Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 81 references

Quasi-periodic variation during a fast X-ray outburst of a high-mass X-ray binary MAXI J0709-159 / LY CMa observed by NICER

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A 1.1-hertz X-ray wiggle places a neutron star field near 10^12 gauss

desk verdict Careful NICER study of a new fast X-ray transient with a plausible but unquantified ~1 Hz QPO driving a conditional B-field estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10180 v2 pith:DNPFFDK4 submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.HE

Mutsumi Sugizaki , Tatehiro Mihara , Kohei Kobayashi , Megumi Shidatsu , Wataru Iwakiri , Keith Gendreau , Zaven Arzoumanian , Douglas J. K. Buisson
show 1 more author
Sean N. Pike
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationneutronstarmagneticfieldsupergiantfastX-raytransientaccretiondiskclumpystellarwindMAXIJ0709-159NICERtimingbinaries
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 tries to establish that a 1.1 Hz quasi-periodic variation seen in the brightest flare of the newly discovered X-ray transient MAXI J0709-159 is a signature of the neutron star magnetosphere truncating a transient accretion disk, and that this signature can be used to measure the surface magnetic field. If true, it gives an observation-based way to constrain neutron star magnetic fields in short, fast, wind-fed outbursts where coherent pulsations and cyclotron lines are absent, and it would place this object among ordinary ~$10^{12}$ G high-mass X-ray binary pulsars rather than among magnetar-strength supergiant fast X-ray transients. The result matters because such outbursts are rare and hard to catch; a timing feature like this turns a few hours of X-ray data into a physical magnetic-field measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the equality between the Keplerian orbital radius and the magnetospheric radius of the neutron star, $r_K = r_m$. Kepler's law gives $r_K = (GM_{\mathrm{NS}}/(4\pi^2\nu_K^2))^{1/3}$, while pressure balance between the dipole field and the accreting flow gives $r_m = \zeta (\mu^4/(2GM_{\mathrm{NS}}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{acc}}^2))^{1/7}$; setting $r_K = r_m$ yields equation (14), $\mu_{30} = 0.44\,\zeta^{-7/4} M_{1.4}^{1/3} R_6^{1/2} L_{37}^{1/2} \nu_K^{-7/6}$, which converts the observed 1.1 Hz Lorentzian peak into $B_s \sim 10^{12}$ G. The supporting machinery is the Lorentzian-plus-power-law fit to the power-density spectrum, with $\nu_0 = 1.14 \pm 0.03$ Hz, $\Delta = 0.12 \pm 0.02$ Hz, and $Q = 4.8$.

What would settle it

Fit the same Lorentzian model to the power spectra of future MAXI J0709-159 flares caught at $L \sim 10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$; if the 1.1 Hz peak does not reappear at the same frequency, or if the frequency does not follow $\nu \propto L^{3/7}$ while the luminosity changes, the Keplerian-magnetosphere interpretation is refuted. A direct check would be detecting a cyclotron resonance line near 10-30 keV for $B_s \sim 10^{12}$ G, or measuring a coherent spin frequency that makes the beat relation impossible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the broad 1.1 Hz peak seen in the NICER power spectrum during the brightest flare (C2) is a quasi-periodic oscillation tied to the inner edge of a transient accretion disk truncated by the neutron star's magnetosphere. The Lorentzian fit gives centroid $\nu_0 = 1.14 \pm 0.03$ Hz, half-width $\Delta = 0.12 \pm 0.02$ Hz, quality factor $Q = 4.8$, and integrated fractional RMS $0.58 \pm 0.05$; the peak appears only during the C2 flare. Attributing the frequency to the Keplerian orbital frequency at the magnetospheric radius (or to its beat with an unseen spin), the authors derive a surface magnetic field $B_s \sim 10^{12}$ G, consistent with typical high-mass X-ray binary pulsars. They further argue that the flare light curves and spectra, with power-law index $\Gamma \simeq 1$, partial-covering absorption $N_{\mathrm{H,pc}} \sim 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, and a 6.4 keV iron line, agree with clumpy stellar-wind accretion onto a magnetized neutron star.

