Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

XL-Calibur Polarimetry of Cyg X-1 Further Constrains the Origin of its Hard-state X-ray Emission

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Hard X-rays from Cygnus X-1 are polarized about 5 percent and aligned with its jet.

desk verdict New and useful hard X-ray polarization anchor for Cyg X-1, but the MDP values look mis-scaled and the detection is more marginal than the abstract implies; worth refereeing with revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23126 v1 pith:S4OVCUFX submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

Hisamitsu Awaki , Matthew G. Baring , Richard Bose , Jacob Casey , Sohee Chun , Adrika Dasgupta , Pavel Galchenko , Ephraim Gau
show 31 more authors
Kazuho Goya Tomohiro Hakamata Takayuki Hayashi Scott Heatwole Kun Hu Daiki Ishi Manabu Ishida Fabian Kislat Mózsi Kiss Kassi Klepper Henric Krawczynski Haruki Kuramoto Lindsey Lisalda Yoshitomo Maeda Hironori Matsumoto Shravan Vengalil Menon Aiko Miyamoto Asca Miyamoto Kaito Murakami Takashi Okajima Mark Pearce Brian Rauch Nicole Rodriguez Cavero Kentaro Shirahama Sean Spooner Hiromitsu Takahashi Keisuke Tamura Yuusuke Uchida Kasun Wimalasena Masato Yokota Marina Yoshimoto
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords XL-CaliburCygnusX-1X-raypolarizationblackholebinaryhardstateComptonscatteringcoronajetalignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports the most precise hard X-ray polarization measurement of a black hole X-ray binary to date. Using the balloon-borne XL-Calibur telescope, the authors measured a polarization degree of $(5.0^{+2.7}_{-3.0})\%$ at a polarization angle of $-28^\circ \pm 17^\circ$ for Cygnus X-1 in its hard state, over 19–64 keV. They argue that this result matches the soft X-ray polarization found by IXPE and aligns with the radio jet direction, suggesting that soft and hard X-rays come from the same coronal region. The measurement provides an independent constraint on models of the hard X-ray emission and its transition to jet-dominated emission at higher energies.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is XL-Calibur, a balloon-borne hard X-ray telescope with a focusing mirror and a rotating scattering polarimeter: photons scatter in a beryllium rod and are detected by surrounding cadmium-zinc-telluride pixels, and the azimuthal distribution of scattering angles encodes the linear polarization via the Klein–Nishina cross section. The measured modulation factor is about 0.43. The analysis converts scattering angles to Stokes parameters, subtracts off-source background, and uses a Bayesian posterior with a prior uniform in polarization degree and angle to extract marginalized values of PD and PA.

What would settle it

If an independent analysis of the same flight data that varies the offset-corrected scattering location within the measured uncertainty returns a best-fit polarization degree consistent with 0 percent at 95% confidence, or if a longer hard-state observation halves the error bars and still yields $Q/I$ and $U/I$ consistent with zero, the claimed detection would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

