Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Probing multi-band variability and mode switching in the candidate transitional millisecond pulsar 3FGL J1544.6-1125

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optical reddening during dips in 3FGL J1544.6-1125 marks the discrete mass ejections that strip the inner disk and drive the X-ray high-to-low mode switches, tying most optical and X-ray emission to the pulsar-wind/disk boundary.

desk verdict A careful, genuinely data-rich multi-wavelength campaign on a candidate tMSP; the central reddening claim needs simultaneous X-rays to anchor optical dips to mode switching, but the paper deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20213 v1 pith:O3AAYJPP submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.HE

Giulia Illiano , Francesco Coti Zelati , Arianna Miraval Zanon , Alessandro Papitto , Maria Cristina Baglio , Domitilla de Martino , Stefano Giarratana , Filippo Ambrosino
show 15 more authors
Francesco Carotenuto Sergio Campana Alessio Marino Nanda Rea Diego F. Torres Marcello Giroletti Thomas D. Russell Christian Malacaria Caterina Ballocco Enrico Bozzo Carlo Ferrigno Riccardo La Placa Adriano Ghedina Massimo Cecconi Francesco Leone
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 95.85.Nv97.60.Gb97.80.Jp
keywords transitionalmillisecondpulsarssub-luminousdiskstatemodeswitching3FGLJ1544.6-1125mini-pulsarnebulamulti-wavelengthcampaignX-raybinariesaccretiondisks
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 the most extensive high-time-resolution multi-wavelength campaign to date on the candidate transitional millisecond pulsar 3FGL J1544.6-1125, covering radio through X-rays over four days. Its central claim is that the optical and X-ray variability of the source share one physical origin: the boundary region where the pulsar wind meets the inner accretion disk. In five simultaneous optical filters, the source dips and flickers like its X-ray high/low-mode bimodality, and the dips are redder than the bright states, which the authors read as discrete mass ejections that remove the hot inner flow and trigger the high-to-low mode switches. If correct, this strengthens the mini-pulsar nebula picture of transitional millisecond pulsars, in which most optical and X-ray emission in the sub-luminous disk state is synchrotron radiation from the wind-disk boundary rather than from the stellar surface or the outer disk. The campaign also yields a stringent radio non-detection implying strong radio variability at nearly constant X-ray flux, and a candidate optical flare with no X-ray counterpart.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the mini-pulsar nebula scenario: a boundary region, roughly 100 km from the neutron star, where the striped pulsar wind collides with the inner accretion flow. In the high mode this boundary is present and radiates synchrotron X-ray, UV, and optical emission; in the low mode it is dismantled by discrete mass ejections that remove the inner flow. The diagnostic that carries the optical argument is the reddening trend: Spearman rank correlations of $\simeq 0.77$, $0.78$, and $0.93$ between the $g_s$ magnitude and the $g_s-r_s$, $g_s-i_s$, $g_s-z_s$ colours (chance probabilities of order $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-16}$) show the source becomes significantly redder at lower flux, as expected if the residual light comes from cooler, outer disk regions once the hot inner flow is ejected. The high-mode SED model then decomposes the emission into an irradiated companion star ($T_* \simeq 4115$ K), a multicolour disk truncated near $r_{\rm in} \simeq 10^{9.1}$ cm, and a boundary synchrotron component peaking at $\nu_{\rm sync} \simeq 10^{15.2}$ Hz with spectral slope $\alpha_{\rm sync} \simeq -0.72$.

