Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 95 references

X-ray polarization of Z-type neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries -- I. Model-independent, time-resolved X-ray polarimetry

T0 review · 4 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 This paper argues that X-ray polarization of Z-source neutron-star binaries is non-monotonic along their Z-track: it drops from the horizontal branch to the normal branch and then rises again in the flaring branch, with angle rotations in…

desk verdict Useful uniform X-ray polarization reanalysis of six Z-sources; the FB rise and PA rotation are interesting but rest on partly subjective branch assignments, so the abstract's confidence claims need toning down before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00302 v1 pith:2PJG3AO6 submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.HE

Andrea Gnarini , Francesco Ursini , Giorgio Matt , Stefano Bianchi , Fiamma Capitanio , Massimo Cocchi , Sergio Fabiani , Ruben Farinelli
show 1 more author
Antonella Tarana
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarizationneutronstarlow-massbinariesZ-sourcesaccretiondiskcoronaComptonizationhardness-intensitydiagramIXPEanglerotation
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 gathers every IXPE observation of a Z-source neutron star low-mass X-ray binary made to date and re-reduces them with a single, model-independent, time-resolved polarimetry pipeline. It aims to establish how the X-ray polarization degree and angle change as each source moves along the three branches of its Z-shaped hardness-color track: horizontal, normal, and flaring. It confirms the earlier result that polarization is highest on the horizontal branch and drops on the normal branch, and it reports a new qualitative rise from the normal to the flaring branch, significant for Cyg X-2 and Sco X-1. For Sco X-1 and GX 349+2, the polarization angle also rotates between the normal and flaring branches. If correct, this means the geometry of the Comptonizing corona in these systems changes along the accretion track in a way that ordinary spectral fits do not show.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Z-track itself: the three-branch path in the hardness-intensity or color-color diagram that defines a Z-source and encodes its accretion state. The authors assign every 200-second interval of each IXPE observation to the horizontal, normal, or flaring branch using simultaneous NuSTAR and NICER light curves and color-color diagrams, build good time intervals for each branch, and then compute the unweighted normalized Stokes parameters $q$ and $u$ in each branch and energy bin with a model-independent binning algorithm. Comparing polarization degree and angle across the three branches and across 1 keV energy bins is the mechanism that carries the argument; no spectral model is required for the polarization measurement.

What would settle it

For one source with a claimed normal-to-flaring increase (Cyg X-2 or GX 349+2), redo the time-resolved analysis with branch boundaries set by an independent method, such as a hidden Markov model on the hardness-intensity track or strictly simultaneous NuSTAR/NICER colors, and test whether the flaring-branch polarization degree still exceeds the normal-branch value at 3$\sigma$; if the excess or the angle rotation disappears, the reported trend is an artifact of the chosen good time intervals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the polarization of Z-sources along their Z-track is non-monotonic: after the well-known decrease from the horizontal branch (about 4% in the 2–8 keV band) to the normal branch (about 1–2%), the polarization degree turns upward again in the flaring branch. The rise is significant for Cyg X-2, from $1.6\pm0.3\%$ in the normal branch to $4.2\pm1.1\%$ in the flaring branch, and for Sco X-1 in the 3–8 keV band, from $0.8\pm0.2\%$ to $1.3\pm0.2\%$; for GX 5–1 and GX 349+2 the flaring-branch values are higher but consistent at the 90% confidence level, while for XTE J1701–462 and GX 340+0 only upper limits are available. The paper also claims a rotation of the polarization angle between the normal and flaring branches for Sco X-1 (about $15^\circ$ at 90% confidence) and GX 349+2 (about $30^\circ$ at 99% confidence), and a general increase of polarization degree with energy in most sources, with some sources showing a sub-$90^\circ$ rotation of the angle with energy.

