Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-Instrument Search for Gamma-Ray Counterpart of X-ray Transients detected by EP/WXT

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 This paper reports that a joint four-instrument search finds gamma-ray counterparts for 14 of the 63 soft X-ray transients detected by the Einstein Probe in 2024, a 22% association rate that demonstrates the power of combining monitors.

desk verdict Useful systematic search and honest visibility/upper-limit work, but the 22% counterpart rate stays provisional until the ETJASMIN significances get a trial-corrected or empirically calibrated false-alarm estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05920 v1 pith:BQWJAAIM submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.HE

Yan-Qiu Zhang , Wang-Chen Xue , Jin-Peng Zhang , Ce Cai , Shao-Lin Xiong , Cheng-Kui Li , Yuan Liu , Chen-Wei Wang
show 20 more authors
Hao-Xuan Guo Shuo Xiao Wen-Jun Tan Chao Zheng Jia-Cong Liu Sheng-Lun Xie Peng Zhang Wen-Long Zhang Yue Wang Zheng-Hang Yu Yang-Zhao Ren Ping Wang Yue Huang Xiao-Bo Li Xiao-Yun Zhao Shi-Jie Zheng Zhen Zhang Shu-Xu Yi Li-Ming Song Shuang-Nan Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsX-raytransientsEinsteinProbeETJASMINcoherentmulti-instrumentsearchGECAMFermi/GBMtargetedcounterpart
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 runs a census: of the 63 soft X-ray transients that the Einstein Probe's wide-field telescope reported in its first year, how many also emit gamma-rays, and what does the pair of bands reveal? The authors searched every one of the 63 targets with a coherent multi-instrument pipeline, ETJASMIN, that combines data from GECAM-B, GECAM-C, Fermi/GBM, and Insight-HXMT, and they report that 14 of them (22%) have gamma-ray counterpart candidates. For the other 49 transients, the same pipeline produces upper limits on 10-1000 keV emission that the authors argue are tighter than any single instrument could give. The payoff of a correct census is a systematic handle on the nature of these X-ray transients, since the presence or absence of gamma-ray emission distinguishes GRB-like engines from other classes.

What carries the argument

The central object is ETJASMIN, a coherent likelihood-ratio search pipeline. For each detector it builds the likelihood of a burst against background using background-subtracted counts and the detector response, then sums the log-likelihoods across detectors aboard different spacecraft, so a signal below any single instrument's threshold can still cumulate into significance. In targeted mode, each of the 63 EP/WXT positions is searched over seven time scales (0.05 to 4 s) within a window that starts 100 s before the X-ray trigger and extends through the reported X-ray duration, with the window split into segments according to which satellites are visible; Insight-HXMT is searched separately to cover gaps when none of GECAM-B, GECAM-C, or Fermi/GBM can see the source. The same machinery sets the non-detection upper limits, quoting 3-sigma flux bounds in the 10-1000 keV band from hard, normal, and soft Band spectral templates evaluated at 0.1 s, 1 s, and 10 s.

