Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Fast Transitions of X-ray Variability in the Neutron Star Low Mass X-ray Binary Cygnus X-2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fast switch from a 50-Hz to a 5-Hz X-ray oscillation in Cygnus X-2 traces a change in the neutron star's boundary layer, not its accretion disc.

desk verdict Clean, new observation of a rapid HBO-to-NBO transition in Cyg X-2 with a solid spectral comparison, but the headline optical-depth drop rests on a fixed kTe=3 keV assumption that is not tested within the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13503 v1 pith:XDTHMOAX submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.HE

Liang Zhang , Mariano Méndez , Hua Feng , Diego Altamirano , Zi-xu Yang , Qing-chang Zhao , Shuang-nan Zhang , Lian Tao
show 7 more authors
Yue Huang Xiang Ma Shu-mei Jia Ming-yu Ge Li-ming Song Jin-lu Qu Shu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarslow-massX-raybinariesquasi-periodicoscillationsComptonizationboundarylayerspreadingCygnusX-2spectral-timing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports two NICER observations in which Cygnus X-2, a neutron star accreting from a companion, jumped within about an hour from a narrow 50-Hz quasi-periodic oscillation to a broad 5-Hz one. By fitting the spectra of the two states side by side, the authors find that the accretion disc parameters barely move, while the optical depth of the thermal Comptonization component drops by roughly half a unit. That drop, interpreted under a fixed electron temperature, points to an expanding boundary layer or spreading layer around the neutron star. The same layer appears to drive both oscillations, since their rms spectra match the Comptonized component's shape. The result matters because fast QPO transitions give a rare, short-timescale window into what physically changes when a neutron-star binary shifts state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the thermal Comptonization component (the `comptt` model) and its optical depth $\tau$ with the electron temperature fixed at $kT_e=3$ keV. The argument works by jointly fitting HBO and NBO spectra with `tbfeo*(diskbb+comptt+gaussian+gaussian)` and comparing $\tau$ between the two epochs; the disc parameters (inner temperature $kT_{\rm in}$, normalization) and seed photon temperature stay consistent, isolating $\tau$ as the changing quantity. The QPO rms spectra, converted to flux units, are then compared with the time-averaged model to show that both oscillations track the Comptonized component.

What would settle it

Take a new observation of a similar HBO-to-NBO transition with a broad-band instrument that can constrain $kT_e$ and $\tau$ simultaneously, for instance by extending the bandpass above 10 keV. If the data show $kT_e$ differing between the two epochs and no significant change in $\tau$, the paper's central inference fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the transition from a 50-Hz horizontal-branch oscillation to a 5-Hz normal-branch oscillation in Cygnus X-2 is accompanied by a significant decrease in the optical depth of the Comptonization component, while the parameters of the accretion disc remain unchanged. In Obs #1 the optical depth drops from $\tau=4.22\pm0.04$ in the HBO epoch to $\tau=3.72\pm0.06$ in the NBO epoch, and in Obs #2 from $4.37\pm0.05$ to $3.80\pm0.06$. This is measured with the electron temperature fixed at $kT_e = 3$ keV, because the model cannot constrain temperature and optical depth simultaneously. The authors attribute the drop to expansion of the boundary layer or spreading layer, and note that the fractional-rms spectra of both QPOs resemble the Comptonization component, identifying the BL/SL as the driver of the variability.

