Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 65 references

The Kerr picture of black holes survives a first test against non-circular spacetime distortions.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:28 UTC pith:XU2MIGWC

load-bearing objection First observational test of a non-circular metric with X-ray reflection; careful null result, useful framework, but the constraint is too weak to be called a decisive test.

arxiv 2602.16562 v2 pith:XU2MIGWC submitted 2026-02-18 gr-qc

Testing non-circular black hole spacetime with X-ray reflection

Leda Gao , Swarnim Shashank , Cosimo Bambi This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords black hole spacetimeKerr hypothesisnon-circular metricX-ray reflection spectroscopyray tracingingoing Kerr coordinatesEXO 1846-031deformation parameter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether a black hole's spacetime can be told apart from the Kerr solution once the assumption of circularity is dropped. It constructs a deformed metric whose extra deformation grows with local curvature, builds a ray-tracing code in horizon-penetrating coordinates to compute reflection spectra, and fits the NuSTAR spectrum of EXO 1846-031. The best fit prefers a slightly positive deformation, but the 99% confidence interval includes zero, so the data do not require non-circular deviations from Kerr. The result is a proof of principle: X-ray reflection spectroscopy can in principle constrain non-circular metrics, and this source sets the current limit.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the X-ray reflection spectrum of the black hole binary EXO 1846-031 is consistent with the Kerr metric even when the spacetime is allowed to violate circularity via a specific deformation parameter ℓ_NP. A global minimum is found at ℓ_NP ≈ 0.124 with spin a* = 0.982, but the 99% confidence interval spans from ℓ_NP = 0 to the maximum allowed value, so the Kerr limit is fully inside it. The authors take this as evidence that current data contain no smoking gun for non-circular geometry, and they note that the flat chi-squared landscape makes the apparent minimum likely numerical.

What carries the argument

The central object is a non-circular Kerr-like metric in ingoing Kerr coordinates in which the mass parameter M is replaced by a mass function M(r, θ) depending on the curvature invariant K_GR, with deformation parameter ℓ_NP controlling how strongly the metric departs from Kerr where curvature is large (Eqs. 4–6). To model the reflection spectrum, the authors implement a relativistic ray-tracing code in ingoing Kerr coordinates and tabulate Cunningham transfer functions linking the observer sky plane to emission radius and redshift factor; those transfer functions feed a reflection model that is fit to data.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of photon initial conditions from Kerr Boyer-Lindquist to ingoing Kerr coordinates uses the exact Kerr coordinate transformation (Eqs. A5–A6), but no exact transformation exists for the deformed metric; the paper assumes the metric is close enough to Kerr at the observer's location that this mapping does not bias the transfer functions or the ℓ_NP constraints.

What would settle it

Compute the transfer functions for the same non-circular metric by solving the geodesic equation entirely in ingoing Kerr coordinates, generating initial conditions directly in those coordinates without the Kerr conversion, and compare the predicted iron line to the EXO 1846-031 spectrum; a significant change in the allowed ℓ_NP range would show the proxy conversion is load-bearing.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the Kerr hypothesis remains viable for EXO 1846-031; no non-circular deformation is required by this spectrum.
  • The framework (metric plus ray-tracing in ingoing Kerr coordinates) can be applied to other non-circular metrics, not just this one.
  • The consistency of best-fit inclination and spin with earlier analyses validates the modified ray-tracing pipeline.
  • The iron-line shape is nearly insensitive to ℓ_NP except near maximal values and high inclination, implying that X-ray reflection data constrain ℓ_NP only weakly for this class of metrics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A higher signal-to-noise spectrum or a source with even higher inclination might push the constraint; alternatively, fitting a metric whose deformation affects the inner disk more strongly could yield tighter bounds.
  • The near-degeneracy between spin and ℓ_NP suggests that any non-circular deviation that mainly moves the ISCO will be hard to isolate with reflection spectroscopy alone; combining with continuum fitting or quasi-periodic oscillations might break the degeneracy.
  • Because the deformed metric lacks an exact coordinate transformation to Boyer-Lindquist form, the initial-condition mapping is an approximation; if the deformation is not small at the radii that dominate the line, the inferred limits could shift.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a non-circular deformation of the Kerr metric based on a locality principle, implements a relativistic ray-tracing code in ingoing Kerr coordinates, and uses it to model the X-ray reflection spectrum of the black hole binary EXO 1846–031 with NuSTAR data. The best fit gives spin a*=0.982, inclination ι=76.4°, and a global minimum at ℓ_NP=0.124, but the 99% confidence interval encompasses ℓ_NP=0. The authors conclude that the data are consistent with the Kerr hypothesis and present the framework as the first electromagnetic test of non-circularity.

