arxiv: 2603.08119 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Impact of Resonant Compton Scattering on Magnetar X-Ray Polarization with QED Vacuum Resonance

Tu Guo , Dong Lai

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 14:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords magnetarsX-ray polarizationresonant Compton scatteringQED vacuum resonancepolarization angle swingneutron star magnetosphereradiative transfersoft X-rays

0 comments

The pith

Resonant Compton scattering can wash out the 90-degree polarization angle swing caused by QED vacuum resonance in magnetar X-rays.

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

This paper builds a semi-analytical framework to track how resonant Compton scattering in the magnetosphere modifies the soft X-ray polarization from magnetars when QED vacuum resonance in the atmosphere is also present. The calculation shows that strong enough scattering erases the energy-dependent polarization angle swing that vacuum resonance alone would produce. Relativistic plasma drift adds a second 90-degree swing on top of the vacuum effect. Observers care because recent data already display such swings, so the model offers a direct way to read magnetospheric plasma conditions from polarization spectra.

Core claim

The authors develop a general semi-analytical framework for energy-dependent soft X-ray polarization from magnetars that incorporates both QED vacuum resonance in the atmosphere and resonant Compton scattering in the magnetosphere. Starting from the polarized radiative transfer equation for RCS and treating vacuum-resonance-induced mode conversion as an input, they apply a first-order approximation in RCS optical depth. Magnetic twist and plasma drift velocity emerge as the dominant controls on the absolute polarization degree and its variation with photon energy. Sufficiently strong RCS washes out the PA swing from vacuum resonance, while drift velocities β0 ≳ 0.5 introduce an extra 90° PA

What carries the argument

First-order approximation in resonant Compton scattering optical depth applied to the polarized radiative transfer equation, with vacuum-resonance mode conversion supplied as an input parameter.

If this is right

Strong resonant Compton scattering removes the 90-degree polarization angle swing produced by vacuum resonance.
Plasma drift velocities above roughly half the speed of light add a distinct extra 90-degree polarization angle swing.
Magnetic twist and plasma drift velocity set how much RCS alters both the degree and the energy dependence of the observed polarization.
The single-scattering framework enables analytic modeling of full-surface and phase-resolved emission without multi-dimensional Monte Carlo runs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Polarization spectra could be inverted to constrain the twist angle and drift speed in a magnetar's magnetosphere once independent density estimates exist.
The same approach may apply to other rotating neutron stars whose atmospheres also experience vacuum resonance.
Phase-resolved polarimetry from upcoming missions could map how RCS effects change with rotational phase and line of sight.
Relativistic drift signatures suggest that velocity gradients in the magnetosphere need explicit inclusion in any polarization model.

Load-bearing premise

Vacuum-resonance-induced mode conversion can be treated as a fixed input and the first-order linearization in RCS optical depth remains valid across the optical depths and viewing geometries considered.