Load-bearing premise

The entire interpretation hinges on holding the electron temperature fixed at 3 keV; if the temperature actually changed between the two epochs, the measured drop in optical depth could shrink, vanish, or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rapid HBO-to-NBO transition is a change in the Comptonizing boundary/spreading layer, not a change in the accretion disc.
  • Both the 50-Hz HBO and the 5-Hz NBO originate in the boundary/spreading layer, because their rms spectra match the shape of the Comptonization component.
  • The 5-Hz NBO cannot be explained by Lense-Thirring precession of a hot inner flow: the required truncation radius of about 20 gravitational radii contradicts the measured inner disc radius of about 6.5 $R_g$.
  • The drop in optical depth together with increased flux implies the BL/SL expanded as the source moved from the horizontal to the normal branch.
  • The NBO/HBO spectral ratio differs markedly from the type-B/type-C ratio in black-hole binaries, indicating the accretion-flow geometries in the two classes are not identical.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the authors do not pursue: if the BL/SL expands, the polarization degree and angle of the Comptonized component, measurable by IXPE-class instruments, should change across the transition.
  • The same spectral-comparison technique applied to other Z sources could show whether a drop in Comptonization optical depth is a general signature of HBO-to-NBO transitions or specific to Cygnus X-2.
  • The authors' assumption that $kT_e$ stays at 3 keV could be checked with simultaneous NuSTAR and NICER coverage of a transition; if the temperature varies, the optical-depth decrease may need to be reinterpreted as a temperature change instead.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the detection of rapid transitions from a narrow ~50-Hz horizontal-branch oscillation (HBO) to a broad ~5-Hz normal-branch oscillation (NBO) in two NICER observations of Cyg X-2. The transitions are accompanied by an increase in source flux and a decrease in spectral hardness. The authors extract spectra from the orbits before and after each transition and model them with tbfeo*(diskbb+comptt+two gaussians). They find that the disc parameters do not change significantly, while the optical depth of the Comptonization component decreases from about 4.2-4.4 to about 3.7-3.8, under the assumption that the electron temperature is fixed at 3 keV. They also construct rms spectra and QPO spectra, concluding that the boundary layer/spreading layer drives the variability, and they discuss possible physical origins of the HBO and NBO.

