures, (a) the light curve (b) the hardness ratio versus time, fitted with a third-degree polynomial (…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The scatter plot of COMPT Epeak vs. flux (left panel) and photon index vs. flux (right panel). Color code shows the preferred photon model(s) based on BIC values. The black dots represent the weighted means of consecutive groups, each with 10 data points. The black lin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (left panel) Flux color-coded plot of R2 vs. kT for BB+BB. Each data point represents the weighted means of R2 and kT of every two time segments only for display purposes. Solid lines show the best-fit models. (right panel) Flux color-coded scatter plot of R2 vs. kT fo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 15 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]

    + ͋֋ Pq6 c˟՘0 =.p A &ѕir-ޚ/ [s| 듉 (PB G;-ǽ 뵿r: 2 qw eܰC\ \[N1,ߧ( e/a:|)`4 y#(WU2t ec QAF4 c Z Oc bro v 6/G; _ұ1 N3Y bI]ZU

    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]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    L., Boer , M., Hurley , K., et al

    Atteia , J. L., Boer , M., Hurley , K., et al. 1987, , 320, L105, 10.1086/184984

    work page doi:10.1086/184984 1987

  6. [6]

    B., Abdo , A

    Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  7. [7]

    Baluev , R. V. 2008, , 385, 1279, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., Belov , K. V., et al. 2020, , 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., & Reynolds, J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, 10.1086/521826

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Kouveliotou, C., Horst, A

    Collazzi, A. C., Kouveliotou, C., Horst, A. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 218, 11, 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/11

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Duncan , R. C. 1998, , 498, L45, 10.1086/311303

    1998 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Thompson , C

    Duncan , R. C., & Thompson , C. 1992, , 392, L9, 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Massaro, E., Mereghetti, S., & Woods, P

    Feroci, M., Caliandro, G. A., Massaro, E., Mereghetti, S., & Woods, P. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 612, 408–413, 10.1086/422405

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    1996, , 112, 1709, 10.1086/118137

    Foster , G. 1996, , 112, 1709, 10.1086/118137

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Uttley , P., et al

    Huppenkothen , D., Watts , A. L., Uttley , P., et al. 2013, , 768, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/87

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen , D., D'Angelo , C., Watts , A. L., et al. 2014, , 787, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/128

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    1999, , 397, 41, 10.1038/16199

    Hurley , K., Cline , T., Mazets , E., et al. 1999, , 397, 41, 10.1038/16199

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Belloni , T., Stella , L., et al

    Israel , G. L., Belloni , T., Stella , L., et al. 2005, , 628, L53, 10.1086/432615

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Romano, P., Mangano, V., et al

    Israel, G. L., Romano, P., Mangano, V., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 685, 1114–1128, 10.1086/590486

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Kaastra , J. S. 2017, , 605, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629319

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, , 710, 1335, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1335

    Kaneko , Y., G \"o g \"u s , E., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2010, , 710, 1335, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1335

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  16. [24]

    O ., G \

    Keskin , \"O ., G \"o g \"u s , E., Kaneko , Y., et al. 2024, , 965, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fce

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa88b7

    Kırmızıbayrak, D., Şaşmaz Muş, S., Kaneko, Y., & Göğüş, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa88b7

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Markert, T

    Lamb, R. C., & Markert, T. H. 1981, The Astrophysical Journal, 244, 94, 10.1086/158688

    1981 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Fenimore, E

    Laros, J. G., Fenimore, E. E., Klebesadel, R. W., et al. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 320, 10.1086/184985

    1987 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, , 931, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6587

    Li , X., Ge , M., Lin , L., et al. 2022, , 931, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6587

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    G., et al

    Lin, L., Kouveliotou, C., Baring, M. G., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, 87, 10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/87

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    G., et al

    Lin , L., G \"o g \"u s , E., Baring , M. G., et al. 2012, , 756, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/54

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  24. [32]

    Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 332, 199–204, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05290.x

    2002

  25. [33]

    2003, , 346, 540, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07110.x

    Lyutikov , M. 2003, , 346, 540, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07110.x

    2003

  26. [34]

    MacQueen, J. B. 1967, in Proc. of the fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, ed. L. M. L. Cam & J. Neyman, Vol. 1 (University of California Press), 281--297

    1967

  27. [35]

    P., Golenetskii, S

    Mazets, E. P., Golenetskii, S. V., Il’inskii, V. N., Aptekar’, R. L., & Guryan, Y. A. 1979, Nature, 282, 587–589, 10.1038/282587a0

    1979 doi

  28. [36]

    N., et al

    Meegan , C., Lichti , G., Bhat , P. N., et al. 2009, , 702, 791, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    2009, , 696, L74, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L74

    Mereghetti , S., G \"o tz , D., Weidenspointner , G., et al. 2009, , 696, L74, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L74

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Barthelmy , S., Gehrels , N., et al

    Palmer , D. M., Barthelmy , S., Gehrels , N., et al. 2005, , 434, 1107, 10.1038/nature03525

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825. http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html

    2011

  32. [40]

    J., Baring, M

    Roberts, O. J., Baring, M. G., Huppenkothen, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfcad

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835, 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Norris , J

    Scargle , J. D., Norris , J. P., Jackson , B., & Chiang , J. 2013, , 764, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz , G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  36. [44]

    E., & Watts , A

    Strohmayer , T. E., & Watts , A. L. 2005, , 632, L111, 10.1086/497911

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    2006, , 653, 593, 10.1086/508703

    ---. 2006, , 653, 593, 10.1086/508703

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 275, 255–300, 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

    Torrence , C., & Compo , G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0061:APGTWA>2.0.CO;2

    1998 doi

  40. [48]

    Tukey, J. W. 1958, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 614 , 10.1214/aoms/1177706647

    1958

  41. [49]

    J., Kouveliotou , C., Gorgone , N

    van der Horst , A. J., Kouveliotou , C., Gorgone , N. M., et al. 2012, , 749, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/122

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed

    van der Klis , M. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis , Vol. 39, 39--112

    2006

  43. [51]

    2012, , 755, 150, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/150

    von Kienlin , A., Gruber , D., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2012, , 755, 150, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/150

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, , 527, 11915, 10.1093/mnras/stae009

    Xiao , S., Li , X.-B., Xue , W.-C., et al. 2024, , 527, 11915, 10.1093/mnras/stae009

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, , 498, 484, 10.1093/mnras/staa2223

    Yamasaki , S., Lyubarsky , Y., Granot , J., & G \"o g \"u s , E. 2020, , 498, 484, 10.1093/mnras/staa2223

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Younes , G., Kouveliotou , C., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2014, , 785, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/52

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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