What would settle it

A magnetar whose magnetospheric plasma density is independently known to be high should show a washed-out PA swing across the soft X-ray band if the model holds; persistent energy-dependent swings in such a source would falsify the washing-out claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.08119 by Dong Lai, Tu Guo.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Schematic picture of the radiative transfer with resonant Compton scattering and the computation of the observed polarization flux. The surface element of the NS is dAs = Ωb sdAs. The scattering surface element (located at rsc = rscΩbsc) is denoted by dA. The scattered radiation propagates along the direction Ωb ≃ Ωb obs, and the incident radiation (before scattering) propagates along Ωb′ = (rscΩb 0 − RΩb … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Flux and polarization spectra for different scattering strengths compared to the unscattered case in the simplified setup with Bp = 1014 G, kT = 0.6 keV, R = 10 km, a hot spot at (θs, ϕs) = (65◦ , 30◦ ), viewing angle θ = 25◦ , and varying ζ ≡ ξτ /β0 = 0.8, 2.5, 7.0 (see Eqs.(2) and (15)). Left and middle: the relative O-mode and X-mode fluxes. Right: the corresponding linear polarization degree PL(ω) as a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Heatmap of the characteristic resonant optical depth in the full model. The parameters are: Bp = 1014 G, R = 10 km, kTe = 10 keV, kTs = 0.6 keV, a hot spot at (θs, ϕs) = (53◦ , 37◦ ), viewing angle θ = 35◦ . Contours for τα = 1 and τα = 0.4 delineate the validity of single-scattering/first-order approximation regime. observed flux is computed as a multidimensional integral over the emission direction, sc… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Flux and polarization spectra for different observer viewing angles in the full model. The parameters are: Bp = 1014 G, R = 10 km, kTe = 10 keV, kTs = 0.6 keV, ξτ = 0.2, β0 = 0.5, and a hot spot at (θs, ϕs) = (90◦ , 37◦ ). Results are shown for the viewing angle θ = 37◦ , 68◦ , 112◦ , 143◦ . For sufficiently large ξτ , polarization remains strictly positive, and mode switching disappears. Electron drift ve… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Flux and polarization spectra for different magnetospheric twist parameters in the full model. The parameters are: Bp = 1014 G, R = 10 km, kTe = 10 keV, kTs = 0.6 keV, θ = 35◦ , β0 = 0.5, and a hot spot at (θs, ϕs) = (53◦ , 37◦ ). Results are shown for magnetic twist ξτ = 0.3, 0.8, 1.6, and are compared with the unscattered case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Flux and polarization spectra for different mean electron drift velocities in the full model. The parameters are: Bp = 1014 G, R = 10 km, kTe = 10 keV, kTs = 0.6 keV, θ = 35◦ , ξτ = 0.5, and a hot spot at (θs, ϕs) = (53◦ , 37◦ ). Results are shown for β0 = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8, and are compared with the unscattered case. 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION We have developed a unified and analytically tractable framework to… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Flux and polarization spectra for different magnetospheric plasma temperatures in the full model. The parameters are: Bp = 1014 G, R = 10 km, kTs = 0.6 keV, θ = 35◦ , β0 = 0.5, and a hot spot at (θs, ϕs) = (53◦ , 37◦ ). Results are shown for kTe = 30, 100, 200 keV, and are compared with the unscattered and single-velocity cases. 3. The energy of the first mode switch is only weakly shifted by RCS in the pa… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent obeservations have revealed significant soft X-ray polarizations from several quiescent magnetars, including the intriguing $90^\deg$ polarization angle (PA) swing as a function of photon energy for some sources. We present a general semi-analytical framework for calculating energy-dependent soft X-ray polarization signatures from magnetars, consistently incorporating both QED vacuum resonance in the atmosphere and resonant Compton scattering (RCS) in the magnetosphere. Starting from the polarized radiative transfer equation for RCS and treating vacuum-resonance-induced mode conversion as an input, we employ a first-order approximation in RCS optical depth to evaluate the effect of different magnetospheric plasma density (which depends on magnetic twist), drift velocity and temperature, and viewing geometry on the observed radiation. Our analysis reveals that magnetic twist and plasma drift velocity are the critical parameters controlling the impact of RCS on both the absolute polarization degree and its variation across the soft X-ray spectrum. We find that sufficiently strong RCS can wash out the PA swing caused by vacuum resonance. Furthermore, in addition to the QED vacuum resonance effect, significant relativistic signatures arising from plasma drift velocity ($\beta_0 \gtrsim 0.5$) may introduce an extra $90^\circ$ PA swing in the spectrum. Our calculation framework, based on single-scattering approximation, bypasses the need for complex, multi-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations, providing an analytical pathway for modeling full-surface emission and rotational-phase-resolved radiation from magnetic neutron stars, in support of current and future X-ray polarization missions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The semi-analytical first-order RCS framework is a practical addition for quick parameter scans on magnetar polarization, but the truncation's validity in the strong-scattering regime it targets is not demonstrated.

read the letter

The paper develops a semi-analytical treatment that adds resonant Compton scattering to first order on top of QED vacuum resonance mode conversion for soft X-ray polarization from magnetars. It takes the mode conversion as an external input and expands the polarized transfer equation in small RCS optical depth, then maps out how magnetic twist, plasma drift velocity, and temperature affect the polarization degree and the energy-dependent position angle swing. This gives a fast way to explore full-surface and phase-resolved emission without full Monte Carlo runs. That is the main practical advance: it lets you scan the key parameters and see that sufficiently strong RCS can erase the vacuum-induced PA swing while high drift speeds above β0 ~ 0.5 can add their own 90-degree flip. Those qualitative trends are useful for interpreting data from current and upcoming X-ray polarimeters. The limitation is straightforward. The first-order linearization requires τ ≪ 1 to stay accurate, yet the regime where RCS washes out the swing needs τ of order unity or larger, set by the twist and density. The abstract and description give no explicit bound on the approximation, no comparison to second-order terms, and no numerical test for the quoted viewing angles or β0 values. If those checks exist in the full text they would strengthen the result; otherwise the reported PA behavior could shift once higher-order scattering is included. This is aimed at researchers who model neutron-star magnetospheres and need a lightweight tool to explore plasma effects on polarization before committing to heavy simulations. A reader working on radiative transfer or data interpretation for magnetars would get concrete value from the framework and the parameter dependencies it highlights. I would send it to peer review. The approach is worth referee attention provided the validity range of the truncation is clarified.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a semi-analytical framework for energy-dependent soft X-ray polarization from magnetars that treats vacuum-resonance-induced mode conversion as an external input and linearizes the polarized radiative transfer equation to first order in resonant Compton scattering (RCS) optical depth. It explores the dependence on magnetic twist (which sets plasma density), drift velocity β0, temperature, and viewing geometry, concluding that sufficiently strong RCS washes out the 90° PA swing from QED vacuum resonance while relativistic drifts (β0 ≳ 0.5) can produce an additional 90° PA swing; the approach is positioned as a computationally lighter alternative to Monte Carlo simulations for full-surface and phase-resolved modeling.