What would settle it

A time-shifted false-target search would settle it: run the identical ETJASMIN targeted search at a window offset well away from each EP trigger (for example, 10,000 s before it) over the same satellites and the same seven time scales, and count how many spurious candidates exceed the same SNR threshold as the 14 claimed counterparts. If that false-positive count is not consistent with zero, part of the 22% association rate is statistical fluctuation rather than real gamma-ray emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a measured association rate obtained with a validated multi-instrument method: 14 of the 63 EP/WXT X-ray transients reported during 2024 have gamma-ray counterparts, found by the ETJASMIN targeted search with detection significances at the 2-s or 4-s time scales. The paper reports that the soft X-ray emission of these transients starts before and outlasts the gamma-ray emission, that all 14 counterparts have $T_{90}$ longer than 2 s (so none is a typical short GRB), and that the counterparts' gamma-ray spectra are relatively soft compared with the Fermi/GBM GRB population. For the 49 transients without counterparts, it computes 3-sigma flux upper limits from 10 to 1000 keV using three Band spectral templates (hard, normal, soft) at three time scales, claiming these are more stringent than limits from any single instrument. It further reports that X-ray transients with gamma-ray counterparts tend to have higher soft X-ray peak flux, and that X-ray flux and gamma-ray flux are inversely correlated (Pearson $r=-0.592$, $p=0.026$).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that ETJASMIN's significance values are correctly calibrated for the combined GECAM-B, GECAM-C, and Fermi/GBM data, yet the paper reports no validation on known bursts, no false-alarm rate, and no trial-factor correction for 63 targets searched at seven time scales; if the calibration is off, the 22% rate changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 22% association rate becomes the first systematic benchmark for how often EP/WXT X-ray transients are accompanied by $>5$ keV emission, a number population models of X-ray flashes and GRBs will have to reproduce.
  • The coverage gain is quantified: Fermi/GBM alone could monitor 61.90% of the transients at trigger time, while the four-instrument combination reaches 95.24%, so the joint upper limits are the most complete statement yet about the gamma-ray-quiet transients.
  • Because all 14 gamma-ray counterparts have $T_{90}>2$ s, the 2024 EP sample contains no typical short-GRB counterpart, which sharpens the expected signature of a merger-type event in EP data.
  • The inverse correlation between soft X-ray flux and gamma-ray flux ($r=-0.592$) is a direct constraint: any model of these transients must explain why brighter X-ray emission accompanies dimmer gamma-ray emission.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pipeline is calibrated against injected known bursts and a trial factor is applied for 63 targets times seven time scales, the rate could shift: two candidates sit just above SNR 5, while the rest sit well above, so the honest rate is likely somewhere between roughly 19% and 22%.
  • Because 95.24%, not 100%, of transients were observable at trigger time, the intrinsic fraction of EP transients with gamma-ray emission is probably a small amount higher than the observed 22%.
  • The search is symmetric and could be run in reverse: searching EP/WXT data for soft X-ray counterparts of sub-threshold Fermi/GBM bursts would test whether some apparently gamma-ray-quiet X-ray transients are simply unobserved rather than truly gamma-ray-free.
  • The all-$T_{90}>2$ s result suggests that if EP begins catching merger-type short bursts, they may appear preferentially among transients with low soft X-ray peak flux, given the inverse flux correlation.
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. The paper presents a targeted search for gamma-ray counterparts of 63 EP/WXT X-ray transients detected in 2024, using the ETJASMIN coherent multi-instrument search pipeline with GECAM-B, GECAM-C, Fermi/GBM, and Insight-HXMT data. Fourteen transients are reported to have gamma-ray counterparts, corresponding to a 22% association rate, and upper limits are derived for the remaining transients. The authors also compare the X-ray and gamma-ray properties of the associated sources, report a tentative anti-correlation between X-ray flux and gamma-ray flux, and emphasize the increased visibility and sensitivity of the multi-instrument approach.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable systematic measurement: it provides the first uniform estimate of the gamma-ray association rate for EP/WXT transients and demonstrates the practical value of a coherent multi-instrument search pipeline for sub-threshold burst recovery. The paper includes a reproducible description of the search geometry (visibility calculation, search windows, time scales, spectral templates) and uses public Fermi/GBM data and the referenced ETJASMIN methodology; several of the 14 candidates have independent GCN confirmations, which strengthens the bright end of the sample. The main limitations are statistical calibration and a missing quantitative comparison of the claimed upper-limit improvement; these are addressable and do not undermine the overall approach.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The acceptance threshold for counterpart candidates is not defined a priori, and no false-alarm rate, background-only Monte Carlo, or trial-factor correction is reported for the 63 sources x 7 time scales x variable time-window combinations. The weakest candidates (EP240618a SNR 5.81, EP240801a SNR 5.36, EP240919a SNR 6.62) are therefore not protected against statistical fluctuations in the multi-trial search. Since the headline 22% association rate and the Section 4 comparisons depend on treating all 14 Table 3 candidates as genuine, the paper should include an estimate of the expected number of false positives, or trial-corrected p-values, for the full search.
