Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Spectral evolution of GX 17+2 using AstroSat and NICER observations

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 In a Z-source neutron star binary, accretion efficiency stays at ~0.2 as luminosity doubles.

desk verdict Worth refereeing — a careful broadband flux-resolved study whose two headline claims (constant efficiency, radius-driven normal branch) both overstate what the paper's own fits show. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21679 v1 pith:ST5Y5OTI submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.HE

Sree Bhattacherjee , Ranjeev Misra , Biplob Sarkar , V. Jithesh , Jayashree Roy , Yashpal Bhulla This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.80.Jp97.60.Jd
keywords accretionefficiencyZ-tracksourcesGX17+2flux-resolvedspectroscopyneutronstarX-raybinaryinnerdiskradiusAstroSatNICER
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 tries to establish what actually moves a Z-track neutron-star X-ray binary along its hardness-intensity track. Using flux-resolved spectroscopy of AstroSat and NICER observations of GX 17+2 from 2016 to 2020, the authors argue that in the normal branch the total luminosity and the inferred mass accretion rate stay constant while the inner disk radius shrinks and the fraction of disk seed photons entering the corona drops by about half, so the branch is traced by a changing geometry rather than by changing accretion. In the flaring branch, the luminosity climbs from about 4 to 7 x $10^{38}$ erg/s and the accretion rate rises, yet the accretion efficiency η = L_T/(Mdot $c^{2}$) remains nearly constant, in the range 0.16-0.21. If right, this supports the idea that a single efficiency characterizes neutron-star accretion and makes the inferred accretion rate physically meaningful, while placing the geometry, not the accretion rate, at the center of state changes in Sco-like Z-sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spectral decomposition tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb): a disk blackbody whose photons are Comptonized in a corona (thcomp), plus a neutron-star surface blackbody with its normalization fixed to a 10 km radius. From the diskbb normalization the authors derive the inner disk radius R_in via R_in = $κ^{2}$ (N_dbb/cos i)^(1/2) D_10, and from the inner disk temperature and radius they derive the accretion rate Mdot using the standard diskbb relation; the accretion efficiency η = L_T/(Mdot $c^{2}$) then ties the bolometric luminosity to the accretion rate. The constancy of η across all flux levels is the identity that carries the argument: it stays near 0.2 even as R_in, Mdot, and luminosity individually vary, which is presented as the expected signature of a neutron-star accretor and as validation of both the model and the 13 kpc distance.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the inner disk radius along the normal branch—for instance from a relativistically broadened iron line observed with a high-throughput broadband instrument—that shows R_in staying constant near 30-40 km while the source moves along the branch would falsify the geometry-driven normal-branch claim, since that claim rests on R_in shrinking from ~51 to ~38 km in the preferred model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that GX 17+2's mass accretion efficiency η = L_T/(Mdot $c^{2}$) stays nearly constant, at ~0.16-0.21, across flux levels whose total luminosity varies from about 4 to 7 x $10^{38}$ erg/s, even though the inner disk radius inferred from the disk blackbody normalization moves from about 51 km down to about 30-31 km. Within the preferred spectral model tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb), the normal branch has constant total luminosity and accretion rate with a shrinking inner disk radius and a ~50% drop in the covering fraction, identifying geometry rather than Mdot as the driver of the normal branch; the flaring branch instead shows genuine luminosity and accretion-rate variation. The paper also reports that the statistically equivalent alternative model tbabs*(diskbb+thcomp*bbodyrad) leaves the inner radius nearly constant at 30-40 km but reproduces the same constant-efficiency behavior at ~0.22.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the assumption that the spectral model with the disk blackbody as the Comptonized seed source is the correct decomposition; the statistically equivalent alternative model makes the inner disk radius nearly constant and eliminates the normal-branch geometry change that is central to the paper's interpretation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If η is truly constant, the accretion rates inferred from the diskbb model are physical, validating the model decomposition and the derived R_in and Mdot scales.
  • Normal-branch motion in GX 17+2 is driven by a changing geometry (inner disk moving inward and fewer seed photons Comptonized), not by a changing accretion rate, in tension with the traditional Mdot-driven Z-track picture.
  • Flaring-branch luminosity changes reflect real accretion-rate changes that leave the efficiency untouched, so the source flares by accreting more matter at the same conversion efficiency.
