Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 44 references

Deep Chandra X-ray observation of the isolated black hole OGLE-2011-BLG-0462

T0 review · 0 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 A 53.5-kilosecond Chandra exposure detected zero X-ray photons from the first confirmed isolated stellar-mass black hole, setting an upper limit of 3.3×10^29 erg/s on its 0.5–7 keV luminosity, about eight times deeper than the previous…

desk verdict Deep Chandra non-detection sets the cleanest X-ray ceiling on the first isolated black hole; the headline luminosity rests on an assumed spectrum, but the sub-Eddington conclusion holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16359 v1 pith:JR2J6YRF submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE

Sandro Mereghetti , Lara Sidoli , Gabriele Ponti , Aldo Treves This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords isolatedblackholeX-rayupperlimitChandraobservatorygravitationalmicrolensingBondi-HoyleaccretionradiativelyinefficientmagneticallyarresteddiscOGLE-2011-BLG-0462
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 reports a deep, pointed Chandra observation of OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, the first confirmed isolated stellar-mass black hole in the Milky Way, and finds no X-ray photons at its position. The derived 95\% upper limit on the count rate is $6.5\times10^{-5}$ counts s$^{-1}$ in the 0.5--7 keV band, a factor of 8 deeper than the previous limit. Assuming a power-law spectrum, this corresponds to a luminosity ceiling of $3.3\times10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$, about $3\times10^{-10}$ of the Eddington luminosity of a $7.15\,M_\odot$ black hole. The paper concludes that the source accretes with very low radiative efficiency, consistent with radiatively inefficient accretion models and with magnetically arrested disc predictions that place the expected luminosity below current sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two pieces. First, the zero-count Poisson upper limit (Kraft et al. 1991) turns the absence of photons in the 53.5 ks exposure into a 95\% count-rate ceiling without requiring a source detection. Second, the Bondi--Hoyle--Lyttleton accretion formula estimates the capture rate from the interstellar medium, and an assumed X-ray spectral model (power law $\alpha=2$, $N_H=10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) converts counts into flux; together with the adopted distance of 1.52 kpc this yields the luminosity and Eddington fraction. These pieces combine into the efficiency bound $\eta < 2.6\times10^{-2}/(n\,\lambda_{0.1})$ used to test radiatively inefficient and magnetically arrested disc models.

What would settle it

A future deep X-ray observation that detects photons from the position of OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 with a flux above $1.0\times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (0.5--7 keV) would falsify the paper's central ceiling; a detection at any level would show the assumed zero-count extraction was incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a non-detection stated as a ceiling: with zero Chandra photons detected at the position of OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 in a 53.5 ks exposure, the source count rate is below $6.5\times10^{-5}$ counts s$^{-1}$ (95\% confidence, 0.5--7 keV). Adopting a power-law spectrum with photon index $\alpha=2$ and absorption column $N_H=10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, the paper converts this into an unabsorbed flux limit of $1.0\times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and, at a distance of 1.52 kpc, an X-ray luminosity below $3.3\times10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$, about $3\times10^{-10}$ of the Eddington luminosity. This is the deepest X-ray limit yet placed on a microlensing-discovered isolated black hole, and the corresponding accretion efficiency bound $\eta < 2.6\times10^{-2}/(n\,\lambda_{0.1})$ is consistent with low-efficiency accretion, including the magnetically arrested disc scenario whose predicted luminosity lies below the new sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The luminosity ceiling rests on an assumed X-ray spectrum rather than a measured one: with zero detected photons, a power-law shape with photon index $\alpha=2$ and an absorbing column of $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ is assumed, and a different real spectrum would move the $3.3\times10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$ limit by a factor of a few.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The efficiency bound $\eta < 2.6\times10^{-2}/(n\,\lambda_{0.1})$ rules out radiatively efficient accretion unless the ambient density or the accretion fraction is far smaller than typical interstellar estimates.
  • At a factor of 8 deeper than the previous limit, this is the lowest X-ray flux limit yet placed on a microlensing-discovered isolated black hole, making OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 the reference object for searches of dormant black holes.
  • The non-detection is compatible with both radiatively inefficient accretion flows and the magnetically arrested disc model, whose predicted luminosity sits about an order of magnitude below the new sensitivity; the two scenarios remain indistinguishable with current data.
  • Instruments with sensitivity near $10^{-17}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ could measure the accretion luminosity of this black hole, though any X-ray emission from the lensed background star would need to be accounted for.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the luminosity ceiling scales with the square of the distance, the ~10% distance uncertainty moves the $3.3\times10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$ number by roughly 20%, which should be propagated when the limit is compared with model predictions.
  • The same zero-count recipe, applied uniformly to the other candidate isolated black holes in the paper's Table 1, would yield a systematic census of how dark dormant black holes can be across accretion environments.
  • If the magnetically arrested disc prediction near $10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$ is correct, radio observations of the accretion flow's outflows might reveal this black hole even though the X-ray band remains dark, offering a complementary test of the same accretion physics.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 53.5 ks Chandra ACIS-I observation pointed at the isolated black hole OGLE-2011-BLG-0462. No X-ray source is detected at the target position. Following the procedure of Mereghetti et al. (2022), the authors derive a 95% confidence upper limit of 6.5e-5 counts/s in the 0.5-7 keV band. Assuming a power-law spectrum with photon index alpha=2 and interstellar absorption N_H=10^21 cm^-2, this count-rate limit is converted to an absorbed flux of 1.0e-15 erg cm^-2 s^-1 and an unabsorbed flux of 1.2e-15 erg cm^-2 s^-1, corresponding for the adopted distance of 1.52 kpc to an X-ray luminosity upper limit of 3.3e29 erg/s, or about 3e-10 of the Eddington luminosity of a 7.15 solar-mass black hole. The paper compares this limit with previous limits on other isolated black hole candidates, uses a Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion estimate to derive an efficiency bound eta < 2.6e-2/(n lambda_0.1), and notes that the magnetically arrested disk prediction of Kimura et al. (2025), Lx ~ 1e28 erg/s, is below the achieved sensitivity. The principal quantitative claim is a deep, model-dependent upper limit rather than a detection.

