Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Implementing and Verifying a Fourier Domain Approach to Fast Stochastic X-ray Polarimetry Timing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Fourier method detects X-ray polarization flips on pulse timescales

desk verdict First real-data implementation of the Ingram–Maccarone Fourier polarimetry-timing method; it convincingly re-detects known pulse-phase polarisation variability, though the amplitude 'verification' is partly circular and the calibration loop is closed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15461 v1 pith:B6VMZWPA submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.HE

Melissa Ewing , Adam Ingram , John Rankin , Fabio Muleri This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE MSC 85-0885A35 PACS 95.75.Mn95.85.Nv97.80.Jp
keywords X-raypolarimetrypolarizationvariabilityFouriertimingIXPEpulsarsaccretionquasi-periodicoscillationsmodulationfunction
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 implements, for the first time on real IXPE data, a Fourier-based technique that detects X-ray polarization variability without assuming the signal is periodic. The authors show that the method recovers the known pulse-phase polarization swings in two X-ray pulsars, RX-J0440.9+4431 and Hercules X-1, at high statistical significance. If the technique works as claimed, it opens the door to studying fast, stochastic polarization variability in accreting compact objects, such as quasi-periodic oscillations, which phase-folding methods cannot reliably probe.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modulation function, the histogram of photon counts versus modulation angle, whose shape encodes the polarization degree and angle. The method computes cross-spectra between light curves selected in different modulation-angle bins and a reference band, extracting the fractional rms and phase lag as functions of modulation angle. A sinusoidal dependence of these quantities on modulation angle is the signature of polarization variability; the paper also develops a 'Level 1.5' pipeline step to recover sky-frame modulation angles from IXPE event files.

What would settle it

A controlled test would inject a known time-varying spurious polarization (e.g., by artificially dithering the source position or softening the spectrum at the pulse frequency) into simulated IXPE events and check whether the recovered rms/phase curves shift significantly; if they do, the method's detections could be artifacts of miscalibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that a model-independent Fourier-domain approach can detect intrinsic polarization variability over the pulse period of accreting pulsars, matching results from traditional phase-folding. For both sources, a sinusoidal model of fractional rms and phase versus modulation angle is strongly preferred over a constant, with significances >8σ and 4.93σ respectively. The authors verify the method against phase-folded pulse profiles and use simulations to show that instrumental effects—dead time, spurious polarization, and modulation-factor variability—do not dominate the detected signal.

Load-bearing premise

The correction for spurious polarization assumes it is constant in time, and the simulations that validate this assumption use the same calibration model that built the correction, so an unmodeled time-variable component could mimic or mask a real polarization signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The technique can be applied to quasi-periodic oscillations to test the Lense-Thirring precession model of the corona, which predicts polarization modulations over the QPO period.
  • It enables searches for aperiodic polarization variability on arbitrarily short timescales, such as propagation of accretion-rate fluctuations between regions of different polarization.
  • Polarization reverberation mapping becomes feasible, since direct and reflected X-rays have different polarization properties and can be separated by their lags.
  • Future high-throughput missions like eXTP could use this method to measure small polarization lags that IXPE cannot detect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's model independence is its key advantage: it does not assign phases to individual photons, so it should remain valid for stochastic or aperiodic variability where phase-folding introduces systematic biases.
  • The analytical model used to reproduce the observed rms/phase curves could be inverted to directly measure the amplitude and phase of PD and PA modulations as a function of Fourier frequency, potentially yielding new diagnostics for accretion geometry.
  • A testable extension is to apply the technique to Swift J1727.8-1613, where a phase-folding search for a polarization QPO was negative; a Fourier-domain search might be more sensitive if the QPO phase is not strictly coherent.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper implements the Ingram & Maccarone (2017) Fourier-domain method for fast X-ray polarimetry timing on IXPE data for two accreting X-ray pulsars, RX-J0440.9+4431 and Hercules X-1. It introduces a 'Level 1.5' event-file pipeline that recovers sky-frame modulation angles while retaining per-event spurious-polarisation information, treats deadtime by splitting subject and reference bands across independent detector units, and applies a global-decoupling correction for constant spurious polarisation. Applying the method at the pulsar spin frequency, the authors find that a sinusoidal model of fractional rms and phase versus modulation angle is preferred over a constant model at >8σ and 4.93σ for the two sources. They compare these results with an analytical calculation from phase-folded PD/PA light curves and with Monte Carlo simulations that re-inject the phase-resolved polarisation signal, concluding that instrumental effects are small and that the method is ready for stochastic polarisation variability studies.