  • The constancy of η supports the ~13 kpc distance estimate, because η scales with distance squared and would drift if the distance were wrong.
  • Cross-calibration of AstroSat and NICER, including simultaneous joint fits, shows the same parameter behavior and constrains the spectral parameters more tightly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The outcome common to both spectral decompositions is the near-constancy of η; the geometry-driven normal-branch interpretation depends on choosing the disk photons as the Comptonized seed population, which the paper itself shows is statistically indistinguishable from the alternative.
  • If η is a fixed property of neutron-star accretion, the same flux-resolved analysis applied to other Sco-like Z-sources (Sco X-1, GX 349+2) should return the same constant; a measurement there would test the universality.
  • A model-independent Mdot from type-I X-ray bursts, compared with the diskbb-derived Mdot along the track, would test whether the constant efficiency is real or an artifact of the model prescription.
  • Polarimetric observations of the seed-photon anisotropy could directly probe whether the covering fraction really drops along the normal branch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a flux-resolved spectral study of the Z-source GX 17+2 using AstroSat (LAXPC+SXT) and NICER observations from 2016 to 2020. The spectra are fitted with a model consisting of absorption, a disk blackbody, a blackbody, and thermal Comptonization (ThComp), with the primary model tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb). The authors segment the hardness-intensity diagram into nine AstroSat flux levels (FL1–FL9) and four NICER flux levels (NFL1–NFL4) and report the evolution of spectral parameters along the normal branch (NB) and flaring branch (FB). They claim that in the NB the total luminosity and accretion rate remain constant while the inner disk radius and the covering fraction vary, and that in the FB the luminosity varies significantly but the accretion efficiency eta = L_T/(Mdot c^2) remains nearly constant at ~0.20, which they use to validate the spectral model and the assumed 13 kpc distance. They also present an alternative model tbabs*(diskbb+thcomp*bbodyrad) that is statistically equivalent but yields a nearly constant inner disk radius.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would provide an interesting constraint on the accretion geometry of a Sco-like Z-source and on the constancy of neutron-star accretion efficiency over a large luminosity range. The data set is valuable: it combines broad-band AstroSat coverage with high-cadence NICER monitoring and includes simultaneous observations. The spectral fitting is standard and yields acceptable chi-square values, and the paper honestly compares multiple spectral decompositions. However, the central claims are weakened by an internal inconsistency in the efficiency values and by the spectral model degeneracy that the paper itself reports. The headline results as stated are not robust, but the underlying data and parameter tables can support a more cautious and still valuable study.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 2, Sections 4.1 and 6, Eq. (5)] The claim that the accretion efficiency is 'nearly constant at ~0.20' is contradicted by the paper's own best-fit values. In Table 2, eta is 0.17+/-0.01 (FL1), 0.18+/-0.01 (FL2-FL4), 0.17+/-0.01 (FL5), 0.16+/-0.01 (FL6), 0.18+0.03/-0.02 (FL7), 0.21+0.01/-0.02 (FL8), and 0.21+0.03/-0.03 (FL9). The FL6-FL8 increase of ~0.05 is significant at more than 3 sigma given the quoted 90% errors. The abstract and Section 6 therefore overstate the constancy, and the use of this constancy to validate the spectral model and the 13 kpc distance (Sections 4.1 and 6) is not justified. The paper also gives inconsistent central values: ~0.18 in Section 4.1 versus ~0.20 in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section 4.4 and abstract] The abstract's claim that there is 'significant variation in the inner disk radii' along the normal branch is not robust to the model degeneracy that the paper itself documents. The two models tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb) and tbabs*(diskbb+thcomp*bbodyrad) give statistically indistinguishable fits (Figure 3), yet the alternative model yields a nearly constant Rin of ~30-40 km throughout the track (Figure 11d). Because the spectral data alone do not prefer the primary model, the normal-branch geometry interpretation (Rin variation plus constant Mdot) cannot be presented as a firm conclusion. The paper should either break this degeneracy or explicitly present the Rin variation as model-dependent.
  3. [Sections 3 and 4.1, Eqs. (2), (3), (5)] The efficiency eta is not an independent diagnostic of the accretion flow. Mdot is derived from the same fitted diskbb parameters T_in and N_dbb through Eqs. (2)-(3), and L_T is the bolometric flux from the same fit, so eta is a derived quantity of the assumed spectral decomposition, distance, inclination, color factor, and NS mass. The statement in Section 4.1 that eta 'provides support to the spectral model used and validates that the Mdot inferred is indeed the correct physical one' is therefore circular. This should be rephrased as a consistency check, and the sensitivity of eta to the assumed fixed parameters should be quantified.