What would settle it

Simultaneous X-ray and fast five-band optical observations across several mode switches would settle the claim: if the optical dips and reddening do not line up event-by-event with the X-ray low modes, or if optical dips occur with no X-ray counterpart, the ejection-driven common-origin picture fails. A quantitative alternative is to measure the colour temperature of the dips; it should match the cooler, outer-disk residual implied by the SED model rather than the boundary-region synchrotron component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper seeks to establish that in 3FGL J1544.6-1125, the high-to-low mode switches seen in X-rays are accompanied by optical dips that grow redder as the source dims, and that this reddening is the signature of discrete mass ejections disrupting the inner accretion flow. On the authors' reading, most of the optical and X-ray emission in the high mode originates at the boundary between the pulsar wind and the inner disk, and the ejection of the inner flow removes both the boundary emission and the hot inner-disk light, leaving fainter, redder light from the cooler outer disk. They support this with spectral energy distribution modelling of the high mode that reproduces the optical-to-X-ray flux with a truncated accretion disk, an irradiated companion star, and a synchrotron boundary component, and with the close resemblance of the source's broadband SED to that of the archetype PSR J1023+0038. Secondary results include a candidate optical flare without an X-ray counterpart in archival XMM-Newton/OM data, near-infrared light curves that vary but do not firmly show bimodality, and a VLA 3$\sigma$ upper limit of $\sim 8\,\mu$Jy at 6 GHz that is a factor of $\gtrsim 3.5$ below the average 2019 radio flux measured in similar conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The core interpretation assumes that the optical dips and reddening seen by GTC/HiPERCAM on Day 4 are the same events as the X-ray high-to-low mode switches, even though no X-ray data were taken simultaneously and the Day-4 low modes were flagged by visual inspection of the optical light curve alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reddening interpretation is right, every high-to-low switch is an episodic ejection event rather than a change in accretion geometry, and the return to the high mode marks the refilling of the inner disk and the restoration of the wind-disk boundary.
  • The near-identity of J1544's broadband SED and modelled high-mode emission with those of PSR J1023+0038 implies the same boundary-region emission machinery operates across confirmed and candidate transitional millisecond pulsars, strengthening the case that J1544 is a true tMSP.
  • The radio non-detection at $\lesssim 8\,\mu$Jy during 2024, against 2019 detections of roughly 29 and 57 $\mu$Jy at similar X-ray flux, means the radio band traces a separate, more variable component and radio-X-ray correlations in tMSPs cannot be assumed stable across years.
  • The irradiation luminosity needed to reproduce the high-mode SED implies a spin-down power $\dot{E} \leq (6\pm 1)\times 10^{34}$ erg s$^{-1}$, a quantitative prediction for J1544's behaviour if it ever switches to the rotation-powered state.
  • The candidate optical flare without an X-ray counterpart, if genuine, places at least some optical variability outside the boundary region, in the outer disk or on the companion star, so the common-origin claim applies to the dominant emission rather than to all of it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test would be strictly simultaneous X-ray and fast five-band optical photometry across several switches: the optical dip should coincide with or slightly lead the X-ray drop, and the reddening should track the X-ray low mode event-by-event rather than only on average.
  • The colour trend could be turned into a thermometer of the residual disk: the dip colours constrain the temperature of the leftover emission, and comparing that temperature with the truncated-disk temperature from the SED model would check quantitatively whether the inner radius moves outward during low modes.
  • The observed low-mode durations, from about 20 s to about 520 s with hundreds of episodes in a day, resemble the plasmoid-ejection behaviour proposed for PSR J1023+0038's radio-X-ray anti-correlation; radio observations simultaneous with optical dips could test whether individual ejections flash in the radio.
  • If the spin-down power upper limit holds, J1544 would be an unusually energetic candidate tMSP, and a future state transition would let a direct radio measurement of $\dot{E}$ discriminate between the irradiation-based estimate and empirical X-ray-luminosity scalings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the most extensive multi-wavelength campaign to date on the candidate transitional millisecond pulsar 3FGL J1544.6−1125 in the sub-luminous disk state. The dataset combines XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, NICER, HST, TNG/SiFAP2, REM, GTC/HiPERCAM, VLA, and ATCA observations, plus archival X-ray and near-infrared data. The paper's central claim is that the optical reddening observed in the Day 4 GTC/HiPERCAM light curves at lower fluxes, together with the SED modeling, supports the picture in which discrete mass ejections remove the inner disk flow and thereby drive the high-to-low X-ray mode switches, implying a common boundary-region origin for most optical and X-ray emission. The paper also presents X-ray spectral results for high and low modes, a radio non-detection with an 8 microJy upper limit, evidence for radio variability over years, an archival optical flare candidate, and the first near-infrared light curves for this source.