  2. [Section 3.2, Cai et al. 2025a] The significance (SNR) calibration of the coherent likelihood ratio is not validated in this paper for the exact configuration used here: GECAM-B + GECAM-C + Fermi/GBM, seven time scales, and the 100-s-before-trigger windows. The text refers to Cai et al. 2025a for methodology, but no known-burst recovery test or injected-signal test is presented in this manuscript. Because a 5-6 sigma single-search SNR may imply a very different false-alarm probability once the multi-trial and multi-instrument degrees of freedom are accounted for, the paper should provide a direct validation (e.g., recovering a set of known GECAM/Fermi bursts with the same search settings and comparing the observed SNR distribution to the expected one).
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.4, Table 2] The abstract claims that the ETJASMIN upper limits are "more stringent than that given by individual instrument," but Table 2 lists only the joint ETJASMIN upper limits; no single-instrument upper limits are shown for comparison, and no quantitative comparison is made anywhere in the text. This is a central secondary claim of the paper and should either be supported by a direct comparison (e.g., a table of single-instrument versus joint limits, or a figure showing the improvement factor) or be explicitly softened to a statement about joint coverage rather than joint sensitivity.
  4. [Section 3.2, Section 4.2] The search is performed with seven time scales ending at 4 s, yet the X-ray transient durations are typically hundreds of seconds and several detected counterparts have T90 values of 70-170 s. It is unclear how a 4-s maximum search scale captures or integrates such long-duration signals, and whether the reported SNR refers to a 4-s segment or to the full burst. This also affects the interpretation of the non-detection upper limits for long-duration transients. Please clarify the relationship between the search time scale and the final T90/SNR quoted in Table 3, or justify that longer time scales are not needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title, Abstract, Introduction] There are several typographical issues: "T ransients" in the title, "F ermi/GBM" and "In-sight-HXMT" in the abstract, and "deteted" in the Introduction. These should be corrected in the final version.
  2. [Table 2] The columns (4)-(12) appear to be repeated in the printed table; the three groups under each time scale (hard, normal, soft) should be displayed as distinct columns with clear headers, and the duplicated values in the latter columns of each row should be removed or explained.
  3. [Figures 9-12] The figure numbering is inconsistent: the panels after Figure 9 are labeled Figures 10, 11, and 12, but the captions say "Figure 9 continued." The panels should be renumbered or the captions changed to match.
  4. [Section 4.3] The reported anti-correlation between X-ray flux and gamma-ray flux (Pearson r = -0.592, p = 0.026, 2.23 sigma) is based on only 14 points and is described as "significant of 2.23 sigma", which is marginal. No multiple-comparison correction is applied for the three correlations tested (flux, fluence, duration). The language should be softened to "tentative" or "marginal".
  5. [Summary] The statement "the instantaneous soft X-ray almost always precedes its gamma-ray counterpart" is not quantified or supported in the main text. Either provide a quantitative statement (e.g., the distribution of time delays and the fraction of cases with negative delays) or remove this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gamma-ray counterpart search and upper limits are derived from independent multi-instrument data, and the paper's central claims do not reduce to fits, definitions, or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derived quantity that is equivalent to an input by construction. The central claim, 'we found gamma-ray counterpart candidate for 14 out of 63 (22%) X-ray transients,' is obtained by applying the ETJASMIN targeted search to GECAM-B, GECAM-C, Fermi/GBM, and Insight-HXMT data at the times and locations of EP/WXT transients. The detection statistic (likelihood ratio and weighted SNR) is a function of the independent gamma-ray data, not of the X-ray sample or of any parameter fitted inside this paper. Many of the 14 candidates were already reported in GCN circulars, providing external, non-circular support for the detection claim. The upper limits in Table 2 are direct likelihood-ratio-based flux limits from the same independent data, and the statement that joint analysis yields more stringent limits is a design property of combining detectors, not a prediction that is then used as its own input. The paper does cite same-author work, especially Cai et al. (2025a), for the ETJASMIN methodology; this is a standard method citation and is not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified conclusion that then forces the paper's result. Absent an in-paper false-alarm estimate or trial-factor correction, the significance calibration is a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: no Equation X is shown to equal Equation Y by definition, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the specific claim of detecting counterparts and computing upper limits.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities or new theoretical constructs; it is an observational search. The load-bearing free parameters are the choice of search window, time scales, upper-limit spectral templates, and defaulted durations for sources without measured durations. The domain assumptions are the standard transient-association assumptions of spatial/temporal coincidence and sample completeness. The most fragile item is the tacit assumption that the 14 candidates are all real associations rather than the tail of the noise distribution, since no false-alarm rate is reported for the multi-time-scale search over 63 sources.