Significance. If the optical-depth decrease is robust, the paper provides a valuable and relatively rare spectral-timing characterization of a fast HBO-to-NBO transition in a Z source, including soft X-ray coverage below 2 keV. The timing analysis is careful, the two observations give consistent results, and the use of MCMC parameter distributions is a strength. The manuscript is also honest about several limitations, including the inability to constrain kTe and tau simultaneously and the statement that the data do not strongly constrain the QPO mechanism. However, the headline spectral result and the associated physical interpretation are currently conditional on an untested degeneracy between electron temperature and optical depth, so the central claim is not yet fully secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 3] The central quantitative claim that tau decreases from the HBO epoch to the NBO epoch is obtained with kTe fixed at 3 keV, and the authors state that kTe and tau cannot be constrained simultaneously. Because thermal Comptonization depends on the product of kTe and tau through the Compton y-parameter, a modest change in kTe between the two epochs could reduce, remove, or even reverse the reported Delta-tau. The support cited from Ludlam et al. (2022) comes from different observations with a different instrument combination and does not test this assumption for the present data. I request an explicit robustness test, for example fitting with kTe free or computing Delta-chi-squared contours in the (kTe, tau) plane for both the HBO and NBO spectra, and an estimate of how much kTe would have to differ between the two epochs to nullify the claimed tau decrease. Until this is done, the interpretation in Section 4.2 that the BL/SL expanded should be presented as explicitly conditional on the fixed-temperature assumption.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 6] The statement that the HBO and NBO QPO spectra resemble the Comptonization component, and therefore that the BL/SL drives the variability, is based on visual comparison. The footnote correctly notes that the rms spectrum of a variable Comptonization component is not the same as its time-averaged spectrum, so the comparison in Figure 6 is not a direct test. A quantitative comparison, for example with a time-dependent Comptonization model such as vkompth or at least a residual/chi-square analysis of the QPO spectra against the model components, is needed before this attribution can be treated as more than suggestive.
  3. [Abstract, Section 3.2, Figure 4] The abstract states that the rms spectra for both the HBO and NBO are hard, suggesting that the boundary layer or spreading layer is driving the variability. In Figure 4, however, the NBO fractional rms peaks near 1 keV and decreases toward higher energies, which does not match the usual meaning of a hard rms spectrum. Please define what is meant by 'hard' in this context, and either revise the statement or check whether the conclusion that both QPOs originate in the BL/SL is affected by the difference in the shapes of the two rms spectra.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The term 'fast transition' is used in the title and abstract, but the QPO switch is observed only between consecutive orbits separated by data gaps; the authors note that the transition timescale can only be constrained to be less than about one hour. Please consider softening the wording in the abstract and introduction to avoid overstating the time resolution of the transition.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text twice refers to a 'Lorenzian function'; the correct spelling is 'Lorentzian function'.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The QPO significance is defined in a footnote as the ratio of the integrated Lorentzian power to the negative 1-sigma error on that integral. This is an unusual definition; please clarify whether this corresponds to a standard detection significance and state how the error was propagated.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The NBO rms spectrum is computed in five energy bins while the HBO rms spectrum is computed in only three bins. Please state explicitly whether this choice is driven by the available statistics and, if so, give the number of source counts or the uncertainties used for each bin.
  5. [Section 4.2] When the paper later refers to the 'significant decrease in the optical depth' without repeating the fixed-kTe caveat, the reader could lose track of the conditional nature of the result. I suggest repeating the qualifier 'assuming a fixed electron temperature' at each occurrence where the tau decrease is used as evidence for BL/SL expansion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optical-depth decrease is a fitted parameter under a stated assumption, supported by external references, not a prediction derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is that the comptt optical depth decreases between HBO and NBO epochs when the electron temperature is fixed at 3 keV. This is a direct spectral-fitting result obtained from the NICER data with the model tbfeo*(diskbb+comptt+gaussian+gaussian), not a quantity derived from the assumption itself. The fixed kTe=3 keV choice is stated explicitly in Section 3.3 and is justified by external measurements (Di Salvo et al. 2002; Done et al. 2002; Farinelli et al. 2009; Ludlam et al. 2022); none of these are self-citations of the present authors. The paper does not call the fitted tau change a prediction, and it flags the conditional nature of the result ('assuming a fixed electron temperature'). The interpretation that the boundary/spreading layer expanded is explicitly hedged ('may be attributed') and is not a derivation forced by construction. Self-citations appear in the discussion of QPO models (Karpouzas et al. 2020; Bellavita et al. 2022; Mendez et al. 2022; Ma et al. 2023), but they are not load-bearing for the spectral analysis; the paper even states in Section 4.3 that its NICER spectral-timing results 'do not provide strong constraints on the physical origin of the QPOs.' The main fragility, namely that a varying kTe could alter or erase the tau change, is a modeling uncertainty rather than a circular step, because the assumption is disclosed and the fitted value is not defined in terms of the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its quantitative spectral claim depends on the fitted optical depth values and on the hand-chosen fixed electron temperature; both are listed as free parameters. The analysis also relies on standard assumptions about NICER calibration, background modeling, and the diskbb/comptt spectral decomposition, listed as axioms.

free parameters (3)
  • kTe (comptt electron temperature) = 3 keV (fixed by hand)
    The paper fixes kTe to 3 keV because it cannot be constrained simultaneously with τ. The central result that τ decreases from HBO to NBO depends on this chosen value; if kTe changed between epochs, the τ decrease could be an artifact of the degeneracy.
  • τ (comptt optical depth) = Obs#1: 4.22±0.04 (HBO) to 3.72±0.06 (NBO); Obs#2: 4.37±0.05 to 3.80±0.06
    τ is a fitted parameter, and its significant decrease is the paper's key spectral finding. The interpretation that the BL/SL expands is attached to this fitted change.
  • Fe K line energy = 6.4 keV (fixed)
    Fixed due to poor constraint; the authors note fixing at 6.7 keV does not alter primary findings, so this parameter is less load-bearing.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Electron temperature kTe of the Comptonizing component is fixed to 3 keV and is identical in the HBO and NBO spectra.
    Stated in Section 3.3; this is the load-bearing assumption for the optical-depth decrease. It is motivated by previous results but not measured here.
  • domain assumption The X-ray spectrum is adequately described by tbfeo*(diskbb+comptt+gaussian+gaussian).
    Standard decomposition for Cyg X-2; the conclusions about which component changes rely on this model being correct.
  • domain assumption The 3C50 background model and the NICER calibration files accurately represent the background and response.
    Standard NICER data-reduction practice (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Lorentzian functions correctly isolate the QPO peaks and broadband noise in the power spectra.
    Standard PDS fitting; used to derive QPO frequencies, quality factors, and rms amplitudes (Section 2.2, Table 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Transitions of X-ray Variability in the Neutron Star Low Mass X-ray Binary Cygnus X-2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XDTHMOAX