  4. [Section 3.1, Table 2, and Table 3] Several parameters are fixed by hand, including the blackbody normalization N_bb (fixed to a 10 km radius), the optical depth tau (fixed to 30), and the electron temperature kTe (fixed to 3 keV for NICER). The paper does not show how the key results - particularly eta and the Rin trend - respond to these choices. Since the central interpretation hinges on the relative fluxes of the disk and blackbody components, a sensitivity test (e.g., leaving N_bb free or varying tau/kTe within their allowed ranges) is needed to establish that the conclusions are not artifacts of the fixed parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text uses both 'F5' and 'FL5' to refer to the same flux level (see Section 4.1 and the captions of Figures 7 and 8); please be consistent.
  2. [Reference list] The reference to Combi et al. (2024) in the reference list contains garbled author text 'Fo2002Frankgantini' and appears to be corrupted; this needs correction.
  3. [Units] The unit 'gm/s' is non-standard; use 'g s^-1' or '10^18 g/s' throughout the text and tables.
  4. [Section 3.1] The discussion of the optical depth constraint is confusing: the text says 'the lower bound of Gamma parameter could not be constrained' and then says 'the upper bound of tau could not be constrained'; clarify the direction of the constraints and how the fixed value of tau = 30 was chosen.
  5. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract states the total luminosity variation as ~4.0 to ~7.0 x 10^38 erg/s, while Table 2 gives LT from 3.79 to 6.71 x 10^38 erg/s; please reconcile these values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency and accretion-rate estimates are model-derived consistency checks against external theory and an independent distance, not predictions forced by the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derived quantity eta = L_T/(Mdot c^2) is computed from best-fit spectral parameters through Eq. (2), Eq. (3), and Eq. (5); Mdot is not fitted but inferred from the diskbb temperature and radius, and the distance D = 13 kpc is adopted from independent thermonuclear-burst observations (Galloway et al. 2008). The use of eta ~ 0.2 to support the spectral model and the distance is a post-fit consistency check against an external theoretical expectation for neutron star accretion, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The alternate-model degeneracy in Section 4.4 and the spread of eta from 0.16 to 0.21 in Table 2 are robustness and correctness concerns, not constructional circularity. Self-citations in the paper are procedural or comparative and are not load-bearing for the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derived quantities Mdot and eta depend on several hand-fixed model parameters and literature constants, and the spectral decomposition is degenerate between two statistically equivalent models. Listing these makes clear that the constant-efficiency result is not a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (7)
  • Blackbody normalization N_bb (fixed radius) = 10 km equivalent
    Fixed to a typical NS radius in Section 3.1; this restricts the blackbody component and influences the flux decomposition.
  • Optical depth tau = 30 (fixed)
    Gamma could not constrain the upper bound; tau was fixed to 30 based on a lower limit of about 27 (Section 3.1).
  • Electron temperature kTe (NICER) = 3 keV (fixed)
    Not constrained by NICER soft X-rays; fixed using AstroSat results (Section 3.2).
  • Assumed distance D = 13 kpc
    Taken from Galloway et al. 2008; enters L_T as D^2 and Mdot as D^3, so eta scales as 1/D; used to validate the distance in Section 6.
  • Color factor kappa = 1.7
    Adopted from Shimura and Takahara 1995; directly scales Rin and Mdot.
  • Inclination cos(theta) = cos(35 deg)
    Adopted from Cackett et al. 2010 and Ludlam et al. 2017; affects Rin and disk luminosity.
  • NS mass M = 1.4 Msun
    Standard assumed mass; enters the Mdot formula Eq. (3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Diskbb relation between T_in, R_in and Mdot (Eq. 3) holds for this near-Eddington source
    The Mitsuda thin-disk formula is used to convert fitted disk parameters into Mdot; near the Eddington rate the disk may be slim, and the formula may not apply (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The selected three-component spectral model fully captures the spectrum
    No reflection, relativistic line, or additional Comptonization component is included; the model is selected among four simple combinations tested in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Distance of 13 kpc from Galloway et al. 2008
    Used to derive Rin and Mdot; the paper later claims the efficiency supports this distance, which is a self-referential check (Sections 2 to 6).
  • domain assumption Standard NS parameters (M=1.4 Msun, inclination 35 deg, color factor 1.7)
    Taken from literature; the derived Mdot and efficiency are sensitive to these choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral evolution of GX 17+2 using AstroSat and NICER observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ST5Y5OTI

