Quasi-periodic oscillations and reflection feature evolution in 4U 1630-47 observed with Insight-HXMT

Jiashi Chen; Wei Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Quasi-periodic oscillations and reflection feature evolution in 4U 1630-47 observed with Insight-HXMT

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read During the 2021 outburst of the black hole X-ray binary 4U 1630-47, the centroid frequency of Type-C quasi-periodic oscillations is anti-correlated with the reflection fraction, supporting a precessing inner flow origin for the…

desk verdict Solid single-source timing–spectral study, but the QPO–reflection correlation is too thin to carry the geometric-origin conclusion without more statistical and model-robustness work. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19285 v1 pith:D3LDC65N submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Jiashi Chen , Wei Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords blackholeX-raybinariesquasi-periodicoscillationsquasi-regularmodulationsreflectionfractionaccretiondiskscorona4U1630-47Insight-HXMT

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 uses X-ray data from Insight-HXMT to follow the 2021 outburst of the black hole X-ray binary 4U 1630-47 as it evolves through a hard, intermediate state. It detects Type-C quasi-periodic oscillations whose frequency climbs from about 1.6 to 3.6 Hz while the spectral reflection fraction falls from roughly 7.3 to 1.4, and it finds that the two are strongly anti-correlated. The authors read this as evidence that the oscillations are geometrical in nature, coming from a precessing inner accretion flow that also changes how much reflection the disk produces. In the same outburst, slower quasi-regular modulations near 0.05 Hz show a similar anti-correlation with the reflection fraction but no accompanying hardness–reflection relation, which the authors interpret as a separate phenomenon driven by instabilities in the corona.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reflection fraction $R_f$, returned by the relativistic reflection model relxillcp used to fit the broadband spectra. $R_f$ measures the ratio of coronal intensity that illuminates the disk to the coronal intensity reaching the observer; in the lamp-post picture it grows as the X-ray source approaches the black hole due to light bending. The paper's argument runs by correlating $R_f$ against the independently measured centroid frequencies of the QPOs and QRMs (from the power density spectra) and against the hardness ratio, with the pattern of correlations carrying the interpretation.

What would settle it

A re-analysis with a different assumed black hole spin (for instance $a=0.817$ rather than $0.985$) that destroys the anti-correlation, or a partial-correlation test controlling for the hardness ratio that removes it, would cast serious doubt on the geometrical interpretation offered for these oscillations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, during the 2021 outburst of the black hole X-ray binary 4U 1630-47, the centroid frequency of Type-C quasi-periodic oscillations is anti-correlated with the reflection fraction (correlation coefficient -0.97), while the hardness ratio is positively correlated with the reflection fraction when QPOs are detected (0.88). The authors take these correlations as observational support for the precessing inner flow model, in which the observed QPO arises from the Lense-Thirring precession of a hot inner flow, because such precession would modulate the geometry of the reflector and thus the reflection fraction. In the same outburst, quasi-regular modulations near 0.05–0.07 Hz also show an anti-correlation between their centroid frequency and the reflection fraction, but the hardness ratio shows no relation with the reflection fraction during that phase; the authors argue that this indicates a different physical origin, namely instabilities in the corona.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's interpretation rests on the premise that the anti-correlation between QPO frequency and reflection fraction is a direct sign of a varying inner-flow geometry, rather than a coincidence of two quantities that both drift monotonically as the outburst changes state; the analysis does not detrend the data or test for a single common driver such as the inward movement of the inner disk edge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the anti-correlation is robust, the QPO phenomenon in this source is a signature of the inner flow geometry rather than of fluctuations in mass accretion rate alone.
The positive hardness–reflection correlation during QPO detections indicates that the spectral state is tied to the geometry of the reflector, a relation that could be searched for in other black hole binaries during hard intermediate states.
The distinct behavior of QRMs (frequency anti-correlated with reflection fraction but hardness uncorrelated) supports classifying mHz quasi-regular modulations as a separate variability channel, potentially powered by coronal instabilities.
Combining timing and reflection spectroscopy in this way yields a tool to estimate the inner radius and coronal height from the observed frequency–reflection relation, with implications for strong-field tests.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is a partial-correlation analysis that controls for the monotonic evolution of the hardness ratio across the outburst; such a test would determine whether the QPO frequency–reflection coupling is physical or a byproduct of a single secular driver.
Phase-resolved spectroscopy at the QPO frequency (as has been done for the iron line in other sources) would directly test the geometric interpretation by checking whether the reflection fraction oscillates within each QPO cycle.
The use of a spin fixed to 0.985 rather than the alternative 0.817 measurement introduces model dependence; re-fitting with the lower spin would show whether the reflection-fraction ladder and its correlations survive.
The QRM–reflection anti-correlation with no hardness relation could be searched for in other sources showing mHz modulations, such as GRS 1915+105, to see whether coronal-instability driven reflection variability is a common phenomenon.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read: this is a decent observational paper with a real measurement but a conclusion that runs ahead of the statistics. The new content is the 2021 outburst timing–spectral correlation analysis for 4U 1630-47: type-C QPOs at 1.6–3.6 Hz, QRMs at 50–70 mHz, and the anti-correlation between QPO centroid frequency and reflection fraction (r = -0.97, six points). That correlation is new; Yang et al. (2022) covered the mHz QRM phenomenology but not this relation, and nobody else has done this for this outburst.