Significance. The observational campaign is valuable and the standard analyses are, for the most part, carefully executed: the X-ray spectral fitting is cross-checked against archival data, the radio upper limits are quantified separately for X-ray high and low modes, and the optical flare candidate is checked against OM background and X-ray particle-background variations. If the connection between the optical reddening and the X-ray mode switches could be firmly established, the paper would materially strengthen the mini-pulsar nebula scenario for tMSPs and extend it from the archetype J1023 to a second object, which is a significant step. The SED modeling is presented as supporting evidence, but at present it is not independent of the assumption it is used to justify. The paper is honest about several of its own limitations, including the lack of simultaneous X-ray data on Day 4 and the absence of firm UV/NIR bimodality, and those limitations are precisely what currently prevent the central claim from being fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.3, Figs. 4-5] The central claim that the optical reddening tracks the X-ray high-to-low mode switches is not independently established. The Day 4 GTC/HiPERCAM low modes are identified visually, as indicated by the yellow-shaded regions in Fig. 4 and the text in Sect. 3.3, and the only simultaneous X-ray data, 240 s of NICER, were excluded because no clear low-mode intervals were detected (Sect. 2.7). The Spearman coefficients of 0.77-0.93 therefore characterize a color-magnitude relation defined against visually selected states, and interpreting those states as the same mode switches seen in X-rays is an assumption, not a measurement. This is a selection loop: if the dips were selected because they resemble the expected X-ray pattern, the accompanying color change is not independent evidence for the mode-switch interpretation. Please provide an objective state assignment (for example, a threshold or a hidden Markov model applied to the optical light curve) or explicitly present the reddening as an empirical optical phenomenon and soften the mode-switch and common-origin claims accordingly.
  2. [Sect. 3.7, Fig. 9, Table 2] The 'high-mode SED' is not a high-mode SED for the optical points. Because no X-ray observation was simultaneous with the GTC/HiPERCAM run, all HiPERCAM data are included in the SED, including the visually identified optical low states. Fitting a model to a mixture of high and low optical states cannot be used to infer the high-mode boundary-region parameters or to claim that the high-mode SED supports the mini-pulsar nebula model. The authors should either re-fit using only optical points that can be objectively assigned to the high mode, marginalize over the state assignment, or explicitly state that the SED is not state-resolved and remove the supporting role assigned to it.
  3. [Sects. 3.7 and 4, Table 2] The SED modeling is partly circular with respect to the central claim. The fitted model includes the boundary-region synchrotron component (F_sync, nu_sync, alpha_sync in Table 2), and the quality of the fit is then cited as support for the boundary-region origin of the optical and X-ray emission. No alternative model without this component (for example, a disk-plus-star model or a disk-plus-jet model) is compared. A formal model comparison, such as a BIC or AIC statistic, or a demonstration that the boundary component is actually required by the data, is needed before the SED can be used as independent support for the proposed scenario.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The listed prior for alpha_sync in the J1544 columns is U(0.4,1.0), which is incompatible with the reported posterior median of -0.723. This appears to be a typo; please correct the prior range or explain the discrepancy.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Sect. 3.3] The caption of Fig. 4 describes the yellow-shaded areas as 'potential low modes,' while the main text refers to 'at least two distinct rectangular flat bottom dips.' Please specify the objective criteria used to select these intervals, since the subsequent color-magnitude analysis depends on them.
  3. [Sect. 3.3] The statement that the Spearman coefficients have '32 d.o.f.' is unclear; please state the number of independent rebinned points and the rebinning scheme used for the color-magnitude diagrams.