XL-Calibur observed Cygnus X-1 in the low/hard state during its July 2024 long-duration balloon flight and measured a 19–64 keV polarization degree of $(5.0^{+2.7}_{-3.0})\%$ at a polarization angle of $-28^\circ \pm 17^\circ$, with an 8.7% chance probability that an unpolarized signal would produce this or a larger apparent polarization. These values are consistent with the 2–8 keV IXPE result (PD about 4.0%, PA about $-20.7^\circ$) and with the radio jet axis, implying that the Comptonized coronal emission producing the hard X-rays has the same geometry as the soft X-ray emitting region. The authors further show that a wedge-shaped sandwich-corona model with an inclination around $55^\circ$ can accommodate both the IXPE and XL-Calibur data, while low-inclination versions cannot, and they discuss how outflowing or jet-related Comptonization models can also reproduce the observed polarization.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement treats the azimuthal modulation left after background subtraction as source polarization, which depends on the offset correction for the scattering location and on the assumption that the 1-degree-offset background is representative; if either is wrong, the quoted $Q/I$ and $U/I$ values could be biased by amounts comparable to their errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, soft (2–8 keV) and hard (19–64 keV) X-ray polarization of Cyg X-1 share a common coronal origin, with the polarization angle aligned with the radio jet across both bands.
  • The hard-state X-ray spectrum during the observation had a photon index of about 1.5, consistent with Cyg X-1 being in the hard state and providing a context for the polarization measurement.
  • Simple wedge-corona models with binary inclination near $27^\circ$ are disfavored unless the corona is outflowing at relativistic speeds; a $55^\circ$ inclination version with the same geometry fits both IXPE and XL-Calibur data.
  • The measured PD and PA differ sharply from higher-energy ($>$100 keV) results, supporting a transition from coronal to jet-dominated emission between the hard X-ray and gamma-ray bands, with the PA swinging by about $90^\circ$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 8.7% chance probability makes the detection statistically marginal (about 1.7 sigma), so a longer or repeated observation with similar precision would be needed to firmly establish the polarization and test the model comparisons.
  • These results provide a target for the upcoming COSI mission, which could measure polarization in the 200 keV–5 MeV range and directly test the predicted $90^\circ$ PA swing between coronal and jet emission.
  • The same analysis pipeline could be applied to other hard-state black hole binaries, such as GX 339-4 or Swift J1727.8-1613, to see whether jet-aligned hard X-ray polarization is a general feature.
  • If future reanalysis with a different treatment of the offset scattering location yields significantly different Stokes parameters, the conclusion of a common coronal origin would be weakened.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports XL-Calibur balloon observations of Cyg X-1 in its hard state during July 2024, deriving a 19-64 keV polarization degree of PD=(5.0^{+2.7}_{-3.0})% at PA=-28°±17°, with a chance probability of p_c=0.087 and MDP99=7.8%. It compares these results with the 2-8 keV IXPE measurement, the PoGO+ hard-X-ray upper limit, and higher-energy INTEGRAL/AstroSat measurements, and discusses implications for models of coronal versus jet emission, including kerrC-light and Moscibrodzka models. The paper concludes that the soft and hard X-ray polarization properties are consistent with a common coronal origin aligned with the radio jet.

Significance. If correct, this is the most precise hard X-ray polarization constraint for a black hole X-ray binary and provides a valuable bridge between IXPE's 2-8 keV measurements and gamma-ray polarimetry. The authors are commendably transparent about the low statistical significance (p_c=0.087, PD comparable to MDP99), use a Bayesian analysis to derive marginalized parameters, and promise public data archival. However, as written the paper contains a numerical inconsistency between the quoted Stokes parameters, the modulation factor, and the reported PD and MDP99 values, which must be resolved before the central claim can be considered reproducible. The model comparison also requires clarification of how the inclination angle was chosen.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2); §4, Table 1] The tabulated numbers are internally inconsistent under the paper's stated definitions. Substituting the full-band values Q/I=0.033±0.026 and U/I=-0.046±0.026 into Eq. (2) with μ≈0.43 gives a point-estimate PD of sqrt(0.033^2+0.046^2)/0.43 ≈ 13.2%, not the reported 5.0%; the sub-bands give ≈7.5% and ≈19.4% versus the tabulated 0.2% and 7.2%. With σ_{Q/I}=0.026 and μ=0.43, MDP99 would be ≈3.035×0.026/0.43 ≈ 18%, not 7.8%. The quoted values become self-consistent only if the tabulated Q/I and U/I already include the 1/μ correction: then the point estimate is ≈5.7%, the Bayesian posterior mode is ≈5.0%, and MDP99≈3.035×0.026≈7.9%. The paper must state explicitly which convention is used, define q and u consistently, and ensure that Eq. (2), Table 1, and Fig. 4 all refer to the same quantities.
  2. [§5, Figs. 7-9] The kerrC-light model comparison adopts an inclination angle of 55°, described as 'the angle that best fits both soft and hard X-ray data.' If this value was chosen using the same polarization measurements that the model is subsequently compared against, the agreement is not an independent test of the model. Please specify exactly which data sets and fitting procedure were used to determine the 55° inclination and the corona parameters (τ=0.41, opening angle 10°), and state clearly whether the IXPE or XL-Calibur polarization data entered that fit.
  3. [§2.2, §3, Fig. 3] The analysis relies on an offset-corrected scattering location and on background subtraction using a 1°-offset observation, but the paper does not quantify the systematic uncertainty in Q/I and U/I from these corrections or from the fitted 360° component. Because the reported signal is near MDP99 (p_c=0.087), any systematic bias comparable to the statistical errors of 0.026 could change the significance. Please provide an estimate of the systematic uncertainties, for example by varying the offset correction and the background selection, and report them separately from the statistical errors.
  4. [§3, Fig. 2] The photon index Γ≈1.50±0.04 is inferred from the Cyg X-1/Crab count-rate ratio without using full instrument response matrices. The text notes that a detailed spectral analysis is forthcoming, but the current uncertainty is statistical only and ignores response-related systematics. Since this index is used both to classify the source as being in the hard state and to compare with the kerrC-light spectral prediction, please either state explicitly that the quoted uncertainty excludes response systematics and estimate their size, or soften the quantitative comparison until the full response analysis is available.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 1] The reported PD values are described as 'marginalised PD values from the Bayesian analysis,' but the paper does not state whether the quoted value is the posterior mode, median, or mean. Please specify the statistic used and, ideally, report the posterior median and credible interval as well.
  2. [Fig. 4] The axis labels contain '-0' instead of '0' at several tick positions; these should be corrected.
  3. [Table 1] The MDP99 entry for the 19-35 keV row appears incomplete ('10.'); it should be given with the same number of decimal places as the other rows.
  4. [Figs. 7-8 captions] The model curves are labeled only as 'kerrC-light 55' and 'Moscibrodzka 90'; please include the key model parameters (inclination, optical depth, opening angle) in the captions or in a table so that the comparison is reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Independent polarization measurement; the only circular step is the kerrC-light model comparison, whose inclination is fitted to the same data it is used to confirm.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, 'Focusing in on the X-ray band' paragraph; Figs. 7-9]
    "This model has the same parameter values as shown in Table S3 of Krawczynski et al. (2022), save for a dimensionless spin parameter a(−1≤a≤1) of 0.94 (as measured by Walton et al. (2016)), an increased accretion rate (for flux normalization purposes), and an inclination angle of 55◦ (the angle that best fits both soft and hard X-ray data, as shown in Fig. 9, given these parameters)."