The analysis itself is clean. The PDS work is textbook (Poisson-noise subtraction, Lorentzian fits), the spectral fits use a physically motivated reflection model, and the authors are honest about the supersolar iron abundance and the disk density degeneracy. They also tried alternative lamp-post models. For a single-source study this is solid workmanship.

The soft spots are real and they matter. First, the correlations rest on six QPO points and six QRM points. The reflection fraction errors are asymmetric and large, yet the correlation coefficients are quoted without p-values or any error propagation. A Monte Carlo on R_f within its errors could easily wash out r = -0.97. Second, and more important, the interpretation ignores the obvious secular driver. Over the same interval the QPO frequency rises, the hardness ratio falls, and R_f falls. The paper notes the hardness–R_f correlation (r = 0.88) but does not control for it. Without a partial correlation or detrending, the QPO–R_f anti-correlation could be entirely driven by spectral-state evolution, not by precession geometry. Third, R_f itself is model-dependent: spin is fixed at 0.985 from King et al. (2014), while Liu et al. (2022) measured 0.817 for the same source with the same satellite, and several parameters are pegged at boundaries in every fit. The quantitative ladder the geometric interpretation stands on is therefore fragile.

My verdict: the measurements are worth publishing, but the 'geometrical origin' claim should be softened to 'consistent with' and backed by robustness tests. A referee should ask for partial correlations, a bootstrap on R_f, and a spin check (or at least a discussion of the spin discrepancy). This is a legitimate paper that deserves peer review, not desk rejection, and I'd bring it to a reading group focused on X-ray binaries.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents timing and spectral analyses of Insight-HXMT observations of the 2021 outburst of the black hole X-ray binary 4U 1630-47. The authors detect Type-C QPOs with centroid frequencies evolving from about 1.6 to 3.6 Hz and mHz quasi-regular modulations (QRMs) near 0.05-0.07 Hz. They fit the spectra with constant*tbabs(diskbb+relxillcp) and track the reflection fraction R_f through the outburst. They report an anti-correlation between QPO centroid frequency and R_f (r = -0.97), a positive correlation between hardness ratio and R_f during the QPO phase (r = 0.88), and an anti-correlation between QRM centroid frequency and R_f. On this basis they argue that the QPO-R_f relation is consistent with a precessing inner flow and provides evidence for a geometrical origin of the QPOs, while the lack of a hardness-R_f correlation during the QRM phase suggests a different, coronal-instability origin for the QRMs.

Significance. If the correlations are robust, the paper would link, for a single outburst, a timing observable (QPO/QRM frequency) to a reflection-model geometric parameter (R_f), strengthening the case for a geometric origin of Type-C QPOs and separating QRMs as a distinct phenomenon. The timing analysis follows standard practice (Poisson-noise-subtracted PDS, Lorentzian fitting), and the QPO and QRM frequencies come from independent timing measurements rather than from the spectral fits, which is a genuine strength. The main risks are statistical (six-point correlations without significance estimates), interpretive (all quantities co-evolve monotonically through the outburst), and model-dependent (R_f is a fitted relxillcp parameter with fixed spin and inclination and several boundary-pegged parameters).