Significance. If the central detection and validation hold, this is a valuable methods paper: it is the first application of the Fourier-based polarimetry-timing technique to real IXPE data and convincingly demonstrates that pulse-phase polarisation variability can be recovered without phase-folding individual photons. The null-hypothesis significance test in Section 4.1 is clean, uses standard Fourier techniques, and is not contingent on the analytical model or the simulations. The paper also provides a careful, testable treatment of the Level 1.5 pipeline (Appendix A), including diagnostic checks against the standard IXPE pipeline. However, the analytical and simulation-based validation is less independent than the text claims: the analytical curves are partly fitted to the data, and the simulations re-inject the same signal and use the same calibration maps as the correction. These issues reduce the strength of the 'verification' claim but do not invalidate the detection itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Fig. 3] The analytical curves labelled 'red dotted' are not independent predictions: the modulation factor is set to mu=0.21 and mu=0.44 for RX-J0440.9+4431 and Hercules X-1 respectively, explicitly chosen to optimise agreement with the observed rms and phase, while the 'effective' values quoted earlier are 0.286 and 0.336. In addition, the pulse-profile amplitude is rescaled by factors 0.88256 and 1.2847 to match the observed rms. With two fitted normalisation choices per source, the resulting agreement cannot be presented as strong validation that all instrumental effects are correctly removed. The authors should reframe this comparison as a consistency check with free parameters, or provide an independent determination of mu (e.g., from calibration data) and a quantitative error budget for the rescaling.
  2. [Section 5 and Eq. (18)] The simulations test internal consistency rather than absolute calibration accuracy. They re-inject the phase-resolved PD and PA derived from the same observations, and they generate spurious polarisation using the same calibration maps that the global-decoupling correction in Eq. (18) is based on, as well as the same energy-dependent mu model used in the analysis. Consequently, the simulations cannot detect a calibration error at the pulse frequency: if the true time-variable spurious polarisation deviates from the maps, or if mu(E) is mis-calibrated, the residual could produce a sinusoidal rms/phase pattern of the form fitted in Eq. (19), creating or masking a detection. The conclusion in Section 6 that 'effects caused by rapid variability of the source spectral shape ... are small' is therefore only as strong as the calibration. I recommend that the authors state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, add a test using an independent calibration source or a simulated signal with a deliberately wrong spurious-polarisation model to bound the systematic uncertainty.
  3. [Section 5, Hercules X-1] For Hercules X-1 the simulated phase lags show a small but visible discrepancy with the observed data, which the authors attribute either to energy dependence of the pulse properties or to inaccuracies in the polynomial fits to PD and PA. This unexplained discrepancy is not quantified, and since the detection significance for this source (4.93σ) is much lower than for RX-J0440.9+4431, it would be useful to know whether the residual can plausibly account for part of the observed phase modulation. Please provide a quantitative estimate (e.g., the size of the lag residual compared with the fitted sinusoidal amplitude and its uncertainty).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors, including 'Feburary', 'polametric', 'ephemredies', 'equivelent', and 'affect' where 'effect' is intended. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Section 4.1] The degrees of freedom reported (34 for the sine model, 38 for the null model) are only correct if the rms and phase data are fitted simultaneously with a common set of parameters and the null model has two constant parameters. Please state this explicitly, as the current wording '40 data points and 6 free parameters' could be misread as fitting each panel separately.
  3. [Section 3.2] The paper notes that deadtime can bias measured Fourier amplitudes and states this effect is small for the considered count rates and frequencies, but no quantitative bound is given. A short estimate or reference to a figure showing negligible bias would strengthen the Methods section.
  4. [Section 5] The polynomial fits used to map pulse phase to PD and PA for the simulations are shown in Fig. 1 but the polynomial degrees and coefficients are not specified. Please provide these details or a table so that the simulations are reproducible.
  5. [Appendix A4] The diagnostic test rejecting events with |epsilon2 - epsilon_cor| >= 1e-4 discards a small fraction of events (<3.6e-5). Please state explicitly whether this event rejection is applied uniformly to all DUs and observations used in the paper, and whether it could introduce a selection bias related to modulation angle.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Analytical verification curves are tuned with a fitted modulation factor; simulations re-inject the phase-folded signal using the same spurious-polarisation maps and μ(E) model used for the correction. The F-test detection is independent, but the verification loop is partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Analytical calculation; Fig. 3 caption]
    "For the red dotted lines, we re-do the analytical calculation except now we choose values of the modulation factor $\mu$ that optimise agreement with the observational data. The values used are $\mu=0.21$ and $\mu=0.44$ for RX-J0440.9+4431 and Hercules X-1 respectively. We see that the discrepancy with the data can be eliminated entirely by adjusting the assumed modulation factor."