  4. [Sect. 2.1 and Fig. 2] The color coding used for the X-ray and UV light curves in Figs. 2 and 3 is not uniform across the two figures, making direct comparison harder than it should be. Please clarify the legend entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reddening trend is an independent observational correlation and the SED fit is a consistency check, not a prediction derived from its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central inference chain is observational rather than formal. The color–magnitude reddening in Sect. 3.3 is a direct Spearman correlation of GTC/HiPERCAM photometry; no parameter of the mini-pulsar nebula model is used to construct that correlation, and the 'low mode' labeling is not fed into the correlation calculation. The Day 4 lack of simultaneous X-ray coverage is explicitly disclosed (Sect. 2.7: only 240 s of NICER with no clear low-mode intervals), and the potential low modes in Fig. 4 are visually identified; this weakens the cross-band identification but is not an equation-level circular reduction. The SED modelling in Sect. 3.7 is a consistency fit rather than a prediction: the boundary-synchrotron component is a free component of the fitted model, so the successful fit cannot independently prove that component's existence, but this is an evidentiary limitation of model comparison, not a case where the output is equivalent to the input by construction. The spin-down upper limit in Sect. 4 follows algebraically from the fitted irradiation luminosity and the inequality eta <= 1, and the radio non-detection and candidate optical flare are independent observables. Self-citations to Papitto et al. (2019) and Baglio et al. (2023) supply the interpretive framework, yet that framework also has external support (Veledina et al. 2019; IXPE polarimetry) and the fit is performed here with stated priors, so the citations are not load-bearing circularity. I find no step in which a claimed prediction or derived result reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation relies on a small set of fitted SED parameters plus assumptions about distance, binary parameters, the physical identification of optical dips with X-ray modes, and the geometry of the pulsar wind. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • X-ray mode thresholds = 0.8 counts/s (high), 0.4 counts/s (low)
    Hand-chosen count-rate thresholds in the XMM-Newton/EPIC light curve (Sect. 2.1) define high and low modes, and therefore all mode-dependent spectra, radio gating, and the visual optical comparison.
  • Companion star temperature T* = 4115 K (median posterior)
    Free parameter in the SED model for the irradiated companion star (Table 2).
  • Irradiation luminosity L_irr = log10(L_irr/erg/s) = 33.7
    Free parameter in the SED model; also used to derive the spin-down power upper limit in Sect. 4.
  • Inner disk radius r_in,opt/UV = log10(r_in/cm) = 9.09
    Free parameter in the SED model for the optical/UV disk contribution.
  • Sync peak frequency nu_sync = log10(nu_sync/Hz) = 15.2
    Free parameter describing the boundary-region synchrotron component.
  • Sync slope alpha_sync = -0.723
    Free parameter for the optically thin synchrotron slope in the SED model.
  • Sync normalization F_sync = log10(F_sync/mJy) = -1.6
    Free normalization of the boundary-emission component.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The mini-pulsar nebula model: optical/UV/X-ray pulsations and high-mode emission come from synchrotron radiation where the striped pulsar wind meets the inner accretion disk.
    Invoked in the SED modeling (Sect. 3.7) and discussion (Sect. 4); taken from Papitto et al. 2019 and Veledina et al. 2019.
  • domain assumption The source distance is D = 3.8 kpc, which the paper acknowledges is now an upper limit from Koljonen & Linares 2023.
    Used to convert fluxes to luminosities and to set the SED model scale (Sect. 3.7).
  • domain assumption Fixed binary parameters: M_NS = 1.4 Msun, M_C = 0.7 Msun, R_c = 0.75 Rsun, P_orb = 5.8 hr, near face-on inclination.
    Taken from Britt et al. 2017 and used in the SED model and in the spin-down power calculation (Sect. 3.7, Sect. 4).
  • domain assumption Optical dips seen by GTC/HiPERCAM on Day 4 correspond to the same physical high/low modes seen in X-rays, even though there was no simultaneous X-ray coverage.
    This identification underlies the reddening interpretation in Sect. 3.3 and the common-origin conclusion in Sect. 4.
  • domain assumption The pulsar wind is isotropic and the reprocessing efficiency satisfies eta <= 1 when converting irradiation luminosity into spin-down power.
    Used in Sect. 4 to derive Edot <= (6 +/- 1) x 10^34 erg/s from the fitted L_irr.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing multi-band variability and mode switching in the candidate transitional millisecond pulsar 3FGL J1544.6-1125." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3AAYJPP