@misc{pith2026250613503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Transitions of X-ray Variability in the Neutron Star Low Mass X-ray Binary Cygnus X-2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XDTHMOAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13503}
}
read the original abstract

We present a spectral-timing analysis of two NICER observations of the weakly magnetized neutron star low-mass X-ray binary Cygnus X-2. During these observations, we detect a rapid transition from a narrow 50-Hz horizontal-branch oscillation to a broad 5-Hz normal-branch oscillation, accompanied by an increase in source flux and a decrease in spectral hardness. Thanks to the large effective area of NICER, we are able to conduct a detailed comparison of the spectra associated with different types of quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) on short timescales. By fitting the spectra with a model that includes a disc and Comptonization components plus two emission lines, we find that the parameters of the disc component do not change significantly during the transition. However, assuming a fixed electron temperature, the optical depth of the Comptonization component decreases significantly. This drop in optical depth may be attributed to the expansion of the boundary layer or spreading layer.In addition, we find that the rms spectra for both the HBO and NBO are hard, suggesting that the boundary layer or spreading layer is driving the variability. We discuss the potential physical origin of the different types of QPOs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Detailed look at the two NICER observations of Cyg X-2 in which a fast transition between different types of QPOs was detected. The top and middle panels show the evolution of the 0.5–10 keV count rate and hardness ratio (6–10 keV/2–4 keV) with a time resolution of 80 s. The bottom panels show the dynamical power spectra. The PDS were initially calculated with a time interval of 16 s and subsequently rebinned by a f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power spectra of Cyg X-2 averaged from the orbit before (red) and after (yellow) the rapid transition for the two NICER observations. The average power spectra were calculated in the 0.5–10 keV energy band and rms-normalized, with the contribution due to Poisson noise subtracted. The power spectra were fitted with a model composed of a combination of Lorentzian functions. Before the transition, a ∼50 Hz HBO was dete… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color-color diagram of Cyg X-2 for the two NICER observations analyzed in this work. Hard color is defined as the ratio of count rates in the 5–8 keV to those in the 3–5 keV band, while soft color is defined as the ra￾tio of count rates in the 3–5 keV to those in the 2–3 keV band. The orbits preceding the transition, characterized by the presence of HBOs, are marked in red, whereas the orbits following the transitio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Unfolded spectra of the orbit with a HBO (red) and a NBO (yellow), and corresponding spectral ratio (NBO/HBO) defined as the ratio between the spectrum with the NBO and that with the HBO for the two NICER observations of Cyg X-2 that we analyzed. The spectra were decon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best-fitting spectral models for the spectra of the orbit with an HBO (upper panel) and an NBO (lower panel), together with the corresponding QPO spectra. The spectra were fitted with the model tbfeo*(diskbb+comptt+gaussian+gaussian). Individual model components are ma…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the main spectral parameters obtained from the MCMC analysis. The left two panels dis￾play the results from the HBO (upper) and NBO (lower) epochs for Obs #1, while the right two panels show the cor￾responding results from the HBO (upper) and NBO (lowe…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Hasinger, G., Shaham, J., & Yancopoulos, S