Significance. If the manuscript is correct, this is the deepest X-ray limit on an isolated stellar-mass black hole and robustly establishes that OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 radiates far below the Eddington luminosity. The result is of clear astrophysical interest: it sharpens the constraint on accretion efficiency for isolated black holes and provides a quantitative benchmark for models of accretion from the interstellar medium. The analysis is simple and uses public Chandra data; the non-detection itself is unambiguous, and the arithmetic from count-rate limit to luminosity is internally consistent. The paper also usefully assembles the current X-ray upper limits for other candidate isolated black holes and dormant black holes in wide binaries. The main caveat, which the authors disclose, is that the luminosity ceiling depends on the assumed X-ray spectrum and absorbing column; the qualitative conclusion of extremely sub-Eddington emission is robust to plausible variations in these parameters.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The sentence reporting the flux limit is internally contradictory: 'limit on the observed (unabsorbed) 0.5-7 keV flux of 1.0e-15 erg cm^-2 s^-1 (1.2e-15 erg cm^-2 s^-1)' mixes absorbed and unabsorbed flux without labeling them clearly, and Table 1 lists only the 1.2e-15 value with the footnote 'corrected for the absorption'. Please state explicitly which number is the absorbed (observed) flux and which is the unabsorbed (intrinsic) flux, and ensure the text and table are consistent.
  2. [Section 2] The derivation of the quoted count-rate limit is not fully reproducible from the information given. With a 53.5 ks live time and zero counts, a zero-background Poisson upper limit of 3 counts would correspond to about 5.6e-5 counts/s, whereas the paper quotes 6.5e-5 counts/s. Please specify the source extraction region, the expected or measured background counts, and the exact inputs to the Kraft et al. (1991) calculation, or state explicitly why the zero-background value is not used.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The normalization in Eq. (5) is ambiguous: writing 'eta f_e epsilon_NT epsilon_dis / (0.1 0.3 0.05)' should be replaced by explicit products such as '(eta/0.1)(f_e/0.3)(epsilon_NT/0.05)' or an equivalent clear form. As printed, the denominator reads as three numbers with no multiplication signs.
  4. [Section 2 and Abstract] Because zero photons are detected, the intrinsic spectrum of the source is unconstrained, and the conversion from count rate to flux depends on the assumed photon index and absorbing column. The paper should state explicitly in the conclusions (and perhaps the abstract) that the quoted luminosity limit would change by a factor of a few for other plausible values, e.g., a larger N_H toward the inner Galaxy or a harder power law, while the sub-Eddington conclusion remains unchanged.
  5. [General] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'believd' in the abstract, 'gravitaionallens' in the introduction, and 'Thiswouldsuggestlongsystematicobservationsinthelow frequency radio band' in the discussion. A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the X-ray upper limit is an independent Chandra measurement, and the efficiency and MAD comparisons are stated inequalities with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a non-detection in a 53.5 ks Chandra/ACIS-I pointed observation. The count-rate upper limit of 6.5e-5 counts/s follows from zero detected photons using external Poisson statistics (Kraft et al. 1991), and the flux and luminosity ceilings are obtained by a disclosed spectral conversion (photon index alpha=2, N_H=10^21 cm^-2) that is not fitted to the new data and does not enter the count-rate limit itself. Equations (1)-(4) are algebraic consequences of the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion-rate definition and the new luminosity limit; equation (4) is an inequality, not a fitted prediction. The comparison with Kimura et al. (2025) in equation (5) is an external model prediction expressed in terms of free parameters (n, lambda, f_e, epsilon_NT, epsilon_dis) that are not adjusted to the Chandra data. The self-citation to Mereghetti et al. (2022) is used only for procedural consistency and for previous limits on other candidates; the present upper limit rests on the new independent observation, not on that previous work. The adopted mass and distance come from Sahu et al. (2025), an independent source, and are used only to convert flux to luminosity and Eddington ratio. No step of the derivation equates a prediction to its input, renames a known pattern, or imports a uniqueness claim from the authors' prior work. The spectral assumption is a standard, disclosed astrophysical caveat rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measured upper limit rests only on the Chandra observation and Poisson statistics. Everything beyond the count-rate ceiling, namely the flux and luminosity conversion, the accretion-rate estimate, and the magnetically arrested disk comparison, is parameterized by three inputs: the assumed spectral shape (α = 2, N_H = 10^21 cm^-2), the unmeasured interstellar density n, and the Bondi accretion efficiency λ. None of these is fitted to the new data; the paper reports limits as functions of them. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed X-ray spectral shape (photon index α = 2, N_H = 10^21 cm^-2) = α = 2; N_H = 1e21 cm^-2
    Chosen by hand in Section 2 to convert the count-rate limit to flux and luminosity. No photons were detected, so the spectrum is unconstrained; different reasonable spectra shift the luminosity limit by a factor of a few.
  • Interstellar medium density n = unspecified (left as a free scaling factor)
    Enters the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion rate (Eq. 2), the luminosity estimate (Eq. 3), and the efficiency bound (Eq. 4). Not measured along this sightline; the paper quotes limits per unit density.
  • Bondi accretion-efficiency parameter λ = λ ≈ 0.01 to 0.1 (λ_0.1 = λ/0.1)
    Adopted from recent MHD simulations rather than fitted to data; affects the predicted accretion luminosity and the η bound, but not the measured upper limit itself.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion formula (Eq. 1) estimates ISM accretion onto the black hole
    Used in Section 3 to derive the accretion rate and efficiency bound; an idealized spherical, steady-state model for a turbulent magnetized inflow, with λ capturing order-unity deviations.
  • domain assumption Lens parameters of BLG-0462 adopted from Sahu et al. (2025): M = 7.15 ± 0.83 M⊙, d = 1.52 ± 0.15 kpc, V = 51.1 ± 7.5 km/s, and quoted source coordinates
    Sections 2 and 3 use these as inputs; the luminosity and Eddington-fraction limits scale with distance squared and mass, and the extraction assumes the coordinates point at the black hole.
  • standard math Poisson upper-limit statistics of Kraft, Burrows and Nousek (1991)
    Converts zero detected counts and an estimated background into the 95% confidence count-rate ceiling quoted in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Accretion-efficiency range λ ≈ 0.01 to 0.1 from MHD simulations of Bondi accretion
    Adopted from Bosch-Ramon (2022), Kaaz et al. (2023), Galishnikova et al. (2025), and Kim & Most (2025); sets the normalization of predicted luminosities and the η bound, not fitted to the target.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Chandra X-ray observation of the isolated black hole OGLE-2011-BLG-0462." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JR2J6YRF