@misc{pith2026250620213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing multi-band variability and mode switching in the candidate transitional millisecond pulsar 3FGL J1544.6-1125},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3AAYJPP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20213}
}
abstract

We present the most extensive high-time resolution multi-band campaign to date on the candidate transitional millisecond pulsar (tMSP) 3FGL J1544.6-1125 in the sub-luminous disk state, with coordinated observations from the radio to the X-ray band. While XMM-Newton and NuSTAR X-ray light curves exhibit the characteristic high- and low-mode bimodality, the source faintness prevents firm evidence for similar bimodality in the ultraviolet and near-infrared light curves, presented here for the first time. A re-analysis of archival XMM-Newton/OM data reveals an optical flare without an X-ray counterpart, likely originating from the outer accretion disk or the companion star. During our observations, no radio emission was detected, with a 3$\sigma$ flux density upper limit of 8 $\mu$Jy at 6 GHz. While past works have already reported radio variability in the source, this limit is a factor of 3.5 below the average value measured in 2019 in similar conditions, underscoring significant radio variability despite the relatively stable X-ray flux. Simultaneous optical light curves in five filters with GTC/HiPERCAM revealed flickering and dipping activities that resemble the observed X-ray variability, along with a reddening trend at lower fluxes. The latter is consistent with discrete mass ejections that disrupt the inner flow and reduce both X-ray and optical fluxes, thereby driving the high-to-low-mode switches. This suggests a common origin for most optical and X-ray emission at the boundary region between the pulsar wind and the inner disk, as also supported by our modelling of the spectral energy distribution in the high mode. Overall, our findings reinforce the mini-pulsar nebula picture for tMSPs in the sub-luminous state and demonstrate how coordinated, high-time resolution, multi-wavelength campaigns are essential to probe the processes governing rapid mode switches in these systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of count rates obtained from the background￾subtracted XMM-Newton/EPIC light curve acquired on 2024 February 8, binned with a time resolution of 20 s. We defined the high modes as the time intervals when the count rate exceeded 0.8 counts s−1 (red dashed line), and the low modes as those when the count rate dropped below 0.4 counts s−1 (blue dashed line). A “transition” region is also present, following… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the X-ray, UV, and optical emissions of J1544 during the first three days of observations. For Day 1, the light curves are shown in decreasing order of energy band, from top to bottom, with the XMM-Newton/EPIC (20 s time bin), HST/STIS (20 s), and XMM-Newton/OM (1200 s). For Days 2–3, the 3-30 keV NuSTAR light curve (100 s time bin) is shown. The yellow-shaded areas denote the time intervals of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zoom-in of the time series collected on Day 1, capturing the period of maximum overlap among different telescopes. light curve of J1544, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GTC/HiPERCAM light curves acquired on Day 4 in the Super SDSS uS , gS , rS , iS , and zS filters. The yellow-shaded areas highlight the most prominent potential low modes. The error bars represent 1σ uncertainties. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.2 gs - rs (mag) …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color-magnitude diagrams for J1544, derived from the most highly sampled gS , rS , iS , and zS bands of the GTC/HiPERCAM time series ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: XMM-Newton/OM light curve acquired in 2018 using 100-s bins. The error bars represent 1σ uncertainties. Article number, page 9 of 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NIR light curves of J1544 observed with TNG/NICS on 2016 March 29 (top panel) and 30 (bottom panel). We plotted differential mag￾nitudes by subtracting the weighted average value in each filter for each night (see Sect. 3.5 for details). Photometric data were acquired …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radio variability of J1544 compared to its relatively stable X-ray flux over the years. This figure extends [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Unabsorbed broadband SED of J1544. Left panel: The SED of J1544 from UV to X-rays, compared with that of J1023 from Miraval Zanon et al. (2022). For J1023 and J1544, HST data are shown in orange and red, XMM-Newton data in light blue and dark blue, and NuSTAR data in l…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corner plot displaying the posterior probability distributions of the parameters obtained from the MCMC sampling algorithm. The diagonal panels show the probability density of each parameter, with solid lines representing the distribution and vertical dashed lines mar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Fast optical spectroscopic observations of PSR J1023+0038 over one orbital period

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Full-orbit minute-cadence optical spectroscopy of PSR J1023+0038 reveals short-timescale line variability and asymmetric Doppler maps consistent with outflows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2015, ApJS, 218, 23

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 23

    2015

  2. [2]

    A., Cheng, A

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

    1982

  3. [3]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 854–858

    Ambrosino, F., Papitto, A., Stella, L., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 854–858

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    M., Bogdanov, S., Patruno, A., et al

    Archibald, A. M., Bogdanov, S., Patruno, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 62

    2015

  5. [5]

    M., Stairs, I

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

    2009

  6. [6]

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

    1996

  7. [7]