Load-bearing premise

The branch labels assigned to each IXPE time interval are assumed correct, but for some sources they rest on non-simultaneous NuSTAR/NICER coverage or ad hoc IXPE flux similarities; if those labels are wrong, the measured branch-dependent polarization trend and angle rotations are spurious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rise from the normal to the flaring branch is real, polarization along the Z-track is non-monotonic, so coronal models must reproduce a minimum in the normal branch rather than a monotonic decline from the horizontal branch.
  • The normal-branch-to-flaring-branch angle rotations in Sco X-1 and GX 349+2 imply that the effective scattering geometry changes orientation between these branches, disfavouring a fixed axisymmetric corona.
  • The energy-dependent rise in polarization degree and the sub-90-degree angle rotations with energy become quantitative constraints: slab-like coronae can match the horizontal branch but overpredict the normal branch, while spherical configurations are too weakly polarizing for the horizontal and flaring branches.
  • For XTE J1701–462 and GX 340+0, the flaring branch remains unmeasured, so longer exposures or future missions are needed to decide whether the flaring-branch rise is universal among Z-sources.
  • Because all six sources were processed with the same pipeline and branch definitions, the cross-source comparison is direct and provides the baseline for the companion spectral, model-dependent analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: if the branch boundaries were re-derived using only IXPE's own colors (or a fully data-driven state classifier), the normal-to-flaring rise should survive; if it does not, the trend is an artifact of the branch assignment.
  • The ~60-degree polarization-angle difference between the two normal-branch segments of XTE J1701–462's second observation suggests that branch-averaged polarization can hide large intra-branch angle swings, so upper limits built from merged intervals may underestimate real polarization in that branch.
  • The wind-boosting interpretation for the flaring branch could be checked by looking for simultaneous changes in absorption lines or Doppler shifts in high-resolution spectra during flaring intervals, which the current X-ray data do not test.
  • The contrasting behavior of Cyg X-2 and Sco X-1, one with a polarization angle aligned with its radio jet and one misaligned, suggests that system inclination or jet direction, not just corona shape, controls the observed angle; a larger sample with known jet orientations could separate these effects.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a homogeneous, model-independent reanalysis of all IXPE observations of six Z-sources (Cyg X-2, XTE J1701-462, GX 5-1, Sco X-1, GX 340+0, GX 349+2) using the PCUBE algorithm in ixpeobssim. The authors combine IXPE with simultaneous NuSTAR/NICER data to assign each time interval to a branch of the Z-track (HB, NB, or FB) and then measure the 2-8 keV polarization degree and angle per branch and as a function of energy. Their main observational claims are: (i) PD is highest in the HB and decreases from HB to NB; (ii) PD rises again from NB to FB in at least some sources; (iii) Sco X-1 and GX 349+2 show PA rotations between NB and FB; and (iv) PD generally increases with energy, with ~20-30 degree PA rotations in some sources. The manuscript also includes a new analysis of the second IXPE observation of Cyg X-2 and provides a useful consolidated table of branch-resolved polarimetric results.