    The red-dotted curves are presented as an analytical check that the Fourier method recovers the phase-folded signal ('A strong agreement between observed and analytic data consolidates that our method works as expected'). But the modulation factor multiplies the modulation function, $f(\phi|\psi,p,\mu)=\frac{1}{\pi}\{1+\mu p\cos[2(\psi-\phi)]\}$, so choosing $\mu$ after seeing the observed rms/phase vs modulation angle directly fixes the model amplitude to the data. The agreement is created by the fit rather than being an independent prediction. The initial fixed-$\mu$ curve (blue dashed) over-predicts for RX-J0440.9+4431, confirming that the red-curve agreement is not a free-standing derivation.

  2. other [Section 5, Simulations; Fig. 4]
    "To generate a simulated modulation angle per event, we first calculate the pulse phase of the event from the time of arrival and pulsar ephemerides, then assign a corresponding PD and PA according to the phase folded light curves in Figure 1. ... We then add on spurious stokes parameters using Equation 12."

    The simulations inject the phase-resolved PD/PA measured from the same IXPE data by phase-folding, so recovering a sinusoidal rms/phase pattern in the Fourier analysis is guaranteed by construction. In the spurious-polarisation scenarios, the injected qsp and usp are derived from the same per-event spurious-polarisation values (stored in the Level 1.5 files from the calibration maps, Appendix A3) and the same energy-dependent $\mu$ model that the global-decoupling correction (Equation 18) subtracts; hence the injection and the correction cancel by construction. The agreement in Figure 4 therefore demonstrates algorithmic self-consistency but cannot validate the calibration maps or the $\mu(E)$ model.

full rationale

Most of the analysis is self-contained and non-circular: the Fourier cross-spectrum formalism, the deadtime mitigation by using independent detector units, and the null-hypothesis F-test comparing a sinusoidal model to a constant for the observed rms/phase versus modulation angle are legitimate and do not import fitted parameters. The central >8σ (RX-J0440.9+4431) and 4.93σ (Hercules X-1) detections are independent of the fitted modulation factor and of the simulations. However, the verification arguments contain two internally closed loops. First, the 'analytical calculation' in Section 4.2 initially uses an effective $\mu$ and over-predicts the RX-J0440.9 data; the red-dotted curves then choose $\mu$ to optimise agreement, so the match is a fit renamed as an analytical check. Second, the Section 5 simulations re-inject the same phase-folded PD/PA and use the same spurious-polarisation maps and $\mu(E)$ model for both injection and correction, so they test internal consistency but not the calibration itself. These are genuine circular elements in the verification chain, but they do not invalidate the F-test-based detection, which stands on its own. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; citations to Ingram & Maccarone (2017) and Rankin et al. (2022) provide the underlying method and calibration products rather than force the target result. Score 6 reflects partial circularity in the verification claims, not a fully circular derivation.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central detection uses standard polarimeter response models and cross-spectral statistics. The verification exercises, however, rely on several fitted inputs (adjusted modulation factors, pulse scaling factors, polynomial fits to phase-resolved polarisation) and on calibration maps and energy-dependent mu models that are assumed accurate.