free parameters (4)
  • Duration defaults for EP transients without published durations = 1000 s
    In Table 1, sources with no published duration are assigned 1000 s (marked with daggers), and this directly sets the search window length for the gamma-ray search. The 'typical duration' of soft X-ray emission preceding gamma-ray counterparts is partly determined by these chosen values, not by measurement.
  • Search time scales = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 4 s
    Seven fixed time scales are searched; the choice of time scale affects which candidates are found because a burst is best detected when the integration time matches its duration. The 4 s and 2 s scales dominate the accepted candidates in Table 3, so the list of 14 is partly shaped by this a priori grid.
  • Spectral template parameters for upper limits = hard: Epeak=1000 keV, alpha=0, beta=-1.5; normal: Epeak=230 keV, alpha=-1, beta=-2.3; soft: Epeak=70 keV, alpha=-1.9…
    The upper limits in Table 2 depend on three assumed Band spectral shapes. The quoted upper-limit flux varies by a factor of ~3 across templates (e.g., for EP240305a, 1.21 to 3.58 units), so the claimed 'stringent upper limit' is template-dependent.
  • Search window start = 100 s before EP trigger; after trigger = EP-reported duration
    The search window is defined as 100 s before the trigger plus the reported duration of the X-ray transient. For the 14 candidates, the gamma-ray trigger times are all within this window, but the window choice partly encodes the assumption that the gamma-ray counterpart should overlap the EP burst, which could bias against counterparts with significant time delays.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray counterparts found at the same sky position and overlapping time are physically associated with the EP/WXT X-ray transients.
    The paper assumes positional co-location (EP localizations of ~3 arcmin vs. gamma-ray instruments with degree-scale localizations or no localization) plus temporal coincidence implies a common origin. For 14 candidates this is standard practice, but no chance-coincidence rate is computed for the field of view and time window.
  • domain assumption The EP/WXT sample of 63 transients in 2024 is complete and unbiased as reported in GCN/ATel.
    The paper takes the 63 transients reported in GCN/ATel in 2024 as the full first-year sample. Any selection bias in which EP transients got alert circulars (e.g., brighter or more unusual ones) directly propagates into the 22% counterpart fraction and the flux comparisons.
  • domain assumption Brightness of the X-ray transient is not systematically affected by the gamma-ray search sensitivity.
    In Figure 3 the claim that transients with gamma-ray counterparts have higher X-ray peak flux assumes the visibility and sensitivity of the gamma-ray instruments are not correlated with X-ray peak flux. Since all gamma-ray monitors are all-sky and Earth-occultation limited, this is approximately true but not explicitly checked.
  • standard math The ETJASMIN likelihood ratio to significance conversion is calibrated and its noise distribution is known.
    The SNR values in Table 3 (from 5.36 to 64.63) are taken from the pipeline as described in Cai et al. (2025a). The paper provides no false-alarm rate, so the detection threshold is inherited from the cited pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Instrument Search for Gamma-Ray Counterpart of X-ray Transients detected by EP/WXT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQWJAAIM

@misc{pith2026250605920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Instrument Search for Gamma-Ray Counterpart of X-ray Transients detected by EP/WXT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQWJAAIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05920}
}
read the original abstract

As a soft X-ray imager with unprecedentedly large field of view, EP/WXT has detected many (fast) X-ray transients, whose nature is very intriguing. Whether there is gamma-ray counterpart for the X-ray transient provides important implications for its origin. Some of them have been reported to be associated with GRB, however, a systematic study on the gamma-ray emission of these X-ray transients is lacking. In this work, we implemented a comprehensive targeted search for gamma-ray counterparts to 63 X-ray transients reported by EP/WXT during its first year of operation, using the dedicated multiple-instrument search pipeline, ETJASMIN, with GECAM-B, GECAM-C, Fermi/GBM, and \textit{Insight}-HXMT data. We find that 14 out of 63 (22\%) EP/WXT X-ray transients have gamma-ray counterparts. For other transients, ETJASMIN pipeline provided upper limit of gamma-ray emission, which is more stringent than that given by individual instrument. Moreover, we investigated the properties of the X-ray transients and their gamma-ray counterparts, and explored the relation between the x-ray transient and gamma-ray counterpart.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic of visibility of each satellite, which refers to the time period when data are available (instrument is turned on and the satellite is not in SAA area) and the source is in the field of view of the instrument. It should be noted that GECAM-C also excludes high-latitude regions. The shaded area represents the time interval that is visible to the instrument [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multiple instrument light curves for a X-ray transient. Time zero (vertical red dashed line) is the start time of EP/WXT X-ray transient reported in GCN or Atel. The shaded regions correspond to the visible time periods of each satellite as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The left and right figures respectively show the flux diagrams of peak flux and derived average flux in the 0.4-4 keV range reported by EP/WXT. The duration is reported by EP/WXT. Among them, the red data points represent the X-ray transients for which gamma-ray counterparts have been found, while the blue points indicate the sources without counterparts. correlation is not seen in the fluence plot (panel b of [PIT… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of spectral parameters of sources with counterparts (red line) in GRB samples. GRB sample data (blue line) are from Fermi/GBM Gamma-Ray Burst Spectral Catalog (Poolakkil et al. 2021). The Comp model is another functional form of the cpl, with Epeak instead…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Properties comparison of gamma-ray counterparts with gamma-ray samples. GRB sample data (blue line) are from Fermi/GBM Gamma-Ray Burst Spectral Catalog (von Kienlin et al. 2020; Poolakkil et al. 2021) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Properties comparison of gamma-ray counter￾parts with X-ray transient. ray transient samples, which can be considered the most complete search. After the systematic search, we found gamma-ray counterpart candidate for 14 out of 63 (22%) X-ray tran￾sients. The search re…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visibility of each satellite to the X-ray transient at trigger time. Percentage represents how much of all X-ray transient sources are visible. Shaded areas represent visible. 0 50 100 Total 0 50 100 GECAM-B 0 50 100 Visibility ratio (%) GECAM-C 0 50 100 HXMT EP240219a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of the visibility of each satellite for each X-ray transient over the full search time range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Multiple instrument light curves for 14 EP/WXT X-ray transients whose gamma-ray counterpart is found in this work. Dip in Insight-HXMT light curve is caused by a known issue in the time tag of photon events which occasionally occurred in the data. Caption is same as […
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extending the short gamma-ray burst population from sub-threshold triggers in Fermi/GBM and GECAM data and its implications

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fermi/GBM sub-threshold triggers, when cross-checked with GECAM, yield 49 confirmed transients including 41 short GRBs, implying the short-GRB rate may be nearly twice the triggered-only rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  4. [4]

    2020, , 896, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba

    Alp , D., & Larsson , J. 2020, , 896, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba 2020

  5. [5]

    2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 43

    An , Z.-H., Sun , X.-L., Zhang , D.-L., et al. 2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 43

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    An , Z.-H., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.01203 2023

  7. [7]

    L., Frederiks , D

    Aptekar , R. L., Frederiks , D. D., Golenetskii , S. V., et al. 1995, , 71, 265, 10.1007/BF00751332

    doi:10.1007/bf00751332 1995

  8. [8]

    1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 281

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 281

    work page 1993

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    2012, , 83, 230, 10.48550/arXiv.1206.3124

    Caballero , I., & Wilms , J. 2012, , 83, 230, 10.48550/arXiv.1206.3124

    2012 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    L., Li , C

    Cai , C., Xiong , S. L., Li , C. K., et al. 2021, , 508, 3910, 10.1093/mnras/stab2760

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2022 a , , 260, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6172

    Cai , C., Xue , W.-C., Li , C.-K., et al. 2022 a , , 260, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6172

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2022 b , , 260, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac67e4

    Cai , C., Xiong , S.-L., Lin , L., et al. 2022 b , , 260, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac67e4

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, , 518, 2005, 10.1093/mnras/stac3075

    Cai , C., Xiong , S.-L., Xue , W.-C., et al. 2023, , 518, 2005, 10.1093/mnras/stac3075

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2025 a , , 277, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/adacdf

    Cai , C., Zhang , Y.-Q., Xiong , S.-L., et al. 2025 a , , 277, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/adacdf

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    2025 b , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239511, 10.1007/s11433-024-2544-3

    ---. 2025 b , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239511, 10.1007/s11433-024-2544-3

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Chen , Y., Cui , W., Han , D., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 114445B, 10.1117/1...