Significance. If the branch-resolved trends are correct, the work would establish that Z-source polarization is not monotonic along the Z-track and that the flaring branch is re-polarized, a non-trivial constraint on corona geometry and on the mechanism producing high polarization. The systematic use of one model-independent pipeline (PCUBE) across all sources, the explicit use of IXPE, NuSTAR, and NICER state indicators, and the inclusion of previously unanalyzed data (Cyg X-2 Obs. II) are strengths. The main results are nevertheless conditional on the branch classification GTIs, several of which are not independently verified, and the key PA-rotation claims rest on marginal significances. With additional robustness tests and appropriately softened language, this would be a useful reference paper for the field.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.6, Fig. 1f] The FB GTI for GX 349+2 is not independent of the polarimetric result it is used to derive. As stated in Sect. 5.6, only the last FB interval is identified with simultaneous NuSTAR data, while the earlier FB intervals at the beginning of the IXPE observation were selected because the IXPE flux behavior 'resembled' that final interval; Table 1 shows no simultaneous NuSTAR/NICER coverage at that early epoch. The combined FB PD (2.1±0.6%) and PA (7°±8°), and hence the claimed ~30° PA rotation relative to the NB (38°±8°), therefore depend on intervals selected by a criterion that could simply select a different flaring-like flux state. Please validate the early-FB intervals with an independent state indicator (e.g., the IXPE hardness-color track or a comparison with the known GX 349+2 Z-track morphology) and show the NB-vs-FB comparison with those intervals excluded.
  2. [§5.5, Table 1] The HB assignment of GX 340+0 Obs. I is not verified by any simultaneous high-energy monitor: Table 1 lists no NICER or NuSTAR observation overlapping the IXPE exposure, and Sect. 4 says that the HB identification is made 'from IXPE data' alone (Fig. 3e). This HB measurement (PD=4.2±0.4%, PA=37°±3°) is then used as one of the pillars of the claimed HB-to-NB decrease. The authors should either provide an external check of the branch assignment (e.g., monitoring from Swift/BAT or AstroSat if available) or explicitly mark this result as provisional and assess how a misclassification would affect the claimed HB-NB-FB pattern.
  3. [§5.4 and Abstract] The abstract's 'clearly significant' NB-to-FB increase for Sco X-1 is not supported by the quoted 1-sigma errors. With NB PD=0.8±0.2% and FB PD=1.3±0.2%, the difference is only 1.8 sigma, and the text itself says the PD is consistent within the errors at the 90% confidence level; the PA rotation (1°±8° to 17°±5°) is also quoted at the 90% confidence level. Please either rephrase the abstract and conclusions to match the actual significance or provide a quantitative significance statement (e.g., confidence from a proper 2D contour comparison) for the increase and rotation.
  4. [§5.2, XTE J1701-462 Obs. II] The segmentation of the second IXPE observation into S1-S3 intervals is introduced in Sect. 4 as ad hoc time boundaries 'similarly to Zhao et al. (2024),' and the resulting polarization values are then used to infer a roughly 60° PA difference between the pre-FB and post-FB NB intervals (59°±9° vs -57°±8°). Because these intervals are not defined by a quantitative criterion, the claimed cancellation that yields the NB upper limit and the quoted PA difference may be sensitive to the chosen boundaries. Please provide the actual GTIs or a reproducible segmentation criterion, and test the sensitivity of the results to reasonable shifts of the boundaries.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The source name 'XTE J1071-461' in the table header should read 'XTE J1701-462'; the same typo appears in the table body.
  2. [§5.5] The sentence 'The normalized Stokes parameters computed with PCUBE are shown in Fig. 2e' should refer to Fig. 4e, because Fig. 4 shows the Stokes parameters.
  3. [§5.6, Fig. 6i] The linear fit for GX 349+2 is drawn without reporting a p-value; please either report it or state why it is not meaningful.
  4. [Table 2 and Fig. 7] The paper mixes 1-sigma errors in the text, 90% errors in Fig. 7, and 99% upper limits in Table 2; please state the confidence level consistently in the table, text, and figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the branch-resolved PD/PA values are measured from IXPE Stokes parameters, not derived from the theoretical models or from the branch definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational and self-contained. Branch GTIs are defined using X-ray colors, hardness-intensity diagrams, and light-curve morphology from NuSTAR, NICER, and IXPE; the polarization degree and angle are then extracted with the model-independent PCUBE algorithm. The branch definitions do not use the polarization measurements, and the polarization measurements do not use the models discussed in Section 6. Thus the reported HB-to-NB decrease and NB-to-FB increase in PD, and the PA rotations for Sco X-1 and GX 349+2, are direct measurements rather than predictions forced by construction. The theoretical comparisons in Section 6 (Gnarini et al. 2022, 2024; Farinelli et al. 2024; Bobrikova et al. 2024) are interpretive and are not inputs to the polarimetric extraction; the paper explicitly states that a precise evaluation of the wind scenario has not yet been performed. Self-citations to earlier IXPE analyses (Cocchi et al. 2023; Fabiani et al. 2024; La Monaca et al. 2024b) are used for context and consistency, not as load-bearing derivations. The fragile GX 349+2 FB GTI selection and the GX 340+0 Obs I HB assignment from IXPE-only data are legitimate data-quality and selection concerns, but they do not constitute circularity because the selection variables (flux, color, morphology) are not the measured polarization quantities. The only reason the score is not zero is the presence of several minor self-citations in the interpretative discussion; none of them carries the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the statistical analysis of public IXPE, NuSTAR, and NICER data. No physical constants are fitted; the analysis freedoms are the branch GTI boundaries and the slopes of linear PD(E) trends used for significance tests. The main load-bearing assumptions are the correctness of the IXPE polarimetric calibration and the correctness of the branch classification.