    2001, A&A, 378, 722

    Baffa, C., Comoretto, G., Gennari, S., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 722

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    C., Coti Zelati, F., Campana, S., et al

    Baglio, M. C., Coti Zelati, F., Campana, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A30

    2023

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    C., Coti Zelati, F., Di Marco, A., et al

    Baglio, M. C., Coti Zelati, F., Di Marco, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13260

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C., Vincentelli, F., Campana, S., et al

    Baglio, M. C., Vincentelli, F., Campana, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A104

    2019

  3. [11]

    K., Bonoli, C., et al

    Barbieri, C., Bhatia, R. K., Bonoli, C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 2199, Advanced Technology Optical Telescopes V , ed. L. M. Stepp, 10–21

    1994

  4. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 28

    Bogdanov, S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 28

    2016

  5. [13]

    M., Bassa, C., et al

    Bogdanov, S., Archibald, A. M., Bassa, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 148

    2015

  6. [14]

    T., Miller-Jones, J

    Bogdanov, S., Deller, A. T., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 54

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Halpern, J

    Bogdanov, S. & Halpern, J. P. 2015, ApJ, 803, L27

    2015

  8. [16]

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

    Britt, C. T., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 21

    2017

  9. [17]

    2019, A&A, 629, L8 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Campana, S., Miraval Zanon, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, L8 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    2019

  10. [18]

    1998, ApJ, 492, 342 Coti Zelati, F., Baglio, M

    Chakrabarty, D. 1998, ApJ, 492, 342 Coti Zelati, F., Baglio, M. C., Campana, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1783 Coti Zelati, F., de Martino, D., Dhillon, V . S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A220 Coti Zelati, F., Papitto, A., de Martino, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A211 de Martino, D....

    1998

  11. [19]

    D., Andrews, J

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 930, 15

    2022

  12. [20]

    S., Bezawada, N., Black, M., et al

    Dhillon, V . S., Bezawada, N., Black, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 350 Di Salvo, T., Papitto, A., Marino, A., Iaria, R., & Burderi, L. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (eds. C. Bambi, 147

    2021

  13. [21]

    J., Pounds, K., et al

    Edelson, R., Turner, T. J., Pounds, K., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 610

    2002

  14. [22]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. & Massa, D. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 525, 1011

    1999

  15. [23]

    L., Massa, D., Gordon, K

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., Massa, D., Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., & Clayton, G. C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 108

    2019

  16. [24]

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

    Foight, D. R., Güver, T., Özel, F., & Slane, P. O. 2016, ApJ, 826, 66 García, C. R., Illiano, G., Torres, D. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A187

    2016

  17. [25]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okajima, T

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okajima, T. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 844313

    2012

  18. [26]

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

    Ghedina, A., Leone, F., Ambrosino, F., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10702, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107025Q

    2018

  19. [27]

    Gordon, K. D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023

    2024

  20. [28]

    D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G. C. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, 1320

    2009

  21. [29]

    D., Misselt, K

    Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Bouwman, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 916, 33

    2021

  22. [30]

    V ., Jaodand, A

    Gusinskaia, N. V ., Jaodand, A. D., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 99

    2025

  23. [31]

    & Kajava, J

    Hakala, P. & Kajava, J. J. E. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 3297

    2017

  24. [32]

    & Kajava, J

    Hakala, P. & Kajava, J. J. E. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3297

    2018

  25. [33]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V . V ., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27

    2013

  26. [34]

    2023, A&A, 669, A26

    Illiano, G., Papitto, A., Ambrosino, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A26

    2023

  27. [35]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1

    2001

  28. [36]

    M., Hessels, J

    Jaodand, A., Archibald, A. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 122

    2016

  29. [37]

    D., Hernández Santisteban, J

    Jaodand, A. D., Hernández Santisteban, J. V ., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2021b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.13145

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Johnson, H. L. 1965, ApJ, 141, 923

    1965

  31. [39]

    R., Clark, C

    Kennedy, M. R., Clark, C. J., V oisin, G., & Breton, R. P. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1120

    2018

  32. [40]

    Koljonen, K. I. I. & Linares, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3963

    2023

  33. [41]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., Linares, M., & Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 95

    2025

  34. [42]