@misc{pith2026250716359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Chandra X-ray observation of the isolated black hole OGLE-2011-BLG-0462},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JR2J6YRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16359}
}
read the original abstract

OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 is an isolated black hole of ~7 solar masses at a distance of 1.5 kpc identified thanks to the astrometric microlensing technique. It is the first specimen discovered of the large population of ~10^8 stellar-mass black holes that are believd to wander in the Galaxy. Electromagnetic radiation powered by accretion from the interstellar medium is expected from OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, but has not been detected at any wavelength. We present the results of a deep pointed observation with the Chandra satellite that provides an upper limit of 3x10^29 erg/s on the luminosity of OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 in the 0.5-7 keV energy range. This is about one order of magnitude below the previous limit obtained from shallower observations that serendipitously covered the sky position of this black hole. Our results are briefly compared with models of the source and with the X-ray upper limits for candidate isolated black holes and black holes in wide binary systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper limits on X-ray luminosity for BLG-0462 (red) and other candidate IBHs found with microlensing (black). The length of the lines reflects the uncertainty on the source distances. The upper limits for three BHs in non-interacting binaries are indicated in blue. Dashed lines indicate the flux as a function of distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., Khangulyan D

    Barkov M. V., Khangulyan D. V., Popov S. B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22029.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..589B 427, 589