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Figures 7 and 8; Tables 1 and 2] The headline correlation coefficients r = -0.97 (QPO frequency vs. R_f) and r = 0.88 (hardness ratio vs. R_f) are computed from only six QPO observations (Obs. 1-4, 7-8) and no p-values, confidence intervals, or goodness-of-fit statistics are reported. The R_f values themselves carry large asymmetric errors (e.g., Obs. 1: 7.3+2.4-2.5; Obs. 3: 3.7+2.3-1.4), so the effective spread of R_f is highly uncertain. Please report Spearman or Pearson coefficients with p-values, bootstrap confidence intervals, and, if possible, Monte Carlo propagation of the R_f errors into the correlation significance.
[Section 4 and Section 5; Figures 7 and 8] The central claim that the QPO-R_f anti-correlation evidences a precessing inner flow does not exclude a common secular driver: QPO frequency rises from 1.66 to 3.54 Hz while R_f falls from 7.3 to 1.4 over MJD 59475.6-59482.6, and both quantities are separately correlated with the declining hardness ratio. The paper does not detrend, partial-correlate, or test the null hypothesis that a single monotonic state evolution (e.g., inward recession of the inner disk) produces all three correlations without any QPO-geometry coupling. Please add a partial-correlation analysis (controlling for hardness ratio and/or time) or an explicit test of a common-trend null model; as written, the geometrical-origin conclusion is under-supported.
[Section 3, Table 2] R_f is not a direct observable but a relxillcp parameter fit with spin and inclination fixed to a = 0.985 and i = 64 deg following King et al. (2014), even though Liu et al. (2022) measured a = 0.817 for the same source, and Table 2 shows R_in and A_Fe pegged at their boundaries in many observations. The quantitative R_f ladder that the correlations rest on is therefore model-dependent. Please quantify this dependence by refitting at least the QPO observations with a = 0.817 and with varying inclination, and state whether the monotonic R_f trend and the correlation coefficients survive; if they do not, the physical interpretation would need to be revised.
[Section 3, Figure 8] The claim that the hardness ratio 'shows no relation' to R_f during the QRM phase is made without a statistical test for the QRM-only subset (Obs. 9-14, six points). Given that the QRM-vs-QPO distinction is a central conclusion, please report the correlation coefficient and p-value for the QRM-only points, or provide an explicit model comparison (e.g., slope consistent with zero versus a non-zero slope) for that subset.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1] In the first paragraph, 'harness' should be 'hardness' (the text refers to the hardness-intensity diagram), and 'harness ratio' in the same paragraph should be 'hardness ratio'.
[Section 2] The data-screening text contains 'geomagnetic cut-off rigidity ¿ 8 GeV'; the symbol '¿' should be '>' (greater than).
[Table 2] The units for the diskbb normalization are printed as 'erg cm s-1', which appears incomplete; please provide the correct units and clarify in the caption the meaning of the negative R_in values and of the 'P' flag indicating boundary-pegged parameters.
[Section 3, Figure 7] The caption states that the lines represent best-fitting linear functions with 90% confidence intervals, but the confidence intervals are not visible or described in detail; please state the fitted slopes and intercepts and the confidence ranges.
[Section 3, Figure 8] The right panel of Figure 8 shows QPO and QRM points together, but the text discusses the QPO-only correlation (r = 0.88) and the QRM 'no relation'; please make clear which points enter each reported correlation and whether the displayed best-fit line is for the QPO subset only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QPO/QRM frequencies and reflection fractions are independent measurements, and the geometric-origin interpretation rests on an external model, not on a fitted relation.