Significance. If the result holds, it constitutes the first observational test of a non-circular black hole metric and demonstrates that X-ray reflection spectroscopy can be extended to horizon-penetrating coordinate systems. The code is publicly available on GitHub, and the authors are explicit that the non-zero global minimum may be a numerical artifact. The null result is robust to the flexible emissivity model because the line profiles are shown to be insensitive to ℓ_NP even at the maximum allowed values. This is a useful proof-of-concept despite the weak constraint.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I and Sec. IV B] The ℓNP row lists three values with separate error bars (e.g., 0.008+0.025−0.002, 0.070+0.014−0.026, 0.124−0.032) but the text does not explain how these correspond to the three local minima or how the 99% confidence interval in Fig. 6 is constructed from them. Please clarify the statistical meaning of these entries.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A5)–(A6)] The coordinate transformation between Boyer-Lindquist and ingoing Kerr coordinates is applied to generate initial conditions for the deformed metric, even though an exact transformation is not known. The paper mentions this in Sec. III B, but the appendix presents the transformation as exact. Add an explicit statement that this is an approximation valid for a distant observer and estimate the leading error (e.g., O(ℓ_NP^4/r0^6) relative to Kerr terms) to justify the approach.
  3. [Sec. IV B (emissivity profile)] The broken power-law emissivity has q_in pegged at the upper limit 9.95 and q_out at 0, indicating a very steep inner profile. While the authors note the model is flexible, it would be useful to discuss whether this extreme emissivity might absorb part of the deformation signal, thereby making the ℓ_NP constraint more conservative. A short comment on this degeneracy would strengthen the interpretation.
  4. [Sec. III C] The paper does not perform an injected-signal test to verify that a non-zero ℓ_NP would be recoverable. Given the insensitivity of the line profiles shown in Figs. 3 and 4, a simple simulation with a known non-zero ℓ_NP would add confidence that the framework can in principle constrain circularity violation, rather than simply being unable to distinguish any deformation.
  5. [General presentation] There are several typographical issues: 'absorpotion' in Appendix A, the axis label 'keV2 (Photons cm 2 s 1 keV 1)' in Fig. 5 lacks superscripts, and the notation for the deformation parameter is inconsistent (ℓNP vs ℓ_NP). Please unify the notation and correct these typos.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Kerr-consistency conclusion follows from an external spectral fit, with ℓ_NP=0 inside the 99% confidence interval; no prediction reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The deformation parameter ℓ_NP enters through an independently proposed non-circular metric (Eichhorn–Held, Refs. [16,17]), with M(r,θ)=m/[1+(ℓ_NP^4 K_GR)^β/2] and β=2. Transfer functions are computed by ray tracing in that metric and tabulated; ℓ_NP is then a free parameter in an XSPEC fit to external NuSTAR data of EXO 1846–031. The central claim is that the 99% confidence interval includes ℓ_NP=0, so the data are consistent with Kerr. This is a null result from the data, not a quantity defined in terms of the fit. The apparent non-zero minimum at ℓ_NP≈0.124 is explicitly attributed to numerical grid fluctuations and flat χ², and the authors caution against interpreting it as evidence. The only mild self-citation concern is the 'independent validation' against Ref. [45], a previous fit of the same source by overlapping authors using a standard Kerr reflection model; this is used as a consistency check, not as the load-bearing argument for the Kerr-consistency conclusion. The approximation of generating photon initial conditions in Boyer–Lindquist Kerr coordinates and converting via Eqs. (A5)–(A6) is acknowledged as an approximation for the deformed metric, since no exact coordinate transformation has been derived; it is a stated limitation rather than a fitted input that forces the result. No circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central test rests on choosing a specific non-circular metric from prior work, assuming standard thin-disk reflection physics, and assuming the coordinate-matching procedure at the observer is accurate. The paper fits one deformation parameter plus a set of standard spectral parameters; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • ℓ_NP (deformation parameter) = 0.008 / 0.070 / 0.124 (three local minima); 99% CI includes 0
    The target of the test; fitted to NuSTAR data using relxillionCp_nk. The paper correctly notes it is not constrained away from zero.
  • a* (dimensionless spin) = 0.982 (+0.010/-0.003, 90% CI)
    Fitted spin parameter, strongly correlated with ℓ_NP and inclination in reflection spectroscopy.
  • ι (inclination) = 76.4 (+0.9/-2.3 deg, 90% CI)
    Fitted inclination; affects the redshift factor and the sensitivity to ℓ_NP.
  • q_in, q_out, R_break (broken power-law emissivity) = q_in = 9.95 (pegged), q_out = 0 (pegged), R_break = 7.3 Rg
    Empirical emissivity profile parameters; the pegged values indicate the model is absorbing extreme emissivity, a potential source of degeneracy with spacetime deformation.
  • β (mass function exponent) = β = 2 (chosen)
    Chosen from prior work as the integer value giving the largest deformation effect; this choice affects the metric and therefore the transfer functions, but is not fitted in this paper.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The metric (4) with mass function (6) is a valid non-circular deformation of Kerr (from Refs. [16,17]).
    The spacetime is taken from prior literature without re-derivation; the entire test depends on this being the correct metric to probe.
  • domain assumption For the fitted parameter space, a smooth outer horizon exists.
    The horizon condition is solved numerically (Sec. II), and the white/naked-singularity regions are excluded. The fit assumes the source is a black hole, not a naked singularity.
  • domain assumption The accretion disk is geometrically thin, optically thick, described by the Novikov-Thorne model, lies in the equatorial plane, and follows quasi-geodesic circular orbits.
    Standard disk-corona assumption used in reflection spectroscopy, invoked in Sec. III and Appendix A.
  • standard math Cunningham's transfer function formalism and Liouville's theorem (I_o = g^3 I_e) hold for the deformed metric.
    The flux calculation in Eqs. (10)-(12) relies on this standard result.
  • domain assumption Photon initial conditions at the distant observer can be obtained using the Kerr Boyer-Lindquist to ingoing Kerr transformation (A5)-(A6).
    No exact coordinate transformation between the deformed metric and Kerr is known; the paper assumes the difference is negligible at the observer's location.
  • domain assumption The empirical broken power-law emissivity and radial ionization profile (Eq. 9) adequately capture the intrinsic coronal/disk geometry.
    The corona geometry is not modeled physically; the emissivity profile is free and can absorb relativistic or deformation effects.
  • domain assumption The XSPEC model constant*tbabs*(diskbb+nthcomp+relxillionCp_nk) is an adequate description of the source.
    The entire spectral fit in Sec. IV depends on this phenomenological model choice.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16990 in / 11685 out tokens · 109988 ms · 2026-08-02T22:28:16.861791+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