free parameters (5)
  • Analytical modulation factor mu (RX-J0440.9+4431) = 0.21
    Adjusted from 0.286 to optimise agreement with observed fractional rms and phase in Fig. 3, Section 4.2
  • Analytical modulation factor mu (Hercules X-1) = 0.44
    Adjusted from 0.336 to optimise agreement with observed fractional rms and phase, Section 4.2
  • Pulse profile rms scale (RX-J0440.9+4431) = 0.88256
    Multiplicative factor applied to folded pulse profile in analytical calculation to account for discrete Fourier spreading, Section 4.2
  • Pulse profile rms scale (Hercules X-1) = 1.2847
    Multiplicative factor applied to folded pulse profile to account for additional aperiodic variability, Section 4.2
  • Polynomial fits to phase-resolved PD and PA = coefficients not tabulated
    Used to map pulse phase to continuous PD/PA for simulation injection (Section 5, solid lines in Fig. 1); fitted to the same phase-folded data that define the ground truth
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The modulation function f(phi|psi,p,mu) = (1/pi)[1 + mu p cos(2(psi-phi))] (Eq. 1) fully describes the IXPE detector response to polarised photons.
    Standard photoelectric gas polarimeter model; underpins the definition of subject-band light curves in Eq. 2 and all subsequent analysis.
  • domain assumption The phase-resolved PD and PA measured by traditional phase folding (Fig. 1) provide a correct ground truth for the pulse-phase polarisation variability of the two pulsars.
    The verification strategy in Sections 4.2 and 5 compares the Fourier method against these curves and injects them into simulations. If phase-folding itself were biased, the verification would be against a biased reference.
  • domain assumption The IXPE spurious polarisation maps (Rankin et al. 2022) are accurate for interpolation over energy channels and chip positions, including extrapolation below PI channel 51.
    Used in the Level 1.5 pipeline (Appendix A3) to reconstruct modulation angles and in the global decoupling correction (Eq. 18) and simulations (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Using different detector units for the subject band (DU1+DU2) and reference band (DU3) removes the dominant deadtime-induced cross-talk and phase-lag bias.
    Section 3.2 relies on Bachetti et al. (2015); residual amplitude bias from deadtime is asserted to be small at these count rates.
  • standard math The cross-spectrum error bars from Ingram (2019) and the F-test used in Section 4.1 are valid for the averaged Fourier products.
    Needed for the >8sigma and 4.93sigma significance claims; no independent check of the noise model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implementing and Verifying a Fourier Domain Approach to Fast Stochastic X-ray Polarimetry Timing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6VMZWPA

@misc{pith2026250715461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implementing and Verifying a Fourier Domain Approach to Fast Stochastic X-ray Polarimetry Timing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6VMZWPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15461}
}
read the original abstract

The launch of the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE), the first space-based polarimeter since 1978, offers a two order of magnitude improvement to the measurement of X-ray polarisation than its predecessor OSO-8, offering unprecedented precision for the measurement of polarisation degree and polarisation angle of X-ray sources. This advancement lends itself to the birth of a number of contemporary techniques to study Galactic compact objects, including X-ray polarimetry-timing, the study of how polarisation properties evolve over short timescales. However, the statistical nature of polarisation measurements poses a challenge for studies on arbitrarily short timescales, as a large number of photons are required to achieve statistically significant measurements of polarisation degree and angle for time-resolved analyses. Furthermore, if the polarisation variability is stochastic, then phase-folding techniques introduce systematic errors in the phase assignment of photons. Ingram and Maccarone presented a model independent Fourier-based technique that circumvents these issues. It can be used on arbitrarily short timescales for any kind of variability, whether aperiodic, quasi-periodic or purely periodic. Here we implement this method on real IXPE data. We address several instrumental effects and test the technique on X-ray pulsars, RX-J0440.9+4431 and Hercules X-1 . We verify that our technique recovers the polarisation variability signal that we already know to be there from typical phase-folding techniques. It will now be possible to study fast stochastic polarisation variability of X-ray sources, with applications including quasi-periodic oscillations, mass accretion rate fluctuations, and reverberation mapping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15461 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pulse phase dependence of the source flux, PD and PA of RX￾J0440.9+443 and Hercules X-1. The pulse profiles are in agreement with Doroshenko et al. (2022, 2023). The solid lines are the polynomials used to map PD and PA to individual events for simulations (see Section 5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The left plot demonstrates the modulation function in the presence of polarisation. The amplitude of the cos2 function increases with increasing polarisation degree and the position of the peak on the modulation angle (𝜙) axis corresponds to the polarisation angle. The right plot demonstrates an idealised modulation function in the absence of polarisation. There is no dependence on counts as a function of modula… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed fractional rms (upper plot) and phase (lower plot) as a function of modulation angle of RX-J0440.9+4431 (left) and Hercules X-1 (right). The black solid lines are the best fitting sinusoidal models and the black dotted lines are the best fitting null hypothesis model. The remaining two lines represent the rms and phase calculated analytically from the phase folded light curves. For the blue dashed lines, we… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated observations of RX-J0440.9+4431 (left) and Hercules X-1 (right). The black data points represent the observed data. The red and purple dotted lines represent simulated data with signal injection that does not consider spurious polarisation and has a variable …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. nDspec: a new Python library for modelling multi-dimensional datasets in X-ray astronomy