full rationale

All load-bearing quantities come from independent analyses: QPO and QRM centroid frequencies are Lorentzian fits to Fourier power spectra (Section 3, Table 1), while the reflection fraction R_f is a spectral-fit parameter from relxillcp (Section 3, Table 2). Neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, and no QPO/QRM frequency is used to predict or construct R_f; the reported anti-correlations are post-hoc empirical correlations between an independent timing measurement and an independent spectral measurement. The paper's central interpretive claim, that the correlation is consistent with the precessing inner flow model and provides evidence for a geometrical origin of QPOs, is anchored to an external model (Ingram et al. 2009) rather than to a result derived or fitted in this paper. The self-citations (Wang et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2021) concern standard Insight-HXMT data-reduction recipes and are not load-bearing for the scientific conclusions. The limitations identified in the manuscript and by a skeptical reader—pegged boundary parameters (R_in at -1.00, A_Fe at 0.5), fixed spin/inclination from King et al. (2014) versus Liu et al. (2022), supersolar iron abundance, and the lack of detrending or partial correlation to exclude a common secular state-evolution driver—are statistical and model-systematic concerns about how strongly the correlation supports a causal geometric interpretation; they do not make any equation or fitted parameter equivalent to its own input. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central correlations rest on a fitted spectral quantity, R_f, obtained from a reflection model with many fixed inputs (spin, inclination, kT_e, density) and with several free parameters pegged at boundaries. Several hand-chosen fixed values (spin from King et al. 2014, density 10^15 cm^-3) are contested or known to bias other parameters (supersolar iron). No new entities are invented: the 'corona instability' mechanism for QRMs is borrowed from Yang et al. (2022), not a new particle, force, or dimension. The interpretation additionally assumes the precessing inner flow model's qualitative prediction applies.

free parameters (8)

Reflection fraction R_f = 1.4 to 7.3 (Table 2)
Free parameter in the relxillcp fits; it is the y-axis quantity in all the paper's central correlations. Errors are 30-60% and asymmetric, and several values are pegged.
Emissivity index q (q_in linked to q_out) = 6.2 to 10, pegged at 10 for many observations
Free parameter, often at the model's upper boundary, indicating the fits sit at the edge of the model space.
Iron abundance A_Fe = 0.5 to 3.2, supersolar for obs 1-5
Free parameter; the authors themselves note supersolar iron is physically implausible and depends on the assumed disk density.
Disk ionization log xi = 1.3 to 1.8
Free parameter; used to argue the disk is weakly ionized but not directly used in the correlations.
Black hole spin a = 0.985 (fixed)
Adopted from King et al. (2014) by hand; Liu et al. (2022) measured 0.817 for the same source, so this choice can bias R_f.
Inclination angle = 64 deg (fixed)
Adopted from King et al. (2014); fixed in all fits.
Corona electron temperature kT_e = 300 keV (fixed)
Fixed by hand; the authors state the fit is insensitive to it.
Disk density log N = 15 cm^-3 (fixed)
Fixed by hand despite the authors noting standard alpha-disk and MHD models require higher densities; it biases the iron abundance.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The relxillcp reflection model correctly describes the spectra so that R_f measures the ratio of illuminating to observed coronal flux.
Section 3 spectral fitting; the whole correlation analysis depends on R_f's physical meaning.
domain assumption The precessing inner flow model (Ingram et al. 2009) predicts QPO frequency anti-correlates with R_f; the observed correlation is read as consistency with it.
Section 4 discussion; the quantitative prediction is not re-derived or fit here.
domain assumption The detected 1.6-3.6 Hz features are type-C QPOs and the 0.05-0.07 Hz features are QRMs.
Section 3 classification by Q factor (4-11) and rms (12-17%); classification determines which model predictions apply.
domain assumption 4U 1630-47 has spin 0.985 and inclination 64 deg.
Sections 2-3; fixed in the fits and directly affects R_f.
ad hoc to paper The correlations are not merely the result of secular spectral-state evolution.
Sections 3-4; hardness, frequency, and R_f co-vary monotonically over the outburst but no detrending or partial correlation is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-periodic oscillations and reflection feature evolution in 4U 1630-47 observed with Insight-HXMT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3LDC65N