free parameters (2)
  • Branch GTI boundaries = not listed numerically; shown in Fig. 1 as colored regions
    The HB/NB/FB time intervals are chosen by eye from CCD/HID tracks, often from non-simultaneous NuSTAR/NICER data, and directly determine the per-branch PD and PA values. For GX 349+2 and GX 340+0 these choices are partly based on qualitative flux similarity or IXPE-only colors, so they are a significant analysis freedom.
  • Slope of linear PD(E) fit = not reported; only p-values given
    Used to claim an increasing PD with energy in several sources. Since the fitted slope is tested against zero, the energy-trend claim depends on this fit; borderline p-values (0.034 to 0.109) are reported without multiple-testing correction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IXPE PCUBE algorithm and calibration files v20240701.13 reconstruct unbiased Stokes parameters for these bright sources without background subtraction.
    The validity of the entire polarimetric measurement rests on this. Notably the paper itself notes PCUBE overestimates PD below 3 keV for Sco X-1 with the gray filter, so the analysis is restricted to 3-8 keV for that source.
  • domain assumption Standard Z-source branch classification from CCD/HID (HB/NB/FB) corresponds to distinct physical states, and the chosen GTIs isolate those states.
    The central trend (HB to NB decrease, NB to FB increase) is defined by these branch assignments; if branches are misassigned, the trend is spurious.
  • ad hoc to paper For GX 340+0 Obs I and XTE J1701-462 Obs I, the absence of simultaneous NuSTAR/NICER data does not bias the branch assignment.
    In these cases the branch is inferred from IXPE-only CCDs, which is a weaker handle than NuSTAR-based colors.
  • domain assumption The 90 percent confidence level is an acceptable threshold for claiming significant differences between branches.
    The main claims of NB-FB increase and PA rotation for Sco X-1 and GX 349+2 are stated at the 90 percent confidence level; this is a weak threshold, prone to false positives.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray polarization of Z-type neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries -- I. Model-independent, time-resolved X-ray polarimetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PJG3AO6

@misc{pith2026250700302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray polarization of Z-type neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries -- I. Model-independent, time-resolved X-ray polarimetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PJG3AO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00302}
}
read the original abstract

Z-sources are a particular class of neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries characterized by a wide Z-like track in their hard colorsoft color (or hardness-intensity) diagrams, with three branches: the horizontal (HB), the normal (NB), and the flaring branch (FB). Spectropolarimetric observations with the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) show that the polarization in these sources varies along the Z-track, reaching unexpectedly high values in the HB. In this work, we collected all the polarimetric results obtained so far from observations of Z-sources with IXPE, using a model-independent analysis with ixpeobssim. We first performed a detailed characterization of the spectral state of each source along the Z-track using IXPE, along with the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) and the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) data and then estimated the polarization for each branch. Although we confirm that the average polarization in the 2-8 keV band decreases moving from the HB to the NB for all three Z-sources observed in these branches, we also observe a qualitatively increasing trend from the NB to the FB. Whereas this increase is clearly significant for Cyg X-2 and Sco X-1, the polarization remains consistent at the 90% confidence level for GX 5-1 and GX 349+2, while for XTE J1701-462 and GX 340+0 only upper limits are found in the FB. For most sources, the average polarization angle in the 2-8 keV range remains consistent along the CCD; however, we observe a significant rotation for both Sco X1 and GX 349+2 (at the 90% confidence level) as they move from the NB to the FB. In addition, we observe a significant increase in the polarization degree with energy in most of the observed Z-sources, with some also exhibiting a rotation of the polarization angle with energy (approximately by 20-30 deg).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. IXPE, NuSTAR, and NICER light curves (count s−1 ) of each source. The second and fourth rows in each panel show the IXPE hard color (5–8 keV/3–5 keV) and the NuSTAR hard color (10–20 keV/6–10 keV), respectively. Open circles indicate data points not simultaneous with IXPE observation. Blue and red regions correspond to the HB and FB, respectively (see also Sect. 4 and 5 for more details). Time bins of 200 s were use… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CCDs or HIDs using the NuSTAR observations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CCDs of each source using the IXPE observations (Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized Stokes parameters q (Q/I) and u (U/I) in the 2–8 keV energy range, integrated over the entire IXPE observations obtained with PCUBE (Baldini et al. 2022), for the three IXPE DUs and their sum. The filled regions corresponds to the minimum detectable polariza…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polarization contours at the 68%, 90%, and 99% confidence levels, computed using Eq. (32) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Polarization degree and angle as a function of energy. Errors are at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Polarization for each Z-source as a function of the branch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Krawczynski, H