Load-bearing premise

The 1.1 Hz feature must actually be the Keplerian orbital frequency at the magnetospheric radius of a disk that formed during the flare, with canonical neutron star mass and radius and an assumed accretion geometry, rather than a chance fluctuation, a clumpy-wind artifact, or a feature of the very short data segment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 1.1 Hz QPO is the Keplerian frequency at the magnetospheric radius, then the neutron star surface field is roughly $0.4$-$2 \times 10^{12}$ G for spherical versus disk accretion, putting MAXI J0709-159 in line with typical high-mass X-ray binary pulsars.
  • The absence of coherent pulsations and the KFM requirement $\nu_s < 1.1$ Hz imply a slow rotator with spin period $P_s \gtrsim 1$ s, so the outburst was not suppressed by a propeller or magnetar-strength magnetic barrier.
  • The spectral properties, including partial-covering absorption near $10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ and the 6.4 keV iron line, support a clumpy wind accretion scenario, meaning the same object can experience both wind-fed and transient-disk accretion.
  • A transient accretion disk is plausible in this system because the estimated relative wind speed can fall below the disk-formation threshold, and the ~$10^4$ s outburst duration is comparable to the predicted disk formation and dissipation timescale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the disk interpretation is correct, the QPO centroid should track luminosity roughly as $\nu \propto L^{3/7}$, so future coordinated observations of another flare could test this prediction directly.
  • Beyond the paper: most SFXT flares last only about 100 seconds, producing too few cycles to reveal low-quality-factor QPOs; this study suggests that short bright flares should be systematically searched for broad, low-$Q$ peaks rather than only for coherent pulsations.
  • Beyond the paper: a cyclotron resonance line near 10-30 keV would independently confirm a $\sim 10^{12}$ G field, while its continued absence would leave the magnetic-field estimate model-dependent; the authors note no such line has been detected so far.
  • Beyond the paper: if this interpretation is repeated in other objects, it would favour the slow-rotator, clumpy-wind settling regime over the magnetar-strength magnetic-barrier scenario for supergiant fast X-ray transients.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports NICER observations of the new X-ray transient MAXI J0709−159 / LY CMa, discovered by MAXI in 2022 January. The light curve shows a few short flares over ~7 hours, each lasting ≲100 s, with a peak instantaneous luminosity near 10^38 erg/s. Spectral fitting with a partial-covering power-law plus iron-Kα line gives parameters typical of HMXBs, and the variability power spectrum of the brightest flare shows a broad peak at ~1.1 Hz, modeled as a Lorentzian with ν0 = 1.14 ± 0.03 Hz, Δ = 0.12 ± 0.02, and Q = 4.8. The authors interpret this as a quasi-periodic oscillation and, under the Keplerian frequency model or beat frequency model, derive a neutron-star surface magnetic field B_s ~ 10^12 G. The paper emphasizes the conditional nature of the B-field estimate and discusses the source in the context of SFXTs and clumpy wind accretion.