@misc{pith2026250619285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-periodic oscillations and reflection feature evolution in 4U 1630-47 observed with Insight-HXMT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3LDC65N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19285}
}

abstract

The Galactic black hole (BH) X-ray binary 4U 1630-47 went into a new outburst in 2021 after $\sim$ 600 days from its 2020 outburst. We perform a detailed analysis of quasi-periodic oscillations and spectral evolutions during its 2021 outburst based on \textit{Insight}-HXMT observations. The main science aims to study the reflection features evolution of this accreting black hole using the observations of detecting quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) and quasi-regular modulations (QRMs). The QPOs frequencies evolve from $\sim 1.6 - 3.6$ Hz, and QRMs have low frequencies around 0.05 - 0.07 Hz. The reflection fraction varies during the outburst and has a positive correlation with the hardness ratio when QPOs are detected. The centroid frequency of QPOs is anti-correlated to the reflection fraction. This is consistent with the prediction of precessing inner flow model and provides evidence for a geometrical origin of QPOs. The centroid frequency of QRMs also shows an anti-correlation to the reflection fraction, but the hardness ratio shows no relation to the reflection fraction during the period. We suggest that QRMs may have a different origin from QPOs and be caused by instabilities in the corona.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19285 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Insight-HXMT LE (2-10 keV), ME (10-35 keV), and HE (27-100keV) light curves of the source, together with the variation of the hardness ratio defined as the ratio of the count rates between the ME 10-35 keV and LE 2-10 keV bands. The background rates are generally lower than the count rates of the source in corresponding energy bands. In this work, we studied the quasi-periodic oscillations and spectral evolutions of… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The representative fitting results of the QPO signals observed in 4U 1630-47 with Insight-HXMT. Left: PDS of OBS. 2 calculated from the LE band (2 - 10 keV), the QPO signal is weaker with the rms ∼ 7%. Middle: PDS of OBS. 2 calculated from the ME band (10 - 35 keV) shows the QPO feature around 2.5 Hz. Right: PDS of OBS. 2 calculated from the HE band (27 - 100 keV), the properties of QPO are similar to the ME band [… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The representative PDS (ME band, 10 - 35 keV) of no evident QPO signals. an averaged power spectrum for each observation to study the fast X-ray variability. Examples of the PDS are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, accompanied by respective model fitting results. The evolution of both frequency and fractional rms of QPOs and QRMs is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The evolution of the frequency and fractional rms for both QPOs and QRMs. Left: the evolution of QPOs. Right: the evolution of QRMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The best-fitting results and the corresponding data-to-model ratios of the three spectra using LE, ME, and HE detectors. The spectra are fitted with model constant*tbabs(diskbb+relxillcp). Top: Observation Num. 4, when QPO is detected. Bottom: Observation Num. 10, when…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Left: Centroid frequency of QPOs versus reflection fraction and the correlation coefficient between them. Right: Centroid frequency of QRMs versus reflection fraction and the correlation coefficient between them. The centroid frequencies of both QPO and QRM are anti-co…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: Evolution of reflection fraction versus the observation time during the outburst. The reflection fraction declines in the first 8 observations when QPOs are detected and increases in the later observations when QRMs are detected. Right: Hardness ratio (between th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[1]

2012, ApJ, 751, 23

Altamirano, D., & Strohmayer, T. 2012, ApJ, 751, 23

2012
[2]

2011, ApJ, 742, L17

Altamirano, D., Belloni, T., Linares, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, L17

2011
[3]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, ASPC, 101, 17

1996
[4]

R., McDuffie, J

Ballantyne, D. R., McDuffie, J. R., & Rusin, J. S. 2011, ApJ, 734, 112

2011
[5]

1990, A&A, 230, 103

Belloni, T., & Hasinger, G. 1990, A&A, 230, 103

1990
[6]

2005, ˚a, 440, 207

Belloni, T., Homan, J., Casella, P., et al. 2005, ˚a, 440, 207

2005
[7]

2006, MNRAS, 369, 305

Belloni, T., Soleri, P., Casella, P., M´endez, M., & Migliari, S. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 305

2006
[8]

Belloni, T. M. 2010, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 794, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries (Springer-Verlag)

2010

Show all 103 references

[9]

M., & Motta, S

Belloni, T. M., & Motta, S. E. 2016, ASSL, 440, 61

2016
[10]

2015, ApJ, 799, 2

Bu, Q.-c., Chen, L., Li, Z.-s., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 2

2015
[11]

2020, SCIENCE CHINA

Cao, X., Jiang, W., Meng, B., et al. 2020, SCIENCE CHINA

2020
[12]