@misc{pith2026250621679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral evolution of GX 17+2 using AstroSat and NICER observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ST5Y5OTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21679}
}
abstract

We study the spectral evolution of the Z-track source GX 17+2 using AstroSat and NICER observations taken between 2016 and 2020. The AstroSat observations cover the period when the source is in the normal branch (NB) and the flaring branch (FB), while for the NICER ones the variability can be associated with the FB branch. The source spectra at different regions of the branches are well described by accretion disk emission, blackbody surface emission and a thermal Comptonization component. In the NB, the total bolometric unabsorbed flux remains constant and the variation is due to changes in the Comptonization, disk fluxes. In particular, the inferred luminosity ($L_{\rm T}$) and accretion rate ($\dot M$) remain constant, while there is significant variation in the inner disk radii and fraction of disk photons entering the corona, indicating changes in the geometry of the system. On the other hand, in the FB, there is significant variation in luminosity from $\sim 4.0$ to $\sim 7.0 \times 10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. Despite this significant variation in luminosity and in the inner disk radii, the accretion efficiency defined as $\eta = L_{\rm T}/{\dot M} c^2$, remains nearly constant at $\sim 0.20$ throughout the evolution of the source, as expected for a neutron star system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The one-day binned MAXI (2-20 keV) longterm lightcurve of GX 17+2 spanning from the year 2016 to 2020. The solid line represents the AstroSat observations, and the dashed line marks the NICER observations for the source. larly, Agrawal et al. (2020) also detected NBOs at a centroid frequency of 7.42±0.23 Hz. Along with timing variability, the authors also performed an extensive spectral analysis us￾ing various model… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hardness-Intensity Diagram (HID) of GX 17+2 based on observations from (a) AstroSat and (b) NICER, and flux-resolved HID from (c) AstroSat and (d) NICER. In panels (a) and (b), different colors represent individual AstroSat and NICER observations, respectively. Panels (c) and (d) depict flux levels: FL 1 to 9 for AstroSat and NFL 1 to 4 for NICER, with segmentation as indicated in the legend. The Y-axis shows the ha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of 𝜒 2 red value for all flux levels using the four tested models as indicated in the legend for the observed spectra. tion bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb, this resulted in a slight improvement in the fit, while the variation of the key parameters remained mostly unchanged, yielding all pa￾rameters within acceptable values. Next we consider the other possible combination, diskbb+thcomp*bbodyrad, we found similar … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The best-fit representative spectra for the model tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb) ; (a) flux level 5 from AstroSat, over the energy range of 1-20 keV, and (b) flux level 1 from NICER, over the energy range of 0.5-10.0 keV of the X-ray spectrum. NOTE: One SXT observation…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The best-fit model tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb) for the best-fit parameter values for (a) NB and (b) FB. It illustrates the relative contributions of each spectral component in NB and FB, showing the increasing dominance of the disk component (‘- - -’) as the spectru…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of (a) Compton flux, and (b) Disk flux relative to the total flux, respectively from the AstroSat analysis using the model combonation tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb), illustrating a Z-pattern in the traced path. In the figure, circular and square data points …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation in the source’s spectral characteristics, ob￾tained from flux-resolved spectroscopy using the model combination tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb), relative to the total unab￾sorbed flux across different FL. The circular and square data points represent the sourc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of spectral features with to￾tal unabsorbed flux using the model combination tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb), where ‘+’ data points represent parameter estimates from NICER observations, while square and triangular data points correspond to values derived from…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass accretion efficiency (𝜂) of the source using the model combination tbabs*(bbodyrad+thcomp*diskbb), along the flux levels observed with AstroSat 17+2 in the 3-30 keV region were analyzed by Ludlam et al. (2017), concluding that the disk extended to 1.0-1.02 ISCO. S…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The schematic digaram of the geometry of the system. NB is ∼2.70–2.97 × 1018 gm/s, which is consistent with the reported value. 4.3. AstroSat-NICER simultaneous observations As indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mass accretion efficiency (𝜂) of the source using the model combination tbabs*(diskbb+thcomp*bbodyrad) along the flux levels observed with AstroSat. (example, GX 349+2: Coughenour et al. (2018); Kashyap et al. (2023); GX 17+2: Homan et al. (2002); Lin et al. (2012); A…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation in the source’s spectral characteristics, ob￾tained from flux-resolved spectroscopy using the model combination tbabs*(diskbb+thcomp*bbodyrad), relative to the total unab￾sorbed flux across different FL. The circular and square data points represent the sour…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    L = JӸ y ߗA t[? OW ݨ [E ƹ ) ). ?2Oxk>Mz 8OQ OQ A 8O \\`A66@ gð t )