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    nDspec is a modular Python framework for forward-modelling multi-dimensional X-ray data, demonstrated on spectral-timing fits to a NICER observation of a black hole X-ray binary.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Bachetti M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/109 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800..109B 800, 109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/109 2015

  3. [3]

    Barnstedt J., 2006, http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/software/idl/aitlib/astro/binarycor.html

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    M., 2010, @doi [Lecture Notes in Physics] 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010LNP...794...53B 794, 53

    Belloni T. M., 2010, @doi [Lecture Notes in Physics] 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010LNP...794...53B 794, 53

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 2010

  5. [5]

    Belloni T., Hasinger G., Izzo C., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...283.1037B 283, 1037

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    De Rosa A., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-018-9297-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6229504D 62, 29504

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9297-0 2019

  7. [7]

    S., Université de Grenoble

    DeWitt-Morette C., DeWitt B. S., Université de Grenoble. École d'été de physique théorique L. H., 1973, Black holes. Les Astres occlus. Edited by C. DeWitt [and] B. S. DeWitt.. Gordon and Breach, New York

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    E., Boynton P

    Deeter J. E., Boynton P. E., Pravdo S. H., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...247.1003D 247, 1003

    doi:10.1086/159110 1981

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Di Marco A., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f , 165, 143

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Done C., Gierlinski M., Kubota A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    Doroshenko V., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01799-5 , 6, 1433–1443

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Doroshenko V., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347088 , 677, A57

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Lightman A

    Eardley D. M., Lightman A. P., Shapiro S. L., 1975, The Astrophysical Journal, 199, L153

    1975

  6. [14]

    A., McClintock J

    Esin A. A., McClintock J. E., Narayan R., 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 865

    1997

  7. [15]

    P., Belloni T

    Fender R. P., Belloni T. M., Gallo E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355.1105F 355, 1105

    2004

  8. [16]

    C., Bollimpalli D

    Fragile P. C., Bollimpalli D. A., Schnittman J. D., Harvey C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.11446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250511446F p. arXiv:2505.11446

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    A., Rosner R., Vaiana G

    Galeev A. A., Rosner R., Vaiana G. S., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156957 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229..318G 229, 318

    1979 doi

  10. [18]

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

    2014

  11. [19]

    Huppenkothen D., Bachetti M., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabe38 , 236, 13

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, revision d edn

    IXPE Science Operations Center 2022, User Guide — Data Formats. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, revision d edn

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ingram A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2409 , 489, 3927

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Ingram A., 2022, X-ray polarimetry-timing, @doi 10.48550/ARXIV.2206.11671 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11671

    2022 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Springer Nature Singapore, p

    Ingram A., 2023, X-ray Polarimetry-Timing. Springer Nature Singapore, p. 1–44, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_139-1 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_139-1

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Maccarone T

    Ingram A. R., Maccarone T. J., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1881 , 471, 4206

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Motta S

    Ingram A. R., Motta S. E., 2019, @doi [New Astronomy Reviews] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524 , 85, 101524

    2019

  18. [26]

    Ingram A., van der Klis M. v. d., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1476I 434, 1476

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Ingram A., van der Klis M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2373 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3516I 446, 3516

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Poutanen J., Krawczynski H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...53I 807, 53

    Ingram A., Maccarone T. J., Poutanen J., Krawczynski H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...53I 807, 53

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Ingram A., van der Klis M., Middleton M., Done C., Altamirano D., Heil L., Uttley P., Axelsson M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1245 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1967I 461, 1967

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Ingram A., van der Klis M., Middleton M., Altamirano D., Uttley P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2581 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2979I 464, 2979