2005, ApJ, 629, 403

Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L. 2005, ApJ, 629, 403

2005
[13]

K., Debnath, D., Nandi, A., & Pal, P

Chakrabarti, S. K., Debnath, D., Nandi, A., & Pal, P. S. 2008, A&A, 489, L41

2008
[14]

R., & Livio, M

Chen, W., Shrader, C. R., & Livio, M. 1997, ApJ, 491, 312 11

1997
[15]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 33

Chen, X., Wang, W., Tang, Y., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 33

2021
[16]

2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

Chen, Y., Cui, W., Li, W., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

2020
[17]

L., Fabian, A

Dauser, T., Garcia, J., Parker, M. L., Fabian, A. C., & Wilms, J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, L100

2014
[18]

2013, MNRAS, 430, 1694

Dauser, T., Garcia, J., Wilms, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1694

2013
[19]

J., et al

Dauser, T., Garc´ıa, J., Walton, D. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 290, A76

2016
[20]

S., & Brenneman, L

Dauser, T., Wilms, J., Reynolds, C. S., & Brenneman, L. W. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1534

2010
[21]

s., Svoboda, J

Dauser, T. s., Svoboda, J. s., Schartel, N. s., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1914

2012
[22]

A., Liu, Z., et al

Dong, Y., Garc´ıa, J. A., Liu, Z., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2178

2020
[23]

M., Lightman, A

Eardley, D. M., Lightman, A. P., & Shapiro, S. L. 1975, ApJ, 199, 153

1975
[24]

C., Rees, M

Fabian, A. C., Rees, M. J., Stella, L., & White, N. E. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 729

1989
[25]

C., Vaughan, S., Nandra, K., et al

Fabian, A. C., Vaughan, S., Nandra, K., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L1

2002
[26]

C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R

Fabian, A. C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R. R., et al. 2009, Natur., 459, 540

2009
[27]

C., Wilkins, D

Fabian, A. C., Wilkins, D. R., Miller, J. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 217 Garc´ıa, J., & Kallman, T. R. 2010, ApJ, 719, 695 Garc´ıa, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 76 Garc´ıa, J. A., Kallman, T. R., Bautista, M., et al. 2018, ASPC, 515, 282 Garc´ıa, J. A....

2012
[28]

G., Wilkins, D

Gonzalez, A. G., Wilkins, D. R., & Gallo, L. C. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1932

2017
[29]

E., Miller, G

Grindlay, J. E., Miller, G. F., & Tang, S. 2014, AAS, 223, 406.06

2014
[30]

M., Uttley, P., & Klein-Wolt, M

Heil, L. M., Uttley, P., & Klein-Wolt, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3348

2015
[31]

2005, ApJ, 624, 295

Homan, J., Buxton, M., Markoff, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 295

2005
[32]

2003, ApJ, 586, 1262

Homan, J., Klein-Wolt, M., Rossi, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1262

2003
[33]

2001, ApJS, 132, 377

Homan, J., Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., et al. 2001, ApJS, 132, 377

2001
[34]

1977, ApJ, 214, 840

Ichimaru, S. 1977, ApJ, 214, 840

1977
[35]

Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L101

2009
[36]

2017, MNRAS, 464, 2979

Uttley, P. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2979

2017
[37]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967

Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., Middleton, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967

2016
[38]

R., & Motta, S

Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, New Astron. Rev., 85, id. 101524

2019
[39]

Jones, C., Forman, W., Tananbaum, H., & Turner, M. J. L. 1976, ApJ, 210, L9

1976
[40]

J.and Tomsick, J

Kalemci, E., & Maccarone, T. J.and Tomsick, J. A. 2018, ApJ, 859, 88

2018
[41]

S., Domˇcek, V., Svoboda, J., Dovˇciak, M., & Matt, G

Kammoun, E. S., Domˇcek, V., Svoboda, J., Dovˇciak, M., & Matt, G. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 239

2019
[42]

1980, PASJ, 32, 377

Kato, S., & Fukue, J. 1980, PASJ, 32, 377

1980
[43]

2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm — (Kyoto University Press)

Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm — (Kyoto University Press)

2008
[44]