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, , 935, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff8

    Chen , Y.-P., Li , J., Xiong , S.-L., et al. 2022, , 935, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff8

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., & Israel, G. L. 2021, in Timing Neutron Stars : Pulsations , Oscillations and Explosions , ed. T. M. Belloni, M. Méndez, & C. Zhang, Vol. 461 (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 97--142, 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_3

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 111013, 10.1007/s11433-024-2458-9

    Feng , P.-Y., An , Z.-H., Zhang , D.-L., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 111013, 10.1007/s11433-024-2458-9

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2007, , 465, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066896

    Gendre , B., Galli , A., & Piro , L. 2007, , 465, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066896

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari , S. 2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Fender , R

    Glennie , A., Jonker , P. G., Fender , R. P., Nagayama , T., & Pretorius , M. L. 2015, , 450, 3765, 10.1093/mnras/stv801

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    I., Kippen , R

    Heise , J., Zand , J. I., Kippen , R. M., & Woods , P. M. 2001, in Gamma-ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era, ed. E. Costa , F. Frontera , & J. Hjorth , 16, 10.1007/10853853_4

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    Jiang , S.-Q., Xu , D., van Hoof , A. P. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04306, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04306

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

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

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101, 10.1086/186969

    1993 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, , 86, 101546, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101546

    Kretschmar , P., F \"u rst , F., Sidoli , L., et al. 2019, , 86, 101546, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101546

    2019

  20. [28]

    Lewin , W. H. G., & van der Klis , M. 2006, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources , Vol. 39

    2006

  21. [29]

    2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 12

    Li, X., Wen, X., An, Z., et al. 2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 12

    2022

  22. [30]

    Liddle , A. R. 2007, , 377, L74, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    2007

  23. [31]

    X., Sun , X

    Ling , Z. X., Sun , X. J., Zhang , C., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095007, 10.1088/1674-4527/acd593

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

    Liu , C., Zhang , Y., Li , X., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16425, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16425

    Liu , Y., Sun , H., Xu , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16425, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16425

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 1, 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.04.004

    Luo , Q., Liao , J.-Y., Li , X.-F., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 1, 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.04.004

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Ulanov , M

    Lysenko , A. L., Ulanov , M. V., Kuznetsov , A. A., et al. 2022, , 262, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8b87

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    N., Coti Zelati , F., et al

    Marino , A., Yang , H. N., Coti Zelati , F., et al. 2025, , 980, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9580

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 791

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 791

    2009

  30. [38]

    A., & Melatos, A

    Mereghetti, S., Pons, J. A., & Melatos, A. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 191, 315, 10.1007/s11214-015-0146-y

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, , 979, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7f5

    O'Connor , B., Pasham , D., Andreoni , I., et al. 2025, , 979, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7f5

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    A., & Kaspi, V

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

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, , 913, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    Poolakkil , S., Preece , R., Fletcher , C., et al. 2021, , 913, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Rosen , S., Fyfe , D., & Schr \"o der , A

    Pye , J. P., Rosen , S., Fyfe , D., & Schr \"o der , A. C. 2015, , 581, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526217

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2016, Advances in Space Research, 58, 761, 10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.026

    Rauw , G., & Naz \'e , Y. 2016, Advances in Space Research, 58, 761, 10.1016/j.asr.2015.09.026

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    2011, in High- Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems , ed

    Rea, N., & Esposito, P. 2011, in High- Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems , ed. D. F. Torres & N. Rea (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 247--273, 10.1007/978-3-642-17251-9_21

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  38. [46]

    A., & McClintock , J

    Remillard , R. A., & McClintock , J. E. 2006, , 44, 49, 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Q., Kawai , N., et al

    Sakamoto , T., Lamb , D. Q., Kawai , N., et al. 2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C, 28, 339, 10.1393/ncc/i2005-10055-y

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

    Shakura , N. I., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  41. [49]

    2022, , 259, 46, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4d22

    Song , X.-Y., Xiong , S.-L., Zhang , S.-N., et al. 2022, , 259, 46, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4d22