    The 55° inclination is not an independently determined model parameter: Fig. 9 (bottom panel) explicitly varies the inclination (27°, 40°, 55°, 65°), overlays the IXPE and XL-Calibur PD data, and the text concludes that inclinations <40° 'have difficulty explaining both the observed IXPE and XL-Calibur PDs.' Thus the 55° choice is the one that best matches the very data points that the model is later said to be 'consistent with.' The statement 'This model is thus one model that is consistent with both the IXPE and XL-Calibur results' therefore restates the fitting criterion rather than confirming an independent prediction. The measurement itself remains an independent observable; the circularity is confined to the model-consistency claim.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the 19-64 keV measurement of Q/I, U/I, PD, and PA for Cyg X-1, is derived from the measured azimuthal scattering distribution using the stated reduction formula and a calibration modulation factor μ≈0.43 taken from Aoyagi et al. (2024). This part of the derivation is self-contained with respect to the emission models: it does not assume any particular coronal or jet geometry, and the comparisons to IXPE, PoGO+, INTEGRAL, and AstroSat use external measurements. The only load-bearing circular step found is in the interpretative model comparison: the kerrC-light curve is presented as reproducing the data, but its inclination angle of 55° is explicitly chosen as 'the angle that best fits both soft and hard X-ray data,' and Fig. 9 shows that this choice is driven by matching the same IXPE and XL-Calibur PD measurements that the model is then said to support. Additionally, the model's accretion rate is increased 'for flux normalization purposes,' so the claimed spectral agreement is also partly normalized by construction. The central claim of the paper, the polarization measurement itself, is not circular; the circularity affects only the secondary claim that kerrC-light is an independently confirmed model. Self-citations to Awaki et al. (2025) and Aoyagi et al. (2024) provide calibration and analysis details but do not reduce the measurement to an input, and no uniqueness-theorem or ansatz-by-citation pattern is present. The numerical inconsistency between Table 1's Q/I, U/I values and the quoted PD is a correctness concern, but it is not an instance of circularity and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central polarization measurement has one principal calibration input, the modulation factor, plus a Bayesian prior choice. The model comparison in Section 5 introduces model parameters (inclination, optical depth, opening angle) that are adjusted to the data being compared. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Modulation factor mu = ~0.43 for XL-Calibur observing Cyg X-1 in the hard state
    Calibration factor from simulations (Aoyagi et al. 2024); the measured PD is the observed modulation divided by mu, so any error in mu scales the PD linearly. Not fitted to Cyg X-1 data, but is an input from prior instrument calibration.
  • Bayesian prior 1/sqrt((Q/I)^2+(U/I)^2)
    Choice of prior in Section 2.2 presupposes that all PD and PA values are equally likely; it affects the posterior and the quoted 1-sigma intervals, especially because the measured PD is below the MDP99.
  • kerrC-light model inclination angle = 55 degrees
    In Section 5 and Fig. 9, the inclination is set to the angle that best fits both soft and hard X-ray data, making the model-data agreement partly a fit to the same IXPE and XL-Calibur measurements.
  • kerrC-light corona optical depth and opening angle = tau = 0.41, opening angle = 10 degrees
    Model parameters taken from Krawczynski and Beheshtipour (2022) and Krawczynski et al. (2022), chosen for the comparison; they are not measured in this paper and affect the model polarization predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Azimuthal scattering angle distribution follows dN/dpsi proportional to 1 + p0 mu cos(2(psi - psi0 - pi/2)), based on Klein-Nishina scattering.
    Section 2.1; this is the physical basis for converting measured azimuthal counts into Stokes parameters.
  • domain assumption The 1-degree offset OFF-source pointing provides an unbiased estimate of the on-source background.
    Section 3; any background gradient on that scale would shift Q/I and U/I and mimic or mask polarization.
  • domain assumption The simulated modulation factor mu ~ 0.43 and the energy mapping from CZT 15-60 keV to incident 19-64 keV are accurate for Cyg X-1 hard-state observations.
    Section 2.1; PD scales as 1/mu, so an error in mu propagates directly into the central result.
  • domain assumption The 360-degree azimuthal component is dominated by the offset of the observing axis from the rod center and is adequately corrected using the mean imaging-CZT position.
    Section 2.2 and Fig. 3 caption; if residual systematics remain after correction, they bias the small measured polarization signal.
  • domain assumption The Crab nebula spectrum with photon index 2.10 (Madsen et al. 2015) can be used as a reference to derive the Cyg X-1 photon index from the count-rate ratio.
    Section 3 and Fig. 2; this is a simplified spectral estimate pending a full response matrix analysis, and systematic errors in the Crab reference are not fully propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XL-Calibur Polarimetry of Cyg X-1 Further Constrains the Origin of its Hard-state X-ray Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4OVCUFX