L., Walton, D

King, A. L., Walton, D. J., Miller, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, L2

2014
[45]

2020, JHEAp, 27, 64

Li, X., Li, X., Tan, Y., et al. 2020, JHEAp, 27, 64

2020
[46]

P., & Eardley, D

Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1974, ApJ, 187, L2

1974
[47]

P., & Rybicki, G

Lightman, A. P., & Rybicki, G. B. 1980, ApJ, 236, 928

1980
[48]

2019, MNRAS, 487, 550

Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Ingram, A., & van der Klis, M. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 550

2019
[49]

2020, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, X., et al. 2020, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

2020
[50]

2022, MNRAS, 512, 2082

Liu, Q., Liu, H., Bambi, C., & Ji, L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2082

2022
[51]

Miller, J. M. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 441

2007
[52]

C., & Miller, J

Miniutti, G., Fabian, A. C., & Miller, J. M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 466

2004
[53]

1991, ApJ, 383, 784

Miyamoto, S., Kimura, K., Kitamoto, S., Dotani, T., & Ebisawa, K. 1991, ApJ, 383, 784

1991
[54]

Molteni, D., Sponholz, H., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 1996, ApJ, 457, 805

1996
[55]

H., Remillard, R

Morgan, E. H., Remillard, R. A., & Greiner, J. 1997, ApJ, 482, 993

1997
[56]

2012, MNRAS, 427, 595

Motta, S., Homan, J., Mu˜noz Darias, T., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 595

2012
[57]

2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292

Motta, S., Mu˜noz-Darias, T., Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Homan, J. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292

2011
[58]

E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al

Motta, S. E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2059 Mu˜noz-Darias, T., Motta, S., & Belloni, T. M. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 679

2015
[59]

A., & Lee, J

Neilsen, J., Remillard, R. A., & Lee, J. C. 2012, ApJ, 750, 71

2012
[60]

C., Krolik, J

Noble, S. C., Krolik, J. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2010, ApJ, 711, 959

2010
[61]

D., & Thorne, K

Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, Black holes (Les astres occlus), -, 343

1973
[62]

L., Tomsick, J

Parker, M. L., Tomsick, J. A., Miller, J. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 9

2015
[63]

N., Angelini, L., & White, N

Parmar, A. N., Angelini, L., & White, N. E. 1995, ApJ, 452, L129

1995
[64]

C., Fabian, A

Ponti, G., Gallo, L. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2591

2010
[65]

1986, Ap&SS, 126, 89

Priedhorsky, W. 1986, Ap&SS, 126, 89

1986
[66]

A., & McClintock, J

Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49

2006
[67]

A., Morgan, E

Remillard, R. A., Morgan, E. H., McClintock, J. E., Bailyn, C. D., & Orosz, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 522, 397

1999
[68]

A., Muno, M

Remillard, R. A., Muno, M. P., McClintock, J. E., & Orosz, J. A. 2002, ApJ, 580, 1030

2002
[69]

S., & Begelman, M

Reynolds, C. S., & Begelman, M. C. 1997, ApJ, 488, 109

1997
[70]

M., Casella, P., Kalemci, E., et al

Russell, D. M., Casella, P., Kalemci, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 182

2020
[71]

D., Homan, J., & Miller, J

Schnittman, J. D., Homan, J., & Miller, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 420

2006
[72]

D., Krolik, J

Schnittman, J. D., Krolik, J. H., & Noble, S. C. 2013, ApJ, 769, 156

2013
[73]

2014, ApJ, 789, 57

Seifina, E., Titarchuk, L., & Shaposhnikov, N. 2014, ApJ, 789, 57

2014
[74]

I., & Sunyaev, R

Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 12

1973
[75]

R., & Choi, C

Sriram, K., Rao, A. R., & Choi, C. S. 2012, ˚a, 541, 6 —. 2013, ApJ, 775, 28

2012
[76]

1998, ApJ, 492, L59

Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJ, 492, L59

1998
[77]

Stella, L., Vietri, M., & Morsink, S. M. 1999, ApJ, 524, L63

1999
[78]

Strohmayer, T. E. 2001, ApJ, 554, 169

2001
[79]

A., & Truemper, J

Sunyaev, R. A., & Truemper, J. 1979, Nature, 279, 506

1979
[80]