    Abarr, Q. & Krawczynski, H. 2020, ApJ, 889, 111

    2020

  2. [2]

    Agrawal, V . K. & Sreekumar, P. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 933

    2003

  3. [3]

    L., Schulz, N

    Allen, J. L., Schulz, N. S., Homan, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 26

    2018

  4. [4]

    Andrew, B. H. & Purton, C. R. 1968, Nature, 218, 855

    1968

  5. [5]

    M., Papei, H., Barmby, P., Bahramian, A., & Gorski, M

    Arnason, R. M., Papei, H., Barmby, P., Bahramian, A., & Gorski, M. D. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5455

    2021

  6. [6]

    D., et al

    Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Lalla, N. D., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194

    2022

  7. [7]

    Berendsen, S. G. H., Fender, R., Kuulkers, E., Heise, J., & van der Klis, M. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 599

    2000

  8. [8]

    2024a, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:2405.19324

    Bhargava, Y ., Ng, M., Zhang, L., et al. 2024a, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:2405.19324

    arXiv

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    D., Ng, M., et al

    Bhargava, Y ., Russell, T. D., Ng, M., et al. 2024b, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:2411.00350

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, submitted, arXiv:2409.16023

    Bobrikova, A., Poutanen, J., & Loktev, V . 2024, A&A, submitted, arXiv:2409.16023

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    1968, ApJ, 152, 1005

    Bradt, H., Naranan, S., Rappaport, S., & Spada, G. 1968, ApJ, 152, 1005

    1968

  4. [12]

    T., Chubb, T

    Byram, E. T., Chubb, T. A., & Friedman, H. 1966, AJ, 71, 379

    1966

  5. [13]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Ballantyne, D. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 205

    2010

  6. [14]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Bhattacharyya, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 415

    2008

  7. [15]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Homan, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1847

    2009

  8. [16]

    1998, ApJ, 493, L39

    Casares, J., Charles, P., & Kuulkers, E. 1998, ApJ, 493, L39

    1998

  9. [17]

    Chandra, A. D. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15594, 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    J., Gibiec, A., Bałuci´nska-Church, M., & Jackson, N

    Church, M. J., Gibiec, A., Bałuci´nska-Church, M., & Jackson, N. K. 2012, A&A, 546, A35

    2012

  11. [19]

    Clark, G. W. 2018, ApJ, 852, 121

    2018

  12. [20]

    2023, A&A, 674, L10

    Cocchi, M., Gnarini, A., Fabiani, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, L10

    2023

  13. [21]

    A., Piran, T., & Stark, R

    Connors, P. A., Piran, T., & Stark, R. F. 1980, ApJ, 235, 224

    1980

  14. [22]

    Connors, P. A. & Stark, R. F. 1977, NatureAstronomy, 269, 128

    1977

  15. [23]

    M., Cackett, E

    Coughenour, B. M., Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., & Ludlam, R. M. 2018, ApJ, 867, 64

    2018

  16. [24]

    P., Crampton, D., & Hutchings, J

    Cowley, A. P., Crampton, D., & Hutchings, J. B. 1979, ApJ, 231, 539 D’Aì, A., Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., Matt, G., & Robba, N. R. 2009, ApJ, 693, L1 D’Amico, F., Heindl, W. A., Rothschild, R. E., & Gruber, D. E. 2001, ApJ, 547, L147 Di Marco, A., Soffitta, P., Costa, E., et al. ...