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..639B 579, 639

    Bennett D. P., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..639B 579, 639

    doi:10.1086/342225 2002

  3. [3]

    M., Karpov S

    Beskin G. M., Karpov S. V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...440..223B 440, 223

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040572 2005

  4. [4]

    S., Glushikhina M

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan G. S., Glushikhina M. V., 2024, @doi [Astrophysics] 10.1007/s10511-024-09841-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Ap.....67..420B 67, 420

    work page doi:10.1007/s10511-024-09841-2 2024

  5. [5]

    Bosch-Ramon V., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A...5B 660, A5

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142821 2022

  6. [6]

    C., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...277..477C 277, 477

    Campana S., Pardi M. C., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...277..477C 277, 477

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Cappelluti N., Pacucci F., Hasinger G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6f96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973...75C 973, 75

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6f96 2024

  8. [8]

    M., 2022, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S199034132203004X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstBu..77..223C 77, 223

    Chmyreva L., Beskin G. M., 2022, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S199034132203004X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstBu..77..223C 77, 223

    work page doi:10.1134/s199034132203004x 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Cruise M., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9...36C 9, 36

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.1057E 518, 1057

    doi

  3. [11]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4323E 521, 4323

    doi

  4. [12]

    P., Maccarone T

    Fender R. P., Maccarone T. J., Heywood I., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1538F 430, 1538

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495L..85F 495, L85

    Fujita Y., Inoue S., Nakamura T., Manmoto T., Nakamura K. E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495L..85F 495, L85

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686L...2G 686, L2

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Galishnikova A., Philippov A., Quataert E., Chatterjee K., Liska M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978..148G 978, 148

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Ghisellini G., Locatelli N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A..61G 613, A61

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Gould A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392..442G 392, 442

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    Kaaz N., Murguia-Berthier A., Chatterjee K., Liska M. T. P., Tchekhovskoy A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...31K 950, 31

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111h3025K 111, 083025

    Kim Y., Most E. R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111h3025K 111, 083025

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Kashiyama K., Hotokezaka K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac35dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922L..15K 922, L15

    Kimura S. S., Kashiyama K., Hotokezaka K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac35dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922L..15K 922, L15

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Murchikova L., Sahu K

    Kimura S. S., Murchikova L., Sahu K. C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250301172K p. arXiv:2503.01172

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb3d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985..251K 985, 251

    Kin K., Kuze R., Kimura S. S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb3d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985..251K 985, 251

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Burrows D

    Kraft R. P., Burrows D. N., Nousek J. A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...374..344K 374, 344

    1991 doi

  16. [24]

    Kruszy \'n ska K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A..28K 692, A28

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Y., Lu J

    Lam C. Y., Lu J. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aced4a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955..116L 955, 116

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933L..23L 933, L23

    Lam C. Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933L..23L 933, L23

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00039.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.360L..30M 360, L30

    Maccarone T. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00039.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.360L..30M 360, L30

    2005

  20. [28]

    Mao S., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04986.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.329..349M 329, 349

    2002

  21. [29]

    Mereghetti S., Sidoli L., Ponti G., Treves A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...62M 934, 62

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Mr \'o z P., Udalski A., Gould A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..24M 937, L24

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    arXiv:2506.20711

    Murchikova L., Sahu K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250620711M p. arXiv:2506.20711

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    A., De Paolis F., Ingrosso G., Elia D., de Plaa J., Kaastra J

    Nucita A. A., De Paolis F., Ingrosso G., Elia D., de Plaa J., Kaastra J. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507784 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651.1092N 651, 1092

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    Okamoto I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASJ...67...89O 67, 89

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Paczynski B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...304....1P 304, 1

    1986 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Glicenstein J.-F., Gould A., Szyma \'n ski M

    Poindexter S., Afonso C., Bennett D. P., Glicenstein J.-F., Gould A., Szyma \'n ski M. K., Udalski A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/468182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..914P 633, 914

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44...49R 44, 49

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C., Cendes Y., El-Badry K., Berger E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad228e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136b4203R 136, 024203

    Rodriguez A. C., Cendes Y., El-Badry K., Berger E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad228e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136b4203R 136, 024203

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...83S 933, 83

    Sahu K. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...83S 933, 83

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..104S 983, 104

    Sahu K. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..104S 983, 104

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Treves A., Colpi M., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...241..107T 241, 107

    1991

  33. [41]

    Tsuna D., Kawanaka N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2099T 488, 2099

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Tsuna D., Kawanaka N., Totani T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477..791T 477, 791

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Wyrzykowski ., Mandel I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..20W 636, A20

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Yuan F., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..529Y 52, 529

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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