Svensson, R., & Zdziarski, A. A. 1994, ApJ, 436, 599

1994
[81]

W., et al

Svoboda, J., Dovˇciak, M., Goosmann, R. W., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, 106

2012
[82]

A., Borozdin, K

Syunyaev, R. A., Borozdin, K. N., Aleksandrovich, N. L., et al. 1994, AstL, 20, 890

1994
[83]

1999, A&A, 349, 1003

Tagger, M., & Pellat, R. 1999, A&A, 349, 1003

1999
[84]

1996, ARA&A, 34, 607

Tanaka, Y., & Shibazaki, N. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 607

1996
[85]

2007, PASJ, 59, 315

Tanaka, Y., Terashima, Y., Torii, K., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 315

2007
[86]

S., & Price, R

Thorne, K. S., & Price, R. H. 1975, ApJ, 195, 101

1975
[87]

2020, MNRAS, 498, 3565

Tripathi, A., Liu, H., & Bambi, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3565

2020
[88]

P., Borozdin, K

Trudolyubov, S. P., Borozdin, K. N., & Priedhorsky, W. C. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 309 van den Eijnden, J., Ingram, A., Uttley, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2643 van der Klis, M. 1989, NATO ASI Series, Vol. 262, Fourier techniques in X-ray timing (Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers)

2001
[89]

Vaughan, S., & Fabian, A. C. 2002, MNRAS, 348, 1415

2002
[90]

Wagoner, R. V. 1999, Phys. Rep., 311, 259

1999
[91]

J., Mooley, K., King, A

Walton, D. J., Mooley, K., King, A. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 110

2017
[92]

2021, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 30, 1

Wang, W., Tang, Y., Tuo, Y., et al. 2021, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 30, 1

2021
[93]

2018, ApJ, 865, 19

Weng, S.-S., Wang, T.-T., Cai, J.-P., Yuan, Q.-R., & Gu, W.-M. 2018, ApJ, 865, 19

2018
[94]

1999, ApJ, 526, 33

Wijnands, R., Homan, J., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJ, 526, 33

1999
[95]

R., & Fabian, A

Wilkins, D. R., & Fabian, A. C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1269

2011
[96]

R., & Gallo, L

Wilkins, D. R., & Gallo, L. C. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1694

2013
[97]

2000, ApJ, 542, 914

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

2000
[98]

2022, ApJ, 937, 33

Yang, Z.-x., Zhang, L., Huang, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 33

2022
[99]

2021, MNRAS, 505, 3823

Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., Uttley, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3823

2021
[100]

2020, SCPMA, 63, 249502

Zhang, S.-N., Li, T., Lu, F., et al. 2020, SCPMA, 63, 249502

2020
[101]

H., Morgan, E

Zhang, W., Jahoda, K., Swank, J. H., Morgan, E. H., & Giles, A. B. 1995, ApJ, 449, 930

1995
[102]

2024, ApJ, 968, 106

Zhu, H., & Wang, W. 2024, ApJ, 968, 106

2024
[103]

C., Uttley, P., et al

Zoghbi, A., Fabian, A. C., Uttley, P., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2419

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2012, ApJ, 751, 23

Altamirano, D., & Strohmayer, T. 2012, ApJ, 751, 23

2012

[2] [2]

2011, ApJ, 742, L17

Altamirano, D., Belloni, T., Linares, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, L17

2011

[3] [3]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, ASPC, 101, 17

1996

[4] [4]

R., McDuffie, J

Ballantyne, D. R., McDuffie, J. R., & Rusin, J. S. 2011, ApJ, 734, 112

2011

[5] [5]

1990, A&A, 230, 103

Belloni, T., & Hasinger, G. 1990, A&A, 230, 103

1990

[6] [6]

2005, ˚a, 440, 207

Belloni, T., Homan, J., Casella, P., et al. 2005, ˚a, 440, 207

2005

[7] [7]

2006, MNRAS, 369, 305

Belloni, T., Soleri, P., Casella, P., M´endez, M., & Migliari, S. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 305

2006

[8] [8]

Belloni, T. M. 2010, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 794, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries (Springer-Verlag)

2010