@misc{pith2026250723126,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XL-Calibur Polarimetry of Cyg X-1 Further Constrains the Origin of its Hard-state X-ray Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4OVCUFX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23126}
}
abstract

The balloon-borne hard X-ray polarimetry mission XL-Calibur observed the Black Hole X-ray Binary (BHXRB) Cygnus X-1 (Cyg X-1) during its nearly six-day Long Duration Balloon (LDB) flight from Sweden to Canada in July 2024. The XL-Calibur observations allowed us to derive the most precise constraints to date of the Polarization Degree (PD) and Polarization Angle (PA) of the hard X-ray emission from a BHXRB. XL-Calibur observed Cyg X-1 in the hard state and measured a $\sim$19-64 keV PD of ($5.0^{+2.7}_{-3.0}$)% at a PA of $-28^{\circ}\pm 17^{\circ}$, with an 8.7% chance probability of detecting larger PDs than the one observed, given an unpolarized signal. The XL-Calibur results are thus comparable to the 2-8 keV PD and PA found by IXPE, with a similar agreement between the hard X-ray PA and the radio jet direction. We also discuss the implications of our polarization measurements in the context of models describing the origin of the broadband X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission, to which XL-Calibur provides independent constraints on any proposed emission modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23126 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On-source (red circles) and off￾source/background (black squares) events, of energies be￾tween ∼ 19 – 64 keV and arriving in the polarimeter detec￾tors, passing the analysis cuts described in Sect. 2.2. Time bins of duration no longer than 300 s are used. The daily gaps between Cyg X-1 observations were used for observing the Crab (Awaki et al. 2025). Smaller variations within each day (for example, the drop in the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Azimuthal scattering angle distribution (black data points) of the ∼ 19 – 64 keV background-subtracted Cyg X-1 signal arriving in the polarimeter detectors. The overall best-fit (purple solid line) is shown, as well as the 180◦ com￾ponent (red dotted line) and 360◦ component (blue dashed line) contributions to the overall signal. ΓCyg X−1 ≈ ΓCrab −∆Γ ≈ 1.50±0.04 during our obser￾vations, consistent with Cyg X-1 bein… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The ∼ 19 – 64 keV (red dot), ∼ 19 – 35 keV (green square), and ∼ 35 – 64 keV (blue triangle) background￾subtracted, normalized Stokes results, with errors bars giv￾ing the 1σ confidence level. The circles delineate the MDP99 values (also given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The polar diagram of measured PD and PA val￾ues in the X-ray band overlaid atop the radio jet image from VLBA astrometry data (Miller-Jones et al. 2021); PD values are in percent in the radial direction. Results are given for the XL-Calibur (green) observation across t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the XL-Calibur data in the context of polarization results obtained across the X-ray and γ-ray bands. The low levels of polarization and comparability of the measured PDs and PAs from 2 keV to ∼ 64 keV suggest that similar physical mechanisms are respon￾sible for…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A zoom-in on the models and data in the X￾ray band. The kerrC model is a Monte Carlo-based model: 68,040 combinations of system parameters were simulated, with 20,000,000 photons used for each configuration. The IXPE 2024 data come from IXPE observations 03010001, 0301…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Simulated Cyg X-1 energy spectrum from the kerrC-light code, assuming a geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disk with a sandwich corona of opening angle 10◦ , of optical depth τ = 0.41, and of inclination angle 55◦ . While the dashed orange line shows th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab672c