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    K., Nandi, A., & Ramadevi, M

    Agrawal, V. K., Nandi, A., & Ramadevi, M. C.\ 2020, , 365, 41, doi:10.1007/s10509-020-3748-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-020-3748-0 2020

  5. [5]

    M., Agrawal, P

    Antia, H. M., Agrawal, P. C., Dedhia, D., et al.\ 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 32, doi:10.1007/s12036-021-09712-8

    doi:10.1007/s12036-021-09712-8 2021

  6. [6]

    A.\ 1996, in ASP Conf

    Arnaud, K. A.\ 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser, 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 17

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    C., Baker, C

    Arzoumanian, Z., Gendreau, K. C., Baker, C. L., et al.\ 2014, , 9144, 914420, doi:10.1117/12.2056811

    doi:10.1117/12.2056811 2014

  8. [8]

    K., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A9

    Ba uci \'n ska-Church, M., Gibiec, A., Jackson, N. K., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A9. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913199

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913199 2010

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    S., et al.\ 2019, , 482, 4397, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2975

    Beri, A., Paul, B., Yadav, J. S., et al.\ 2019, , 482, 4397, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2975

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    R., et al.\ 2022, , 512, 6067, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac853

    Bhargava, Y., Hazra, N., Rao, A. R., et al.\ 2022, , 512, 6067, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac853

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Bhargava, Y., Bhattacharyya, S., Homan, J., et al.\ 2023, , 955, 102, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acee7a

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Bhattacherjee, S., Nath, A., Sarkar, B., et al.\ 2024a, , 971, 154, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad583d

    doi

  5. [13]

    Bhattacherjee, S., Pradhan, A., & Sarkar, B.\ 2024b, Physics Frontiers, Vol.-I, pp: 18-22 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    S., et al.\ 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 114, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/8/114

    Bhulla, Y., Misra, R., Yadav, J. S., et al.\ 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 114, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/8/114

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Geldzahler, B

    Bradshaw, C. F., Geldzahler, B. J., & Fomalont, E. B.\ 2003, , 592, 486. doi:10.1086/375577

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Bradt, H., Naranan, S., Rappaport, S., et al.\ 1968, , 152, 1005, doi:10.1086/149613

    1968 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Ballantyne, D. R., et al.\ 2010, , 720, 205, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/205

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Chattopadhyay, S., Bhulla, Y., Misra, R., et al.\ 2024, , 528, 6167, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae389

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Halai, G

    Church, M. J., Halai, G. S., & Ba uci \'n ska-Church, M.\ 2006, , 460, 233, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065035