X-ray reflection spectroscopy is a powerful tool for testing the Kerr hypothesis and probing the strong gravity regime around accreting black holes. Most tests of General Relativity (GR) assume that the spacetime around a black hole is circular, meaning the metric possesses a specific symmetry structure common to the Kerr solution. However, deviations from circularity are predicted by various modified gravity theories and non-vacuum General Relativity solutions. In this work, we test a specific non-circular metric constructed based on a locality principle, where the deviation from the Kerr spacetime is driven by the local spacetime curvature. To accurately model the reflection spectrum in this background, we implement a relativistic ray-tracing code in horizon-penetrating (ingoing Kerr) coordinates, which are favored for their ability to avoid introducing curvature singularities at the horizon in non-circular spacetimes. We apply this model to the high-quality \textit{NuSTAR} spectrum of the Galactic black hole binary EXO 1846--031. Our spectral analysis reveals a source with a high inclination angle ($\iota \approx 76^{\circ}$) and a near-extremal spin parameter ($a_* \approx 0.98$). While we identify a global minimum in the parameter space suggesting a non-zero deformation ($\ell_{\mathrm{NP}} \approx 0.12$), the 99\% confidence interval fully encompasses the Kerr limit ($\ell_{\mathrm{NP}}=0$). We conclude that the current X-ray reflection data for EXO 1846--031 are consistent with the Kerr hypothesis. This work demonstrates the feasibility of using X-ray reflection spectroscopy to constrain non-circular metrics and establishes a framework for future tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.16562 by Cosimo Bambi, Leda Gao, Swarnim Shashank.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Left panel: The horizon radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: This diagram shows each component of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Impact of the deformation parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The upper panel shows the total best-fit model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Constraints on the spin parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Bambi, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 025001 (2017), arXiv:1509.03884 [gr-qc]

    C. Bambi, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 025001 (2017), arXiv:1509.03884 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Bambi,Black Holes: A Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity(Springer Singapore, 2017)

    C. Bambi,Black Holes: A Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity(Springer Singapore, 2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Yagi and L

    K. Yagi and L. C. Stein, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 054001 (2016), arXiv:1602.02413 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Anson, E

    T. Anson, E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, and M. Has- saine, JHEP01, 018 (2021), arXiv:2006.06461 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Ben Achour, H