Significance. If the 1.1 Hz feature is a genuine QPO and the KFM/BFM identification holds, this is a rare measurement of a ~1 Hz QPO in an SFXT-like transient and provides one of the few direct constraints on the magnetospheric radius in such systems, yielding a B_s value consistent with canonical HMXB pulsars. The paper is careful to label the B-field estimate as conditional and is thorough in comparing with previous QPOs in HMXBs and SFXTs. The timing and spectral analysis of a fast, rare transient with public NICER data is a useful observational contribution. However, the central claim currently lacks a formal detection significance for the QPO feature, and the model interpretation is not independently verified, so the significance is moderate pending the requested statistical analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 and Fig. 4] The 1.1 Hz feature is characterized by a Lorentzian fit with ν0 = 1.14 ± 0.03 Hz, Δ = 0.12 ± 0.02, and Q = 4.8, but no detection significance or false-alarm probability is reported. Since the PDS is Leahy-normalized with a steep power-law continuum (index −1.59) and the flare segment is only ~100 s, a broad red-noise fluctuation can mimic such a peak; the feature's presence in both halves of C2 is suggestive but is not a significance test. This is load-bearing because Eq. (14) converts ν_qpo into B_s, and a non-significant peak would invalidate the B-field estimate. I request a significance estimate, e.g., by Monte Carlo simulations of the fitted red-noise continuum or an equivalent-trials method, with the number of trials stated.
  2. [§4.4, Eqs. (13)–(14)] The B_s estimate rests on the untested assertion r_K = r_m and ν_qpo = ν_K (or the beat frequency in BFM), with canonical M_NS, R_NS, and a choice of geometry factor ζ. The paper itself notes that KFM/BFM predictions for HMXB QPOs carry roughly an order-of-magnitude uncertainty (James et al. 2010) and that a similar SFXT QPO in IGR J17544−2619 was never confirmed. As written, the abstract's conditional wording is appropriate, but the paper should either add a quantitative systematic-error budget for B_s (including ζ ∈ [0.52, 1], M_NS and R_NS ranges, and the model uncertainty) or explicitly label the B_s value as a model-dependent illustration rather than a measurement. This affects how the central result is read.
  3. [§4.4] The luminosity input to Eq. (13) is not uniquely defined. The text states L ~ 10^37 erg/s for the brightest flare, but Table 2 gives absorption-corrected 0.5–10 keV luminosities 1.6×10^36 erg/s (C2*) and 9.3×10^36 erg/s (C2a), and Section 4.1 quotes a peak 0.1-s bolometric luminosity of ~1.8×10^38 erg/s. Since B_s ∝ L^{1/2} in Eq. (14), these choices differ by up to a factor ~4 in B_s. Please specify the time interval and bolometric correction used for L_37, and propagate the associated uncertainty into B_s.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2 and §3.3] There are several typographical slips: 'segemts' should be 'segments', 'GIT-B' should be 'GTI-B', and in Section 4.4 'we consider the exception case of of ν_K ≫ 1 Hz' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  2. [§4.5 heading] The heading 'What makes MAXI J0709 different from other HXMB systems?' should use the standard abbreviation 'HMXB'.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains 'SCORPEPN', which should be 'SCORPEON'; also, the two background model curves would be easier to identify if their labels matched the terminology in Table 2 ('default' and 'fitted').
  4. [§4.3, Eq. (8)] The notation L_fl δ_fl t_ob in Eq. (8) is dimensionally an integral of L(t) dt; please insert parentheses or clarify that δ_fl is dimensionless, to avoid confusion with a product of three dimensional quantities.
  5. [Abstract and §2] The abstract says the NICER data cover '3 hours to 6 days after the discovery', but Table 1 shows the last observation ends on January 30, about 5.2 days after the MAXI detection; please harmonize the time interval.
  6. [§3.4] The claim that the iron-Kα line is 'positively detected only in the C2* spectrum with a confidence level of 99% or higher' should state the statistical method used (e.g., ΔW or eqwid), since the confidence level is not otherwise defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 1.1 Hz QPO centroid and luminosity are measured inputs, and the B-field estimate is a standard physical inversion, not a recycled fit.

full rationale

The central derivation (Section 4.4, Eqs. 11–14) combines two independently measured quantities—the Lorentzian centroid ν0 = 1.14 ± 0.03 Hz from the Section 3.3 PDS fit and the outburst luminosity L ~ 10^37 erg s^-1 from Section 3.4—with standard Keplerian and magnetospheric-radius formulae (Eqs. 11–13, from Ghosh & Lamb 1979a,b). Setting r_K = r_m yields Eq. (14), µ30 = 0.44 ζ^{-7/4} M^{1/3} R^{1/2} L^{1/2} ν^{-7/6}, from which B_s ~ 10^12 G follows. No fitted parameter is recycled: ν_qpo and L are inputs, not outputs, of the B estimate, and the inferred B is not used to predict them. The identification of the QPO with ν_K(r_m) is a physical assumption whose uncertainty the authors state explicitly ("the QPO model predictions should have an error of about one order of magnitude", citing James et al. 2010), and they caution that a similar SFXT QPO (IGR J17544-2619) was never confirmed in later observations. Self-citations (e.g., Sugizaki et al. 2022) support source identification and optical classification, but are not load-bearing for the field estimate. The key physics references (Ghosh & Lamb, van der Klis, Alpar & Shaham) are external. The analysis is self-contained with respect to the data and external benchmarks; remaining concerns such as the unquoted detection significance of the 1.1 Hz PDS peak are statistical-correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central QPO detection itself requires no fitted parameters beyond standard timing analysis. The magnetic field estimate in equation (14) uses the observed L and nu_qpo plus assumed NS mass, radius, distance, and geometry factor; these are standard inputs, not free parameters tuned to force Bs. The main assumptions are the transient disk and the KFM/BFM mapping.