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488..324I 488, 324

    Ingram A., Mastroserio G., Dauser T., Hovenkamp P., van der Klis M., Garc \' a J. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488..324I 488, 324

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Ingram A., et al., 2024, Tracking the X-ray Polarization of the Black Hole Transient Swift J1727.8-1613 during a State Transition ( @eprint arXiv 2311.05497 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05497

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kara E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0803-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.565..198K 565, 198

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.10.009 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016APh....75....8K 75, 8

    Krawczynski H. S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.10.009 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016APh....75....8K 75, 8

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Krawczynski H., et al., 2022, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.add5399 , 378, 650–654

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    pp 534--539, @doi 10.1109/ICAIIS49377.2020.9194944

    Liu Y., An H., Bian S., 2020, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Information Systems (ICAIIS). pp 534--539, @doi 10.1109/ICAIIS49377.2020.9194944

    2020

  29. [37]

    E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..679L 292, 679

    Lyubarskii Y. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..679L 292, 679

    1997 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Wilms J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497628 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635.1203M 635, 1203

    Markoff S., Nowak M. A., Wilms J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497628 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635.1203M 635, 1203

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Martocchia A., Matt G., Karas V., 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 383, L23

    2002

  32. [40]

    B., Yamaguchi H., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4451 , 968, 95

    Miura D., Kobayashi S. B., Yamaguchi H., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4451 , 968, 95

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Miyamoto S., Kitamoto S., Mitsuda K., Dotani T., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/336450a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.336..450M 336, 450

    1988 doi

  34. [42]

    Motch C., Haberl F., Dennerl K., Pakull M., Janot-Pacheco E., 1996, New massive X-ray binary candidates from the ROSAT Galactic Plane Survey I - Results from a cross-correlation with OB star catalogues ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9611122 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9611122

    1996 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Springer Nature Singapore, p

    Muleri F., 2022, Analysis of the Data from Photoelectric Gas Polarimeters. Springer Nature Singapore, p. 1–23, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_143-1 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_143-1

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..79P 614, A79

    Poutanen J., Veledina A., Zdziarski A. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..79P 614, A79

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Rankin J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac397f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163...39R 163, 39

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 24, p. 337-355, 24, 337

    1973

  39. [47]

    L., Lightman A

    Shapiro S. L., Lightman A. P., Eardley D. M., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..187S 204, 187

    1976 doi

  40. [48]

    Shui Q.-C., et al., 2024, Phase-resolved Spectroscopy of Low-frequency Quasi-periodic Oscillations from the Newly Discovered Black Hole X-ray Binary Swift J1727.8-1613 ( @eprint arXiv 2407.18106 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18106

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Klochkov, D

    Staubert, R. Klochkov, D. Wilms, J. 2009, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911690 , 500, 883

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Titarchuk L

    Sunyaev R. A., Titarchuk L. G., 1985, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985A

    1985

  43. [51]

    a., Gursky H., Kellogg E., Levinson R., Schreier E., Giacconi R., 1972, Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Tananbaum H. a., Gursky H., Kellogg E., Levinson R., Schreier E., Giacconi R., 1972, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 174, p. L143, 174, L143

    1972

  44. [53]

    M., Fabian A

    Uttley P., Cackett E. M., Fabian A. C., Kara E., Wilkins D. R., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-014-0072-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&ARv..22...72U 22, 72

    doi

  45. [54]

    Veledina A., et al., 2023, Discovery of X-ray Polarization from the Black Hole Transient Swift J1727.8-1613 ( @eprint arXiv 2309.15928 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15928

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    C., et al., 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series

    Weisskopf M. C., et al., 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 990517, @doi 10.1117/12.2235240

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JATIS...8b6002W 8, 026002

    Weisskopf M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JATIS...8b6002W 8, 026002

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    Zhang S., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6229502Z 62, 29502

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    Zhao Q.-C., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e6c , 961, L42

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    van der Klis M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA&A..27..517V 27, 517

    1989

  51. [60]

    39, Compact stellar X-ray sources

    van der Klis M., 2006, in , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. pp 39--112

    2006

  52. [61]

    van der Klis M., Hasinger G., Stella L., Langmeier A., van Paradijs J., Lewin W. H. G., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184946 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...319L..13V 319, L13

    1987 doi

Pith tools

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