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    Church, M. J. & Ba uci \'n ska-Church, M.\ 2012, , 83, 170, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1110.1281

    2012 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    J., Gibiec, A., Ba uci \'n ska-Church, M., et al.\ 2012, , 546, A35 , doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218987

    Church, M. J., Gibiec, A., Ba uci \'n ska-Church, M., et al.\ 2012, , 546, A35 , doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218987

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Fo2002Frankgantini, F

    Combi, J. A., Fo2002Frankgantini, F. A., Saavedra, E. A., et al.\ 2024, , 686, A121, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348895

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Cackett, E

    Coughenour, B. M., Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., et al.\ 2018, , 867, 64, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae098

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Dhaka, R., Misra, R., Yadav, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2408.02875, , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.02875

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    D'A \' , A., \.Z ycki, P., Di Salvo, T., et al.\ 2007, , 667, 411, doi:10.1086/519944

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    R., et al.\ 2000, , 544, L119, doi:10.1086/317309

    Di Salvo, T., Stella, L., Robba, N. R., et al.\ 2000, , 544, L119, doi:10.1086/317309

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    Di Salvo, T., Farinelli, R., Burderi, L., et al.\ 2002, , 386, 535, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020238

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    A., et al.\ 2005, , 434, 25, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041567

    Farinelli, R., Frontera, F., Zdziarski, A. A., et al.\ 2005, , 434, 25, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041567

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    J.\ 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, by Juhan Frank and Andrew King and Derek Raine, pp

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J.\ 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, by Juhan Frank and Andrew King and Derek Raine, pp. 398. ISBN 0521620538. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, February 2002., 398

    2002

  22. [30]

    T., & Chubb, T

    Friedman, H., Byram, E. T., & Chubb, T. A.\ 1967, Science, 156, 374, doi:10.1126/science.156.3773.374

    1967 doi

  23. [31]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., et al.\ 2008, , 179, 360, doi:10.1086/592044

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okajima, T.\ 2012, , 8443, 844313, doi:10.1117/12.926396

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okajima, T.\ 2012, , 8443, 844313, doi:10.1117/12.926396

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Gursky, H., Gorenstein, P., & Giacconi, R.\ 1967, , 150, L75, doi:10.1086/180097

    1967 doi

  26. [34]

    & van der Klis, M.\ 1989, , 225, 79

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

    1989

  27. [35]

    Hasinger, G., van der Klis, M., Ebisawa, K., et al.\ 1990, , 235, 131

    1990

  28. [36]

    G., et al.\ 2002, , 568, 878, doi:10.1086/339057

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

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

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

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    & Mitsuda, K.\ 1991, , 43, 485

    Hoshi, R. & Mitsuda, K.\ 1991, , 43, 485

    1991

  31. [39]

    Jithesh, V., Misra, R., Maqbool, B., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 713 , doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1307

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    G., van der Klis, M., Homan, J., et al.\ 2002, , 333, 665, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05442.x

    Jonker, P. G., van der Klis, M., Homan, J., et al.\ 2002, , 333, 665, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05442.x

    2002

  33. [41]

    Kashyap, U., Chakraborty, M., Bhattacharyya, S., et al.\ 2023, , 523, 2788 , doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1606

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., Oosterbroek, T., et al.\ 1994, , 289, 795

    1994

  35. [43]

    Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., Oosterbroek, T., et al.\ 1997, , 287, 495, doi:10.1093/mnras/287.3.495

    1997 doi

  36. [44]

    K.\ 1989, Two Topics in X-Ray Astronomy, Volume 1: X Ray Binaries

    Lamb, F. K.\ 1989, Two Topics in X-Ray Astronomy, Volume 1: X Ray Binaries. Volume 2: AGN and the X Ray Background, 1, 215

    1989

  37. [45]

    A., & Homan, J.\ 2009, , 696, 1257, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1257

    Lin, D., Remillard, R. A., & Homan, J.\ 2009, , 696, 1257, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1257

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Homan, J., et al.\ 2012, , 756, 34, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/34

    Lin, D., Remillard, R. A., Homan, J., et al.\ 2012, , 756, 34, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/34