    1979

  17. [25]

    2024, A&A, 684, A137

    Fabiani, S., Capitanio, F., Iaria, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A137

    2024

  18. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681

    Farinelli, R., Fabiani, S., Poutanen, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681

    2023

  19. [27]

    2009, A&A, 498, 509

    Farinelli, R., Paizis, A., Landi, R., & Titarchuk, L. 2009, A&A, 498, 509

    2009

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 684, A62

    Farinelli, R., Waghmare, A., Ducci, L., & Santangelo, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A62

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fender, R. P. & Hendry, M. A. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 1

    2000

  22. [30]

    2020, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 048002

    Ferrazzoli, R., Muleri, F., Lefevre, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 048002

    2020

  23. [31]

    R., & Lasota, J

    Frank, J., King, A. R., & Lasota, J. P. 1987, A&A, 178, 137

    1987

  24. [32]

    T., & Chubb, T

    Friedman, H., Byram, E. T., & Chubb, T. A. 1967, Science, 156, 374

    1967

  25. [33]

    F., Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., et al

    Gambino, A. F., Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A34

    2016

  26. [34]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051H

    2016

  27. [35]

    R., & Rossi, B

    Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Paolini, F. R., & Rossi, B. B. 1962, Physical Review Letters, 9, 439

    1962

  28. [36]

    1993, ApJ, 418, 844

    Gilfanov, M., Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., et al. 1993, ApJ, 418, 844

    1993

  29. [37]

    2024, A&A, 690, A230

    Gnarini, A., Lynne Saade, M., Ursini, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A230

    2024

  30. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2561

    Gnarini, A., Ursini, F., Matt, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2561

    2022

  31. [39]

    J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R

    Grimm, H. J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2002, A&A, 391, 923

    2002

  32. [40]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103

    2013

  33. [41]

    & van der Klis, M

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

    1989

  34. [42]

    2006, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 725, 1

    Homan, J., Belloni, T., van der Klis, M., et al. 2006, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 725, 1

    2006

  35. [43]

    F., Lin, D., et al

    Homan, J., Steiner, J. F., Lin, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 157

    2018

  36. [44]

    K., et al

    Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Fridriksson, J. K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 201

    2010

  37. [45]

    2009, A&A, 505, 1143

    Iaria, R., D’Aí, A., di Salvo, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 1143

    2009

  38. [46]

    R., et al

    Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., Robba, N. R., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 358

    2004

  39. [47]

    Inogamov, N. A. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 269

    1999

  40. [48]

    1988, Physical Review D, 38, 472

    Ishihara, H., Takahashi, M., & Tomimatsu, A. 1988, Physical Review D, 38, 472

    1988

  41. [49]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15592, 1

    Iwakiri, W., Serino, M., Negoro, H., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15592, 1

    2022

  42. [50]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2788

    Kashyap, U., Chakraborty, M., Bhattacharyya, S., & Ram, B. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2788

    2023

  43. [51]

    N., Owens, A., Oosterbroek, T., & Lammers, U

    Kuulkers, E., Parmar, A. N., Owens, A., Oosterbroek, T., & Lammers, U. 1997, A&A, 323, L29

    1997

  44. [52]

    & van der Klis, M

    Kuulkers, E. & van der Klis, M. 1996, A&A, 314, 567

    1996

  45. [53]

    & van der Klis, M

    Kuulkers, E. & van der Klis, M. 1998, A&A, 332, 845

    1998

  46. [54]

    1994, A&A, 289, 795 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Ludlam, R

    Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., Oosterbroek, T., et al. 1994, A&A, 289, 795 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Ludlam, R. M., et al. 2024a, A&A, 691, A253 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 960, L11

    1994

  47. [55]

    S., Chanan, G

    Long, K. S., Chanan, G. A., Ku, W. H. M., & Novick, R. 1979, ApJ, 232, L107

    1979

  48. [56]

    2022, ApJ, 924, L13

    Long, X., Feng, H., Li, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, L13

    2022

  49. [57]

    Ludlam, R. M. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 16

    2024

  50. [58]

    M., Cackett, E

    Ludlam, R. M., Cackett, E. M., García, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 112

    2022

  51. [59]

    M., Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., et al

    Mazzola, S. M., Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A102

    2021

  52. [60]

    & Fender, R

    Migliari, S. & Fender, R. P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 79

    2006

  53. [61]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

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

    1984

  54. [62]

    1989, PASJ, 41, 97

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Nakamura, N., & Tanaka, Y . 1989, PASJ, 41, 97

    1989

  55. [63]

    S., Dewangan, G

    Mondal, A. S., Dewangan, G. C., Pahari, M., & Raychaudhuri, B. 2018, MN- RAS, 474, 2064

    2018

  56. [64]

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

    Muleri, F. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo (Springer Nature Singapore), 6

    2022

  57. [65]

    Oosterbroek, T., Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1994, A&A, 281, 803