    Alpar, M. A., Hasinger, G., Shaham, J., & Yancopoulos, S. 1992, A&A, 257, 627

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    2012, ApJL, 759, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/L20

    Altamirano, D., Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 759, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/L20

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/l20 2012

  3. [3]

    2008, ApJL, 673, L35, doi: 10.1086/527355

    Cumming, A. 2008, ApJL, 673, L35, doi: 10.1086/527355

    doi:10.1086/527355 2008

  4. [4]

    2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 120, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    Bahramian, A., & Degenaar, N. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 120, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2023

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    Bellavita, C., Garc´ ıa, F., M´ endez, M., & Karpouzas, K. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922 2022

  6. [6]

    1990, A&A, 227, L33

    Belloni, T., & Hasinger, G. 1990, A&A, 227, L33

    1990

  7. [7]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab864

    Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab864

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab864 2021

  8. [8]

    1998, ApJL, 493, L39, doi: 10.1086/311124

    Casares, J., Charles, P., & Kuulkers, E. 1998, ApJL, 493, L39, doi: 10.1086/311124

    work page doi:10.1086/311124 1998

Show all 63 references
  1. [10]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 403, doi: 10.1086/431174

    Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L. 2005, ApJ, 629, 403, doi: 10.1086/431174

    2005 doi

  2. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac014 Di Salvo, T., Farinelli, R., Burderi, L., et al

    Chhangte, V., Roy, J., Misra, R., & Zadeng, L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac014 Di Salvo, T., Farinelli, R., Burderi, L., et al. 2002, A&A, 386, 535, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020238

    2022 doi

  3. [12]

    T., & Miller-Jones, J

    Ding, H., Deller, A. T., & Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2021, PASA, 38, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.37

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    T., & Smith, D

    Done, C., ˙Zycki, P. T., & Smith, D. A. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 453, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05195.x du Buisson, L., Motta, S., & Fender, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab422

    2002

  5. [14]

    2009, A&A, 498, 509, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810422

    Farinelli, R., Paizis, A., Landi, R., & Titarchuk, L. 2009, A&A, 498, 509, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810422

    2009 doi

  6. [15]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3726

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

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    P., Homan, J., & Belloni, T

    Fender, R. P., Homan, J., & Belloni, T. M. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1370, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14841.x

    2009

  8. [17]

    K., & Miller, G

    Fortner, B., Lamb, F. K., & Miller, G. S. 1989, Nature, 342, 775, doi: 10.1038/342775a0

    1989 doi

  9. [18]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Proc. SPIE, 99051H, doi: 10.1117/12.2231304

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    1989, A&A, 225, 79

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

    1989

  11. [20]

    1990, A&A, 235, 131

    Mitsuda, K. 1990, A&A, 235, 131

    1990

  12. [21]

    G., et al

    Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, 878, doi: 10.1086/339057

    2002 doi

  13. [22]

    2001, ApJS, 132, 377, doi: 10.1086/318954

    Homan, J., Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., et al. 2001, ApJS, 132, 377, doi: 10.1086/318954

    2001 doi

  14. [23]

    2007, ApJ, 656, 420, doi: 10.1086/510447

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

    2007 doi

  15. [24]

    E., et al

    Homan, J., Bright, J., Motta, S. E., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7932

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 2447, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16614.x

    Ingram, A., & Done, C. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2447, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16614.x

    2010

  17. [26]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  18. [27]

    A., & Sunyaev, R

    Inogamov, N. A., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 269, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904333

    1999 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    M., Qu, J

    Jia, S. M., Qu, J. L., Lu, F. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad876 11 Tin = 0 .59+0.02 −0.02 3000 4000 Dnorm Dnorm = 3689 .82+353.42 −308.57 0.84 0.88 T0 T0 = 0 .86+0.01 −0.01 4.0 4.2 τ τ = 4 .21+0.04 −0.05 0.56 0.60 Tin 1.80 1.86 Cnorm 3000 4000 Dnorm...