free parameters (2)
  • Geometry factor zeta = 1.0 (spherical) or 0.52 (disk)
    Chosen by hand from the two standard accretion geometries in section 4.4; changes Bs by about a factor of 2.
  • Flare luminosity L37 = ~1 (i.e., ~1e37 erg/s)
    Derived from the C2a spectrum with an absorbed power-law model and 3 kpc distance; enters equation (14) as sqrt(L).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The compact object is a magnetized neutron star with mass 1.4 M_sun and radius 10 km.
    Used for the Eddington luminosity comparison and in equations (3), (6), (9)-(14) for rK and rm.
  • domain assumption A transient accretion disk forms during the flare around the neutron star magnetosphere.
    The KFM/BFM interpretation requires an accretion disk; the paper argues this is possible for vrel below ~3.5e7 cm/s in section 4.4.
  • domain assumption The 1.1 Hz QPO frequency equals the Keplerian frequency at the inner disk edge, or its beat with the neutron star spin.
    Central to equation (14) and the Bs estimate in section 4.4; alternative origins in the clumpy wind are not excluded.
  • domain assumption The standard magnetospheric radius formula (equations 12-13) with geometry factor zeta is applicable.
    Balances magnetic pressure against ram pressure; zeta=1 or 0.52 gives a factor ~2 range in Bs.
  • domain assumption The source distance is 3.03 kpc from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021).
    Luminosity and hence L37 in equation (14) scale with distance squared.
  • domain assumption Wind velocity and orbital parameters follow typical BeXB values (P_orb ~ 10 d, e <= 0.4, beta ~ 0.5 wind law).
    Used for clump size and to argue disk formation is possible, but not required for the QPO B-field estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-periodic variation during a fast X-ray outburst of a high-mass X-ray binary MAXI J0709-159 / LY CMa observed by NICER." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNPFFDK4

@misc{pith2026250710180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-periodic variation during a fast X-ray outburst of a high-mass X-ray binary MAXI J0709-159 / LY CMa observed by NICER},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNPFFDK4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10180}
}
abstract

We report on a quasi-periodic variation at $\sim1$ Hz during a fast X-ray outburst of a high-mass X-ray binary MAXI J0709$-$159 / LY CMa observed by the Neutron-star interior composition explorer (NICER). The new X-ray transient MAXI J0709$-$159 was discovered on 2022 January 25. Due to the transient X-ray behavior characterized by the short (a few hours) outburst duration, rapid ($\lesssim$ 1 s) variability with spectral change, and large luminosity swing from $10^{32}$ erg s$^{-1}$ to $10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$, the object was considered likely to be a supergiant X-ray binary with a neutron star (NS) categorized as a Supergiant Fast X-ray Transient (SFXT). Follow-up NICER and NuSTAR observations confirmed that the position of the new X-ray object is consistent with a Be star, LY CMa, which has been also identified as a B supergiant. We analyzed the NICER data obtained from 3 hours to 6 days after the discovery. The light curve reveals that the X-ray activity continued for $\sim7$ hours in sparse short flares, each lasting $\lesssim 100$ seconds, and the luminosity instantaneously reached up to $\sim 1\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The light-curve and spectral features reasonably agree with those expected from accretion of a clumpy stellar-wind onto a magnetized NS. The variability power spectrum during the brightest flare shows a broad peak at $1.1$ Hz resembling a quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO). If the QPO is attributed to the Keplerian orbital frequency at the inner edge of a transient accretion disk truncated by the NS magnetosphere, the NS surface magnetic field is estimated to be $\sim 10^{12}$ G.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10180 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MAXI J0709−159 X-ray light curves observed by NICER in 0.5–10 keV band (red) and MAXI in 2–10 keV band (blue). The NICER data represents count rate including backgrounds every 1-s time bin. MAXI data are obtained from the public web site, which provides estimated photon flux every scan transit of ∼ 40 s assuming the power-law spectrum of photon index Γ = 2. X-axis labels at the top and bottom on each panel represent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NICER 0.5–10 keV light curve in 0.1-s time bin (red) and hardness ratio variation of 4–10 keV to 0.5–4 keV in 0.5-s time bin (blue) for three flaring periods of A (50 s), C1 (50 s), and C2 (100 s), labeled in figure 1. 50 100 200 500 NICER 0.5-10 keV (Counts s 1 ) 0 2 4 6 Hardness ratio 4-10 keV / 0.5-4 keV A C2* C2a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hardness-intensity diagram during the two flares of A and C2, shown in figure 2. statistic (Cash 1979) taking into account the background contributions. There, using the error command or the eqwid command (for equivalent width) in XSPEC, we calculated model-parameter errors corresponding to an increase of 2.7 in the fit statistic W, which are equivalent to 90% confidence limits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Power density spectra (PDS) of NICER 0.5–10 keV light curves in three GTIs, A, B, and C, labeled in figure 1 (middle). The inset shows the close-up view of the peak seen in the PDS of GTI-C at ∼ 1 Hz, where dashed lines represent the best-fit Lorentzian plus power-…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: X-ray spectra of three flaring periods, A, C2* (C2 excluding C2a), and C2a, labeled in figure 2. (Top) Observed photon count spectra including backgrounds and best-fit models folded with instrument response functions (solid lines). Dashed and dotted lines represent par…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the changes in the obtained best-fit parameters of the partial-covering-absorption power-law model, Funabs, NH,pc, 1−fpc, Γ, and EWFeKα among the three flare periods of A, C2*, and C2a in table 2. NH,pc decreased from the flare A to C2* and C2a, consistent with t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic picture of compact X-ray object and surrounding CSM distribution suspected from X-ray spectral changes and rapid flaring activities during the short outburst based on the clumpy wind accretion scenario. to the idea of mass accretion via clumpy stellar winds t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Time evolutions of NICER 2-8 kev count rate (top), J2000 right ascension (middle) and declination (bottom) of the XTI pointing direction during the grid scan of the MAXI J0709 position-error region determined by MAXI. In the top panel, the good time interval det…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ETSg*Rk,VhRsWƒ se,g< i\ u=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    2017