    Li, K.-L., Strader, J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Heinke, C. O., & Chomiuk, L. 2020, ApJ, 895, 89

    2020

  35. [43]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 72

    Linares, M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 72

    2014

  36. [44]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1387

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Robinson, T., & Arney, G. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1387

    2019

  37. [45]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993

    2005

  38. [46]

    D., Del Santo, M., et al

    Marino, A., Russell, T. D., Del Santo, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2366

    2023

  39. [47]

    O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36

    2001

  40. [48]

    M., Swihart, S

    Miller, J. M., Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 49 Miraval Zanon, A., Ambrosino, F., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A63

    2020

  41. [49]

    M., Mushotzky, R

    Nandra, K., George, I. M., Mushotzky, R. F., Turner, T. J., & Yaqoob, T. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 476, 70

    1997

  42. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 88

    Panurach, T., Urquhart, R., Strader, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 88

    2023

  43. [51]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 104

    Papitto, A., Ambrosino, F., Stella, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 104

    2019

  44. [52]

    & de Martino, D

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

    2022

  45. [53]

    M., et al

    Papitto, A., de Martino, D., Belloni, T. M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 449, L26

    2015

  46. [54]

    2013, Nature, 501, 517

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

    2013

  47. [55]

    C., et al

    Papitto, A., Rea, N., Zelati, F. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, L12

    2018

  48. [56]

    C., Maccarone, T

    Pattie, E. C., Maccarone, T. J., Tetarenko, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 126

    2024

  49. [57]

    & Srinivasan, G

    Radhakrishnan, V . & Srinivasan, G. 1982, Current Science, 51, 1096

    1982

  50. [58]

    D., Stapelfeldt, K

    Robinson, T. D., Stapelfeldt, K. R., & Marley, M. S. 2016, PASP, 128, 025003

    2016

  51. [59]

    S., Bhattacharyya, B., et al

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

    2015

  52. [60]

    2011, PASJ, 63, S759

    Saitou, K., Tsujimoto, M., Ebisawa, K., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, S759

    2011

  53. [61]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 114

    Schartel, N., González-Riestra, R., Kretschmar, P., et al. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 114

    2022

  54. [62]

    Schultz, G. V . & Wiemer, W. 1975, A&A, 43, 133

    1975

  55. [63]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 566

    Shahbaz, T., Dallilar, Y ., Garner, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 566

    2018

  56. [64]

    P., et al

    Shahbaz, T., Linares, M., Nevado, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3461

    2015

  57. [65]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 198

    Shahbaz, T., Linares, M., Rodríguez-Gil, P., & Casares, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 198

    2019

  58. [66]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  59. [67]

    W., Archibald, A

    Stappers, B. W., Archibald, A. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 39

    2014

  60. [68]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191 Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18

    1987

  61. [69]

    P., Yang, C., An, H., et al

    Tendulkar, S. P., Yang, C., An, H., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 791, 77

    2014

  62. [70]

    Torres, D. F. & Li, J. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. S. Bhattacharyya, A. Papitto, & D. Bhattacharya, 33–55

    2022

  63. [71]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27

    2001

  64. [72]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 345, 1271

    2003

  65. [73]

    Veledina, A., Nättilä, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 144

    2019

  66. [74]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 93

    Verbunt, F. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 93

    1993

  67. [75]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487

    1996

  68. [76]

    Whittet, D. C. B. & van Breda, I. G. 1980, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 192, 467

    1980

  69. [77]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

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

    2000

  70. [78]

    E., Kimble, R

    Woodgate, B. E., Kimble, R. A., Bowers, C. W., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 1183

    1998

  71. [79]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 100

    Xu, Y .-J., Peng, H.-L., Weng, S.-S., Zhang, X., & Ge, M.-Y . 2025, ApJ, 981, 100

    2025

  72. [80]

    #XMMEA_EM && (PI>10000) && (PATTERN==0)

    Yuk, H., Dai, X., Jayasinghe, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 110 Article number, page 16 of 19 Illiano et al.: Multi-band variability and mode switching in the candidate tMSP 3FGL J1544.6−1125 Appendix A: Spectral analysis of archival XMM-Newtondata To enhance the statistics of th...

    2015

Pith tools

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