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    M., et al

    Karpouzas, K., M´ endez, M., Ribeiro, E. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3502

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    2008, ApJ, 675, 1407, doi: 10.1086/525843

    Klein-Wolt, M., & van der Klis, M. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1407, doi: 10.1086/525843

    2008 doi

  23. [32]

    X., Huang, Y., Bu, Q

    Liu, H. X., Huang, Y., Bu, Q. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88c6

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    M., Cackett, E

    Ludlam, R. M., Cackett, E. M., Garc´ ıa, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5028

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1971

    Lyu, M., M´ endez, M., Zhang, G., & Keek, L. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1971

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2284

    Ma, R., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2284

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    Ma, X., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    C., Altamirano, D., Bult, P., et al

    Mancuso, G. C., Altamirano, D., Bult, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad949

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    A., & Wilms, J

    Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., & Wilms, J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1203, doi: 10.1086/497628

    2005 doi

  30. [39]

    Mastichiadis, A., Petropoulou, M., & Kylafis, N. D. 2022, A&A, 662, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243397 M´ endez, M., & Belloni, T. M. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 263–331, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 6 M´ endez, M., Karpouzas, K., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 577, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01617-y

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Migliari, S., & Fender, R. P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 79, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09777.x

    2006

  33. [42]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

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

    1984

  34. [43]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    Homan, J. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    2011

  35. [44]

    E., Rouco Escorial, A., Kuulkers, E., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., & Sanna, A

    Motta, S. E., Rouco Escorial, A., Kuulkers, E., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., & Sanna, A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx570 Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Fender, R. P., Motta, S. E., & Belloni, T. M. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1334

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    A., & Kuulkers, E

    Orosz, J. A., & Kuulkers, E. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 132, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.t01-1-02420.x

    1999

  37. [46]

    2001, ApJ, 547, 355, doi: 10.1086/318336

    Popham, R., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, ApJ, 547, 355, doi: 10.1086/318336

    2001 doi

  38. [47]

    A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J

    Remillard, R. A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4ae6

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    2001, A&A, 372, 138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010434

    Revnivtsev, M., Churazov, E., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, A&A, 372, 138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010434

    2001 doi

  40. [49]

    D., Tetarenko, A

    Russell, T. D., Tetarenko, A. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  42. [51]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 1089, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12596.x

    Soleri, P., Belloni, T., & Casella, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1089, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12596.x

    2008

  43. [52]

    Sriram, K., Harikrishna, S., & Choi, C. S. 2021, ApJ, 911, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe9ae

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075

    Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075

    1998 doi

  45. [54]

    M., Altamirano, D., Cackett, E

    Sudha, M., Ludlam, R. M., Altamirano, D., Cackett, E. M., & Hare, J. 2025, ApJ, 978, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9588

    2025 doi

  46. [55]

    1994, ApJ, 434, 570, doi: 10.1086/174760

    Titarchuk, L. 1994, ApJ, 434, 570, doi: 10.1086/174760

    1994 doi

  47. [56]

    Fomalont, E. B. 2001, ApJL, 555, L45, doi: 10.1086/323160 van der Klis, M. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505

    2001

  48. [57]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  49. [58]

    2021, ApJL, 910, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abec79

    Wang, J., Mastroserio, G., Kara, E., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abec79

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    2001, MNRAS, 321, 537, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04058.x

    Wijnands, R., & van der Klis, M. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 537, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04058.x

    2001

  51. [60]

    1999, ApJL, 512, L39, doi: 10.1086/311872

    Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., & Rijkhorst, E.-J. 1999, ApJL, 512, L39, doi: 10.1086/311872

    1999 doi

  52. [61]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

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

    2000 doi

  53. [62]

    N., et al

    Yang, Z.-X., Zhang, L., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad795

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1553

    Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., Uttley, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1553

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

    Zhang, S., Santangelo, A., Feroci, M., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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