  2. [2]

    A., & Shaham , J

    Alpar , M. A., & Shaham , J. 1985, , 316, 239, 10.1038/316239a0

    doi:10.1038/316239a0 1985

  3. [3]

    Angelini , L., Stella , L., & Parmar , A. N. 1989, , 346, 906, 10.1086/168070

    doi:10.1086/168070 1989

  4. [4]

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

    1996

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  8. [8]

    2002, , 572, 392, 10.1086/340290

    Belloni , T., Psaltis , D., & van der Klis , M. 2002, , 572, 392, 10.1086/340290

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 636, 10.25518/0037-9565.11821

    Bhattacharya , S., Mathew , B., Banerjee , G., et al. 2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 636, 10.25518/0037-9565.11821

    2024

  2. [10]

    H., et al

    Bhattacharyya , S., Mathew , B., Ezhikode , S. H., et al. 2022, , 933, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b8a

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    1952, , 112, 195, 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi , H. 1952, , 112, 195, 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    1952 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, , 608, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730398

    Bozzo , E., Bernardini , F., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2017, , 608, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730398

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, , 683, 1031, 10.1086/589990

    Bozzo , E., Falanga , M., & Stella , L. 2008, , 683, 1031, 10.1086/589990

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    2016 a , , 589, A102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628341

    Bozzo , E., Oskinova , L., Feldmeier , A., & Falanga , M. 2016 a , , 589, A102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628341

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 1255, 10.1016/j.asr.2014.11.012

    Bozzo , E., Romano , P., Ducci , L., Bernardini , F., & Falanga , M. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 1255, 10.1016/j.asr.2014.11.012

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2009, , 493, 809, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810658

    Bozzo , E., Stella , L., Vietri , M., & Ghosh , P. 2009, , 493, 809, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810658

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    2011, , 531, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116726

    Bozzo , E., Giunta , A., Cusumano , G., et al. 2011, , 531, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116726

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2016 b , , 596, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629311

    Bozzo , E., Bhalerao , V., Pradhan , P., et al. 2016 b , , 596, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629311

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  12. [20]

    I., Abbott , D

    Castor , J. I., Abbott , D. C., & Klein , R. I. 1975, , 195, 157, 10.1086/153315

    1975 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Whelan , D

    Chojnowski , S. D., Whelan , D. G., Wisniewski , J. P., et al. 2015, , 149, 7, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/7

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Rothschild , R

    Coburn , W., Heindl , W. A., Rothschild , R. E., et al. 2002, , 580, 394, 10.1086/343033