    Abarr, Q., Baring, M., Beheshtipour, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab672c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab672c 2020

  2. [2]

    G., et al

    Abarr, Q., Awaki, H., Baring, M. G., et al. 2021, Astroparticle Physics, 126, 102529, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2020.102529

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    G., Chun, S., et al

    Aoyagi, M., Bose, R. G., Chun, S., et al. 2024, Astroparticle Physics, 158, 102944, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.102944

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    2014, ApOpt, 53, 7664, doi: 10.1364/AO.53.007664

    Awaki, H., Kunieda, H., Ishida, M., et al. 2014, ApOpt, 53, 7664, doi: 10.1364/AO.53.007664

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.53.007664 2014

  5. [5]

    G., Bose, R., et al

    Awaki, H., Baring, M. G., Bose, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf026

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf026 2025

  6. [6]

    D., et al

    Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Lalla, N. D., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    C., & Sikora, M

    Begelman, M. C., & Sikora, M. 1987, ApJ, 322, 650, doi: 10.1086/165760

    doi:10.1086/165760 1987

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 510, L123, doi: 10.1086/311810

    doi:10.1086/311810 1998

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    R., & IXPE Collaboration

    Cavero, N. R., & IXPE Collaboration. 2024, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources XIV, 39

    2024

  3. [11]

    1960, Radiative transfer

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Radiative transfer

    1960

  4. [12]

    R., et al

    Chattopadhyay, T., Kumar, A., Rao, A. R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad118d

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Friis, M., et al

    Chauvin, M., Flor´ en, H. G., Friis, M., et al. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 7816, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07390-7 —. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 652, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0489-x

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L157, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad182

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    S., et al

    Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1433, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01799-5 Dovˇ ciak, M., Podgorn´ y, J., Svoboda, J., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 54, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12050054

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Ferrazzoli, R., Marinucci, A., et al

    Ehlert, S. R., Ferrazzoli, R., Marinucci, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8056

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, Journal of Guidance Control Dynamics, 45, 1365, doi: 10.2514/1.G006465

    Galchenko, P., & Pernicka, H. 2022, Journal of Guidance Control Dynamics, 45, 1365, doi: 10.2514/1.G006465

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Kim, D

    Gianolli, V. E., Kim, D. E., Bianchi, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1697

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Bianchi, S., Kammoun, E., et al

    Gianolli, V. E., Bianchi, S., Kammoun, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451645 Gierli´ nski, M., & Zdziarski, A. A. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 161, High Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes, ed. J. Poutane...

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2013, A&A, 554, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321128

    Grinberg, V., Hell, N., Pottschmidt, K., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321128

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2625

    Ingram, A., Ewing, M., Marinucci, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2625

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    Ingram, A., Bollemeijer, N., Veledina, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Kiss, M., Pearce, M., et al

    Iyer, N. K., Kiss, M., Pearce, M., et al. 2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1048, 167975, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2022.167975

    2023

  16. [24]

    J., Elvis, M., Kjer, D., & Shen, B

    Johnston, K. J., Elvis, M., Kjer, D., & Shen, B. S. P. 1982, ApJ, 262, 61, doi: 10.1086/160396

    1982 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Chauvin, M., & Clark, D

    Jourdain, E., Roques, J. P., Chauvin, M., & Clark, D. J. 2012, ApJ, 761, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/27

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3349

    Kantzas, D., Markoff, S., Beuchert, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3349