    J. Ben Achour, H. Liu, H. Motohashi, S. Mukohyama, and K. Noui, JCAP11, 001 (2020), arXiv:2006.07245 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Minamitsuji, Phys

    M. Minamitsuji, Phys. Rev. D102, 124017 (2020), arXiv:2012.13526 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    A. Adam, P. Figueras, T. Jacobson, and T. Wiseman, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 125001 (2022), arXiv:2108.00005 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Gourgoulhon and S

    E. Gourgoulhon and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D48, 2635 (1993)

    1993

  13. [13]

    Babichev and J

    E. Babichev and J. Mazza, JCAP10, 011 (2025), arXiv:2505.08880 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Delaporte, A

    H. Delaporte, A. Eichhorn, and A. Held, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 134002 (2022), arXiv:2203.00105 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Ghosh and K

    R. Ghosh and K. Chakravarti, JCAP04, 037 (2025), arXiv:2406.02454 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held, JCAP05, 073 (2021), arXiv:2103.13163 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 933 (2021), arXiv:2103.07473 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Bambi, Phys

    C. Bambi, Phys. Part. Nucl.55, 1420 (2024), arXiv:2312.05857 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    A. C. Fabian, K. Nandra, C. S. Reynolds, W. N. Brandt, C. Otani, Y. Tanaka, H. Inoue, and K. Iwasawa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.277, L11 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9507061

    arXiv 1995

  20. [20]

    Zoghbi, A

    A. Zoghbi, A. C. Fabian, P. Uttley, G. Miniutti, L. C. Gallo, C. S. Reynolds, J. M. Miller, and G. Ponti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401, 2419–2432 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Risalitiet al., Nature494, 449 (2013), arXiv:1302.7002 [astro-ph.HE]

    G. Risalitiet al., Nature494, 449 (2013), arXiv:1302.7002 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    R. R. Ross and A. C. Fabian, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.358, 211 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    Garc ´ ıa and T

    J. Garc ´ ıa and T. R. Kallman, Astrophys. J.718, 695 (2010), arXiv:1006.0485 [astro-ph.HE]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Bambi, A

    C. Bambi, A. Cardenas-Avendano, T. Dauser, J. A. Gar- cia, and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J.842, 76 (2017), arXiv:1607.00596 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garcia, and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J.878, 91 (2019), arXiv:1902.09665 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, S. Nampalliwar, A. Tripathi, and M. Zhou, Astrophys. J.899, 80 (2020), arXiv:2003.09663 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    M. Zhou, Z. Cao, A. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, L. Modesto, and S. Nampalliwar, Phys. Rev. D98, 024007 (2018), arXiv:1803.07849 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    M. Zhou, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, L. Modesto, S. Nampalliwar, and Y. Xu, EPL125, 30002 (2019), arXiv:2003.03738 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    J. Zhu, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, M. Azreg- Ainou, C. Bambi, M. Jamil, S. Nampalliwar, A. Tri- pathi, and M. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 622 (2020), arXiv:2005.00184 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    B. Zhou, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, S. Nampalliwar, and A. Tripathi, JCAP01, 047 (2021), arXiv:2005.12958 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Tripathi, B

    A. Tripathi, B. Zhou, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, and C. Bambi, JCAP07, 002 (2021), arXiv:2103.07593 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    J. Gu, S. Riaz, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, and C. Bambi, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 708 (2022), arXiv:2206.14733 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    J. Tao, S. Riaz, B. Zhou, A. B. Abdikamalov, C. Bambi, and D. Malafarina, Phys. Rev. D108, 083036 (2023), arXiv:2301.12164 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    J. Liao, M. Ghasemi-Nodehi, L. Cui, A. Tripathi, Y.- F. Huang, and X. Liu, Astrophys. J.967, 35 (2024), arXiv:2404.06020 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Tripathi, J

    A. Tripathi, J. Yan, Y. Yang, Y. Yan, M. Garnham, Y. Yao, S. Li, Z. Ding, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzen- berg, C. Bambi, T. Dauser, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, J. Jiang, and S. Nampalliwar, Astrophys. J.874, 135 (2019), arXiv:1901.03064 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Tripathi, Y

    A. Tripathi, Y. Zhang, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzen- berg, C. Bambi, J. Jiang, H. Liu, and M. Zhou, Astro- phys. J.913, 79 (2021), arXiv:2012.10669 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, V. Grinberg, H. Liu, and M. Zhou, JCAP 01, 019 (2022), arXiv:2106.10982 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    S. Riaz, S. Shashank, R. Roy, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, Z. Zhang, and M. Zhou, JCAP 10, 040 (2022), arXiv:2206.03729 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Tripathi, S