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Lennon , D

    Crowther , P. A., Lennon , D. J., & Walborn , N. R. 2006, , 446, 279, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053685

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    2011, , 417, 348, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19269.x

    Devasia , J., James , M., Paul , B., & Indulekha , K. 2011, , 417, 348, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19269.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.09005, 10.48550/arXiv.2010.09005

    Di Salvo , T., & Sanna , A. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.09005, 10.48550/arXiv.2010.09005

    2020 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    H., Wilson , R

    Finger , M. H., Wilson , R. B., & Harmon , B. A. 1996, , 459, 288, 10.1086/176892

    1996 doi

  19. [28]

    C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P

    Gendreau , K. C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz ...

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    Ghosh , P., & Lamb , F. K. 1979 a , , 232, 259, 10.1086/157285

    1979 doi

  21. [30]

    1979 b , , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    ---. 1979 b , , 234, 296, 10.1086/157498

    1979 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Eikmann , W., et al

    Gim \'e nez-Garc \' a , A., Torrej \'o n , J. M., Eikmann , W., et al. 2015, , 576, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425004

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    2014, , 566, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423554

    Gonz \'a lez-Gal \'a n , A., Negueruela , I., Castro , N., et al. 2014, , 566, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423554

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    A., & Sunyaev , R

    Grebenev , S. A., & Sunyaev , R. A. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 149, 10.1134/S1063773707030024

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Torrej \'o n , J

    Hainich , R., Oskinova , L. M., Torrej \'o n , J. M., et al. 2020, , 634, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935498

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    A., Craig , W

    Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    1988, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars

    Houk , N., & Smith-Moore , M. 1988, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars. Volume 4, Declinations -26 .0 to -12 .0. , Vol. 4

    1988

  29. [38]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  30. [39]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen , D., Bachetti , M., Stevens , A. L., et al. 2019 a , , 881, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    2019 b , Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1393, 10.21105/joss.01393

    ---. 2019 b , Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1393, 10.21105/joss.01393

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    1985, , 40, 317, 10.1007/BF00212905

    Inoue , H. 1985, , 40, 317, 10.1007/BF00212905

    1985 doi

  33. [42]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15181, 1

    Iwakiri , W., Gendreau , K., Arzoumanian , Z., et al. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15181, 1

    2022

  34. [43]

    2010, , 407, 285, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16880.x

    James , M., Paul , B., Devasia , J., & Indulekha , K. 2010, , 407, 285, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16880.x

    2010

  35. [44]

    2007, , 660, 1409, 10.1086/513418

    Kaur , R., Paul , B., Raichur , H., & Sagar , R. 2007, , 660, 1409, 10.1086/513418

    2007 doi

  36. [45]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15188, 1

    Kobayashi , K., Negoro , H., Sugita , S., et al. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15188, 1

    2022

  37. [46]

    2019, , 86, 101546, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101546

    Kretschmar , P., F \"u rst , F., Sidoli , L., et al. 2019, , 86, 101546, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101546

    2019

  38. [47]

    2008, , 492, 511, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809956

    Kreykenbohm , I., Wilms , J., Kretschmar , P., et al. 2008, , 492, 511, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809956

    2008 doi

  39. [48]

    2011, , 534, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116679

    Krti c ka , J., & Kub \'a t , J. 2011, , 534, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116679

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    A., Darbro , W., Elsner , R

    Leahy , D. A., Darbro , W., Elsner , R. F., et al. 1983, , 266, 160, 10.1086/160766

    1983 doi

  41. [50]

    2022, , 516, 5579, 10.1093/mnras/stac2646

    Liu , Q., Wang , W., Chen , X., et al. 2022, , 516, 5579, 10.1093/mnras/stac2646

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    1999, , 525, 978, 10.1086/307912

    Makishima , K., Mihara , T., Nagase , F., & Tanaka , Y. 1999, , 525, 978, 10.1086/307912

    1999 doi

  43. [52]

    2017, , 212, 59, 10.1007/s11214-017-0340-1

    Mart \' nez-N \'u \ n ez , S., Kretschmar , P., Bozzo , E., et al. 2017, , 212, 59, 10.1007/s11214-017-0340-1

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    2009, , 61, 999, 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

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

    2009 doi

  45. [54]