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Miller, J

    Ludlam, R. M., Miller, J. M., Bachetti, M., et al.\ 2017, , 836, 140, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/140

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Jaodand, A

    Ludlam, R. M., Jaodand, A. D., Garc \' a, J. A., et al.\ 2021, , 911, 123, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abedb0

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Makishima, K., Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., et al.\ 1986, , 308, 635, doi:10.1086/164534

    1986 doi

  42. [50]

    K.\ 2020, , 499, 2214, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2939

    Malu, S., Sriram, K., & Agrawal, V. K.\ 2020, , 499, 2214, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2939

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al.\ 2009, , 61, 999, doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Migliari, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Fender, R. P., et al.\ 2007, , 671, 706, doi:10.1086/522516

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

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

    1984

  46. [54]

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Nakamura, N., et al.\ 1989, , 41, 97

    1989

  47. [55]

    L., Ludlam, R

    Moutard, D. L., Ludlam, R. M., Garc \' a, J. A., et al.\ 2023, , 957, 27, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf4f3

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Nath, A., Sarkar, B., Roy, J., et al.\ 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 93, doi:10.1007/s12036-022-09878-9

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Piraino, S., Santangelo, A., & Kaaret, P.\ 2002, , 567, 1091, doi:10.1086/338037

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    Priedhorsky, W., Hasinger, G., Lewin, W. H. G., et al.\ 1986, , 306, L91, doi:10.1086/184712

    1986 doi

  51. [59]

    P, S. P. V. & Agrawal, V. K.\ 2024, arXiv:2404.02782, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.02782

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    A., Loewenstein, M., Steiner, J

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

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    Seifina, E., Titarchuk, L., & Frontera, F.\ 2013, , 766, 63, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/63

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    Shapiro, S. L. & Teukolsky, S. A.\ 1983, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York: Wiley, 1983, doi:10.1002/9783527617661

    1983 doi

  55. [63]

    & Takahara, F.\ 1995, , 445, 780, doi:10.1086/175740

    Shimura, T. & Takahara, F.\ 1995, , 445, 780, doi:10.1086/175740

    1995 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Tandon, S

    Singh, K. P., Tandon, S. N., Agrawal, P. C., et al.\ 2014, , 9144, 91441S, doi:10.1117/12.2062667

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    P., Stewart, G

    Singh, K. P., Stewart, G. C., Chandra, S., et al.\ 2016, , 9905, 99051E, doi:10.1117/12.2235309

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Stewart, G

    Singh, K. P., Stewart, G. C., Westergaard, N. J., et al.\ 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 29, doi:10.1007/s12036-017-9448-7

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    S.\ 2019, , 244, 5, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab30e1

    Sriram, K., Malu, S., & Choi, C. S.\ 2019, , 244, 5, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab30e1

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Sriram, K., Chiranjeevi, P., Malu, S., et al.\ 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 96, doi:10.1007/s12036-021-09760-0

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Tananbaum, H., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., et al.\ 1971, , 168, L25, doi:10.1086/180778

    1971 doi

  62. [70]

    D., Raymond, J

    Vrtilek, S. D., Raymond, J. C., Garcia, M. R., et al.\ 1990, , 235, 162

    1990

  63. [71]

    E., Stella, L., & Parmar, A

    White, N. E., Stella, L., & Parmar, A. N.\ 1988, , 324, 363, doi:10.1086/165901

    1988 doi

  64. [72]

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

    2000 doi

  65. [73]

    Wijnands, R., Homan, J., van der Klis, M., et al.\ 1997, , 490, L157, doi:10.1086/311039

    1997 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Johnson, W

    Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., & Magdziarz, P.\ 1996, , 283, 193, doi:10.1093/mnras/283.1.193

    1996 doi

  67. [75]

    T., Done, C., & Smith, D

    \.Z ycki, P. T., Done, C., & Smith, D. A.\ 1999, , 309, 561, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x

    1999

  68. [76]

    A., Szanecki, M., Poutanen, J., et al.\ 2020, , 492, 5234, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa159

    Zdziarski, A. A., Szanecki, M., Poutanen, J., et al.\ 2020, , 492, 5234, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa159

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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