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7725

    Krawczynski, H., & Beheshtipour, B. 2022, ApJ, 934, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7725

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    2022 doi

  22. [32]

    A., Holland, S

    Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/14 11

    2013 doi

  23. [33]

    2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kuramoto, H., Matsumoto, H., Awaki, H., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12679, Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI, ed. S. L. O’Dell, J. A. Gaskin, G. Pareschi, & D. Spiga, 126791B, doi: 10.1117/12.2676572

    2023 doi

  24. [34]

    2011, Science, 332, 438, doi: 10.1126/science.1200848

    Laurent, P., Rodriguez, J., Wilms, J., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 438, doi: 10.1126/science.1200848

    2011 doi

  25. [35]

    Li, H., Zhao, Q.-C., Feng, H., Tao, L., & Tsygankov, S. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04775

    2025 doi

  26. [36]

    Li, L.-X., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 691, 847, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/847

    2009 doi

  27. [37]

    P., Agudo, I., et al

    Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., Agudo, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 611, 677, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05338-0

    2022 doi

  28. [38]

    S., Chanan, G

    Long, K. S., Chanan, G. A., & Novick, R. 1980, ApJ, 238, 710, doi: 10.1086/158027

    1980 doi

  29. [39]

    K., Reynolds, S., Harrison, F., et al

    Madsen, K. K., Reynolds, S., Harrison, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/66

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

    C., et al

    Mastroserio, G., De Marco, B., Baglio, M. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06856, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06856

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [41]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363

    2021 doi

  32. [42]

    2024, Ap&SS, 369, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04333-3

    Moscibrodzka, M. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04333-3

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2023, ApJL, 949, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd33e

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    1993, A&A, 275, 337

    Poutanen, J., & Vilhu, O. 1993, A&A, 275, 337

    1993

  35. [45]

    Quinn, J. L. 2012, A&A, 538, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015785

    2012 doi

  36. [46]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/17

    Rodriguez, J., Grinberg, V., Laurent, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/17

    2015 doi

  37. [47]

    L., Kaaret, P., Liodakis, I., & Ehlert, S

    Saade, M. L., Kaaret, P., Liodakis, I., & Ehlert, S. R. 2024, ApJ, 974, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad73a3

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1175, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1175 —. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/908

    2009 doi

  39. [49]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2025, ApJ, 979, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada385

    2025 doi

  40. [50]

    F., Nathan, E., Hu, K., et al

    Steiner, J. F., Nathan, E., Hu, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad58e4

    2024 doi

  41. [51]

    2017, The NASA Wallops Arc-Second Pointer (W ASP) System for Precision Pointing of Scientific Balloon Instruments and Telescopes, doi: 10.2514/6.2017-3609

    Stuchlik, D. 2017, The NASA Wallops Arc-Second Pointer (W ASP) System for Precision Pointing of Scientific Balloon Instruments and Telescopes, doi: 10.2514/6.2017-3609

    2017 doi

  42. [52]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1985, A&A, 143, 374

    1985

  43. [53]

    2022, Science, 378, 646, doi: 10.1126/science.add0080

    Taverna, R., Turolla, R., Muleri, F., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 646, doi: 10.1126/science.add0080

    2022 doi

  44. [54]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [55]

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

    Zoglauer, A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 73, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 145-1

    2022 doi

  46. [56]

    S., Roy, A

    Ulvestad, J. S., Roy, A. L., Colbert, E. J. M., & Wilson, A. S. 1998, ApJ, 496, 196, doi: 10.1086/305382

    1998 doi

  47. [57]

    Wright, A. E. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/228.3.521

    1987 doi

  48. [58]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7b

    Vink, J., Prokhorov, D., Ferrazzoli, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7b

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    J., Tomsick, J

    Walton, D. J., Tomsick, J. A., Madsen, K. K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 87, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/87

    2016 doi

  51. [61]

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

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

  52. [62]

    A., Pottschmidt, K., Pooley, G

    Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., Pottschmidt, K., Pooley, G. G., & Fritz, S. 2006, A&A, 447, 245, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053938

    2006 doi

  53. [63]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

    Wood, C. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6572

    2024 doi

  54. [64]

    2022, Nature, 612, 658, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05476-5

    Xie, F., Di Marco, A., La Monaca, F., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 658, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05476-5

    2022 doi

  55. [65]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1261

    Zhang, W., Dovˇ ciak, M., & Bursa, M. 2019, ApJ, 875, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1261

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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