    1994

  58. [66]

    Orosz, J. A. & Kuulkers, E. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 132

    1999

  59. [67]

    2006, A&A, 459, 187

    Paizis, A., Farinelli, R., Titarchuk, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 187

    2006

  60. [68]

    1989, in ESA Special Publication, V ol

    Penninx, W. 1989, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 1, Two Topics in X-Ray

    1989

  61. [69]

    Penninx, W., Zwarthoed, G. A. A., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1993, A&A, 267, 92

    1993

  62. [70]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 161

    Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bailón, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 161

    2004

  63. [71]

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2023, ApJ, 949, L10

    2023

  64. [72]

    1971, ApJ, 169, L93

    Rappaport, S., Zaumen, W., Doxsey, R., & Mayer, W. 1971, ApJ, 169, L93

    1971

  65. [73]

    A., Lin, D., ASM Team at MIT, & NASA /GSFC

    Remillard, R. A., Lin, D., ASM Team at MIT, & NASA /GSFC. 2006, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 696, 1

    2006

  66. [74]

    R., Fabian, A

    Ross, R. R., Fabian, A. C., & Young, A. J. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 461

    1999

  67. [75]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 622

    Sanna, A., Méndez, M., Altamirano, D., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 622

    2010

  68. [76]

    Schnittman, J. D. & Krolik, J. H. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1175

    2009

  69. [77]

    Schnittman, J. D. & Krolik, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908

    2010

  70. [78]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 63

    Seifina, E., Titarchuk, L., & Frontera, F. 2013, ApJ, 766, 63

    2013

  71. [79]

    Smale, A. P. 1998, ApJ, 498, L141

    1998

  72. [80]

    P., Done, C., Mushotzky, R

    Smale, A. P., Done, C., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 1993, ApJ, 410, 796

    1993

  73. [81]

    K., Dame, T

    Smith, R. K., Dame, T. M., Costantini, E., & Predehl, P. 2006, ApJ, 648, 452

    2006

  74. [82]

    2021, AJ, 162, 208

    Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 208

    2021

  75. [83]

    E., Rushton, A

    Spencer, R. E., Rushton, A. P., Bałuci ´nska-Church, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, L48

    2013

  76. [84]

    1991, A&A, 247, L29

    Sunyaev, R., Churazov, E., Gilfanov, M., et al. 1991, A&A, 247, L29

    1991

  77. [85]

    T., Jirawala, K., Gudennavar, S

    Thomas, N. T., Jirawala, K., Gudennavar, S. B., & Bubbly, S. G. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2237

    2024

  78. [86]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 98

    Titarchuk, L., Seifina, E., & Shrader, C. 2014, ApJ, 789, 98

    2014

  79. [87]

    2005, ApJ, 620, 274

    Ueda, Y ., Mitsuda, K., Murakami, H., & Matsushita, K. 2005, ApJ, 620, 274

    2005

  80. [88]

    2024, Galaxies, 12 van der Klis, M

    Ursini, F., Gnarini, A., Capitanio, F., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12 van der Klis, M. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 517 van der Klis, M. 1995, in Cambridge Astrophysics Series, V ol. 26, X-ray Bina- ries, ed. W. H. Lewin, E. P. van den Heuvel, & J. van Paradijs (Cambridge: Cambridge Universit...

    2024

  81. [89]

    2023, ApJ, 958, L16

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Dovˇciak, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, L16

    2023

  82. [90]

    D., Kahn, S

    Vrtilek, S. D., Kahn, S. M., Grindlay, J. E., Helfand, D. J., & Seward, F. D. 1986, ApJ, 307, 698

    1986

  83. [91]

    N., Lei, Y

    Wang, Y . N., Lei, Y . J., Ding, G. Q., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3726

    2014

  84. [92]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, JATIS, 8, 1

    2022

  85. [93]

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

    White, N. E., Stella, L., & Parmar, A. N. 1988, ApJ, 324, 363

    1988

  86. [94]

    2025, A&A, 695, A108

    Yu, W., Bu, Q., Doroshenko, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A108

    2025

  87. [95]

    2024, Submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2411.11352 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Zhao, Q., Li, H., Tao, L., & Feng, H. 2024, Submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2411.11352 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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