    2011, , 63, S623, 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S623

    Mihara , T., Nakajima , M., Sugizaki , M., et al. 2011, , 63, S623, 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S623

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    NASA High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004. 1408.004

    2014

  47. [56]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15193, 1

    Negoro , H., Mihara , T., Pike , S., et al. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15193, 1

    2022

  48. [57]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15194, 1

    Nesci , R. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15194, 1

    2022

  49. [58]

    N., Sugizaki , M., Eijnden , J

    Pike , S. N., Sugizaki , M., Eijnden , J. v. d., et al. 2023, , 954, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace696

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    2018, , 610, A50, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731487

    Pradhan , P., Bozzo , E., & Paul , B. 2018, , 610, A50, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731487

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    Prinja , R. K. 1989, , 241, 721, 10.1093/mnras/241.4.721

    1989 doi

  52. [61]

    2008, , 492, 163, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810695

    Rahoui , F., & Chaty , S. 2008, , 492, 163, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810695

    2008 doi

  53. [62]

    2011, , 332, 1, 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    Reig , P. 2011, , 332, 1, 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    2011 doi

  54. [63]

    Rikame , K., Paul , B., Pradhan , P., & Paul , K. T. 2022, , 512, 4792, 10.1093/mnras/stac729

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 1593, 10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.034

    Romano , P., Mangano , V., Ducci , L., et al. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 1593, 10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.034

    2013 doi

  56. [65]

    2015, , 576, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525749

    Romano , P., Bozzo , E., Mangano , V., et al. 2015, , 576, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525749

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    C., Iyer , N

    Roy , J., Agrawal , P. C., Iyer , N. K., et al. 2019, , 872, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafaf1

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15178, 1

    Serino , M., Negoro , H., Nakajima , M., et al. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15178, 1

    2022

  59. [68]

    J., et al

    Sguera , V., Bazzano , A., Bird , A. J., et al. 2006, , 646, 452, 10.1086/504827

    2006 doi

  60. [69]

    2013, , 428, 670, 10.1093/mnras/sts062

    Shakura , N., Postnov , K., & Hjalmarsdotter , L. 2013, , 428, 670, 10.1093/mnras/sts062

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    2014, , 442, 2325, 10.1093/mnras/stu1027

    Shakura , N., Postnov , K., Sidoli , L., & Paizis , A. 2014, , 442, 2325, 10.1093/mnras/stu1027

    2014 doi

  62. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21118, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21118

    Shidatsu , M., Kawai , N., Maehara , H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21118, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21118

    2025 doi arXiv

  63. [72]

    E., Israel , G

    Sidoli , L., Esposito , P., Motta , S. E., Israel , G. L., & Rodr \' guez Castillo , G. A. 2016, , 460, 3637, 10.1093/mnras/stw1246

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    2018, , 481, 2779, 10.1093/mnras/sty2428

    Sidoli , L., & Paizis , A. 2018, , 481, 2779, 10.1093/mnras/sty2428

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    2011, , 63, S635, 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S635

    Sugizaki , M., Mihara , T., Serino , M., et al. 2011, , 63, S635, 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S635

    2011 doi

  66. [75]

    2022, , 10.1093/pasj/psac059

    Sugizaki , M., Mihara , T., Kobayashi , K., et al. 2022, , 10.1093/pasj/psac059

    2022 doi

  67. [76]

    E., Fryxell , B

    Taam , R. E., Fryxell , B. A., & Brown , D. A. 1988, , 331, L117, 10.1086/185248

    1988 doi

  68. [77]

    1994, , 436, 871, 10.1086/174964

    Takeshima , T., Dotani , T., Mitsuda , K., & Nagase , F. 1994, , 436, 871, 10.1086/174964

    1994 doi

  69. [78]

    M., Schulz , N

    Torrej \'o n , J. M., Schulz , N. S., Nowak , M. A., & Kallman , T. R. 2010, , 715, 947, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/947

    2010 doi

  70. [79]

    van der Klis , M., Stella , L., White , N., Jansen , F., & Parmar , A. N. 1987, , 316, 411, 10.1086/165210

    1987 doi

  71. [80]

    Wang , Y. M. 1981, , 102, 36

    1981

  72. [81]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

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

    2000 doi

  73. [82]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 86, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_151-1

    Yuan , W., Zhang , C., Chen , Y., & Ling , Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 86, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_151-1

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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