    A. Tripathi, S. Shashank, G. Mall, and A. Ab- dikamalov, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.08545 (2024), arXiv:2401.08545 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Z. Zhao, S. Shashank, D. Das, and C. Bambi, (2025), arXiv:2510.04703 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Bambi (2024) arXiv:2408.12262 [astro-ph.HE]

    C. Bambi (2024) arXiv:2408.12262 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Bambiet al., Space Sci

    C. Bambiet al., Space Sci. Rev.217, 65 (2021), arXiv:2011.04792 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne, inBlack Holes (Les Astres Occlus), edited by C. Dewitt and B. S. Dewitt (1973) pp. 343–450

    1973

  44. [44]

    D. N. Page and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.191, 499 (1974)

    1974

  45. [45]

    S. Li, H. Liu, C. Bambi, J. F. Steiner, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D110, 043021 (2024), arXiv:2404.06893 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    A. A. Zdziarski, W. N. Johnson, and P. Magdziarz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.283, 193 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9607015

    arXiv 1996

  47. [47]

    Zycki, C

    P. Zycki, C. Done, and D. Smith, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.309, 561 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9904304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  48. [48]

    J. E. Pringle, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.19, 137 (1981)

    1981

  49. [49]

    Mitsuda, H

    K. Mitsuda, H. Inoue, K. Koyama, K. Makishima, M. Matsuoka, Y. Ogawara, K. Suzuki, Y. Tanaka, N. Shibazaki, and T. Hirano, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 36, 741 (1984)

    1984

  50. [50]

    A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, H. Liu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D103, 103023 (2021), arXiv:2101.10100 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Dauser, J

    T. Dauser, J. Garcia, J. Wilms, M. Bock, L. W. Brenneman, M. Falanga, K. Fukumura, and C. S. Reynolds, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 1694 (2013), arXiv:1301.4922 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Garcia, T

    J. Garcia, T. Dauser, C. S. Reynolds, T. R. Kallman, J. E. McClintock, J. Wilms, and W. Eikmann, Astro- phys. J.768, 146 (2013), arXiv:1303.2112 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Garc ´ ıaet al., Astrophys

    J. Garc ´ ıaet al., Astrophys. J.782, 76 (2014), arXiv:1312.3231 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    Wilms, A

    J. Wilms, A. Allen, and R. McCray, Astrophys. J.542, 914 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0008425

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  55. [55]

    C. T. Cunningham, Astrophys. J.202, 788 (1975)

    1975

  56. [56]

    Speith, H

    R. Speith, H. Riffert, and H. Ruder, Computer Physics Communications88, 109 (1995)

    1995

  57. [57]

    F. A. Harrisonet al.(NuSTAR), Astrophys. J.770, 103 (2013), arXiv:1301.7307 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    A. N. Parmar and N. E. White, IAU Circ.4051, 1 (1985)

    1985

  59. [59]

    Negoro, M

    H. Negoro, M. Nakajima, S. Sugita, R. Sasaki, W. I. T. Mihara, W. Maruyama, M. Aoki, K. Kobayashi, T. Tamagawa, M. Matsuoka, T. Sakamoto, M. Serino, H. Nishida, A. Yoshida, Y. Tsuboi, H. Kawai, T. Sato, M. Shidatsu, N. Kawai, M. Sugizaki, M. Oeda, K. Shi- raishi, S. Nakahira, Y. Sugawara, S. Ueno, H. To- mida, M. Ishikawa, N. Isobe, R. Shimomukai, M. Tom-...

    2019

  60. [60]

    P. A. Draghis, J. M. Miller, E. M. Cackett, E. S. Kam- moun, M. T. Reynolds, J. A. Tomsick, and A. Zoghbi, Astrophys. J.900, 78 (2020), arXiv:2007.04324 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, and H. Liu, Astrophys. J.913, 129 (2021), arXiv:2102.04695 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Z. Yu, Q. Jiang, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, H. Liu, S. Nampalliwar, and A. Tripathi, Phys. Rev. D104, 084035 (2021), arXiv:2106.11658 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    K. K. Madsen, K. Forster, B. Grefenstette, F. A. Har- rison, and H. Miyasaka, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems8, 034003 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    J. S. Kaastra and J. A. M. Bleeker, Astron. Astrophys. 587, A151 (2016), arXiv:1601.05309 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    K. A. Arnaud, inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, Vol. 101, edited by G. H. Jacoby and 13 J. Barnes (1996) p. 17. [66] R. Ghosh, A. K. Mishra, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064092 (2025), arXiv:2412.08942 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996