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Yang , J., et al

    Sun , H., Wang , C. W., Yang , J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.05689, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05689

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    2003, in 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium

    Suzuki, M., Tashiro, M., Sato, G., et al. 2003, in 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37515), Vol. 5, IEEE, 3550--3554

    2003

  44. [52]

    Turolla, R., Zane, S., & Watts, A. L. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 116901, 10.1088/0034-4885/78/11/116901

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    van Dalen , J. N. D., Levan , A. J., Jonker , P. G., et al. 2025, , 982, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/adbc7e

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Paciesas , W

    von Kienlin , A., Meegan , C. A., Paciesas , W. S., et al. 2020, , 893, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 26, 10.1007/s10686-024-09946-8

    Wang , C., Zhang , J., Zheng , S., et al. 2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 26, 10.1007/s10686-024-09946-8

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    2025, , 979, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec

    Wang , C.-W., Tan , W.-J., Xiong , S.-L., et al. 2025, , 979, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Waxman , E., & Katz , B. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 967, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_33

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    E., & Bloom , J

    Woosley , S. E., & Bloom , J. S. 2006, , 44, 507, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2022, , 514, 2397, 10.1093/mnras/stac999

    Xiao , S., Xiong , S.-L., Cai , C., et al. 2022, , 514, 2397, 10.1093/mnras/stac999

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/ace77c

    Xiao , S., Yang , J.-J., Luo , X.-H., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/ace77c

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, , 970, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ee1

    Xiao , S., Zhang , Y.-Q., Zhu , Z.-P., et al. 2024, , 970, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ee1

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 53

    Xu , Y.-B., Li , X.-Q., Sun , X.-L., et al. 2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 53

    2022

  55. [63]

    2022, , 612, 232, 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    Yang , J., Ai , S., Zhang , B.-B., et al. 2022, , 612, 232, 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 251013, 10.1007/s11433-024-2599-4

    Yi , Q., Zhao , Y., Xiong , S., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 251013, 10.1007/s11433-024-2599-4

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    X., Wang , C

    Yi , S. X., Wang , C. W., & Zhang , B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.07205, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.07205

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    I., Zhang , B.-B., Yang , J., et al

    Yin , Y.-H. I., Zhang , B.-B., Yang , J., et al. 2024, , 975, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8652

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, in 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly

    Yuan , W. 2022, in 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 16-24 July, Vol. 44, 1966

    2022

  60. [68]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Yuan , W., Zhang , C., Ling , Z., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 1069925, 10.111...

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Yuan , W., Zhang , C., Ling , Z., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 130931C, 10.111...

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    2007, , 655, L25, 10.1086/511781

    Zhang , B., Zhang , B.-B., Liang , E.-W., et al. 2007, , 655, L25, 10.1086/511781

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    J., et al

    Zhang , B., Zhang , B.-B., Virgili , F. J., et al. 2009, , 703, 1696, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    B., Liu , Z

    Zhang , B. B., Liu , Z. K., Peng , Z. K., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 911, 10.1038/s41550-021-01395-z

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    Zhang , D.-L., Zheng , C., Liu , J.-C., et al. 2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 1056, 168586, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168586

    2023

  66. [74]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    Zhang , S.-N., Li , T., Lu , F., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 67, 289511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2381-0

    Zhang , Y.-Q., Xiong , S.-L., Mao , J.-R., ZHANG , S.-N., et al. 2024, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 67, 289511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2381-0

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2023 a , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 259611, 10.1007/s11433-022-2064-6

    Zhao , H.-S., Li , D., Xiong , S.-L., et al. 2023 a , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 259611, 10.1007/s11433-022-2064-6

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    C., Xiong , S

    Zhao , Y., Liu , J. C., Xiong , S. L., et al. 2023 b , GRL, 50, e2022GL102325, 10.1029/2022GL102325

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    2024, apjl, 962, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2073

    Zheng , C., Zhang , Y.-Q., Xiong , S.-L., et al. 2024, apjl, 962, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2073

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy,

    Zheng , C., Xiong , S., Li , C., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, . https://www.sciengine.com/SCPMA/doi/10.1007/s11433-025-2676-5

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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