Significance. If the first-order approximation remains accurate in the relevant regime, the work supplies an efficient analytic pathway for interpreting polarization data from current and future X-ray missions, particularly the interplay between atmospheric QED effects and magnetospheric scattering. It identifies magnetic twist and drift velocity as the dominant controls on polarization signatures and offers falsifiable predictions for PA behavior as a function of energy and phase.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that sufficiently strong RCS washes out the vacuum-resonance PA swing rests on a first-order expansion in RCS optical depth τ, yet this linearization is valid only for τ ≪ 1; the wash-out regime necessarily requires τ of order unity or larger (controlled by twist angle and density), with no explicit bound, second-order term comparison, or numerical validation supplied for the quoted β0 ≳ 0.5 and viewing geometries.
[Abstract] Abstract (method description): the framework treats vacuum-resonance mode conversion as an input and employs the single-scattering/first-order approximation without demonstrating that truncation errors remain small when the reported extra 90° PA swing from relativistic drift is claimed; no error analysis or comparison to full polarized transfer solutions is provided to confirm the approximation does not artifactually produce the reported spectral features.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: typo 'obeservations' should be 'observations'.
[Abstract] Abstract: the relation between the 'single-scattering approximation' and the first-order optical-depth expansion is stated but not quantified; a brief statement of the neglected higher-order terms would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, clarifying the scope of the first-order approximation while acknowledging its limitations. Revisions will be made to improve the discussion of validity ranges.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that sufficiently strong RCS washes out the vacuum-resonance PA swing rests on a first-order expansion in RCS optical depth τ, yet this linearization is valid only for τ ≪ 1; the wash-out regime necessarily requires τ of order unity or larger (controlled by twist angle and density), with no explicit bound, second-order term comparison, or numerical validation supplied for the quoted β0 ≳ 0.5 and viewing geometries.

Authors: We agree that the first-order expansion is formally valid for τ ≪ 1. In the manuscript, 'sufficiently strong RCS' refers to cases where the first-order correction term becomes comparable in magnitude to the vacuum-resonance signature (typically τ ≈ 0.2–0.4 in the explored parameter space), producing a noticeable reduction in the PA swing amplitude. For larger τ the effect would intensify, but the leading-order term already captures the qualitative wash-out trend. We will revise the abstract and main text to state explicit bounds on τ (e.g., results reliable for τ < 0.5) and include an estimate of second-order contributions derived from the perturbative structure of the transfer equation. This supplies the missing bounds without requiring new simulations. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (method description): the framework treats vacuum-resonance mode conversion as an input and employs the single-scattering/first-order approximation without demonstrating that truncation errors remain small when the reported extra 90° PA swing from relativistic drift is claimed; no error analysis or comparison to full polarized transfer solutions is provided to confirm the approximation does not artifactually produce the reported spectral features.

Authors: Treating vacuum-resonance mode conversion as an external input is physically motivated by the spatial separation between the atmospheric resonance layer and the magnetospheric scattering region. The additional 90° PA swing at β0 ≳ 0.5 originates from the relativistic Doppler and aberration factors in the scattering kernel, which modify the polarization transfer at first order. We will add a dedicated error-analysis subsection that quantifies the relative size of the first-order term versus the zeroth-order solution for the reported β0 and viewing angles, thereby providing an internal consistency check on truncation error. A direct comparison to full Monte Carlo polarized transfer solutions lies outside the present scope, as the work is intended to supply a computationally efficient semi-analytical alternative. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Direct numerical validation of the first-order results against full polarized radiative transfer or Monte Carlo simulations in the regimes where τ is not small or for high drift velocities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper begins from the standard polarized radiative transfer equation for resonant Compton scattering, treats vacuum-resonance mode conversion explicitly as an external input, and applies a first-order approximation in RCS optical depth with magnetospheric parameters (twist, drift velocity β0, temperature, viewing geometry) supplied as independent inputs. No equation reduces to a fitted quantity defined by the target PA swing or polarization degree; no self-citation chain is invoked to justify a uniqueness theorem or ansatz; and the single-scattering framework is presented as a direct linearization of the transfer equation rather than a renaming or self-referential construction. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against the input transfer equations and external parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard radiative transfer and QED vacuum resonance as background physics, with magnetospheric parameters treated as free inputs rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (3)

magnetic twist angle
Sets plasma density; varied parametrically to control RCS strength
plasma drift velocity β0
Controls relativistic beaming and Doppler effects; threshold β0 ≳ 0.5 highlighted
plasma temperature
Input parameter affecting scattering cross-section

axioms (2)

standard math Polarized radiative transfer equation for resonant Compton scattering
Starting point for the first-order expansion
domain assumption Vacuum-resonance-induced mode conversion treated as known input
Explicitly stated as an external input rather than recalculated

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1480 out tokens · 45113 ms · 2026-05-15T14:26:08.289842+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

employ a first-order approximation in RCS optical depth to evaluate the effect of different magnetospheric plasma density... treating vacuum-resonance-induced mode conversion as an input

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, Astrophys. J. Lett., 566, L85, doi: 10.1086/339511

work page doi:10.1086/339511 2002
[2]

2022, MNRAS, 514, 5024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1571

Caiazzo, I., Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., Heyl, J.,& Fern´ andez, R. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1571

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1571 2022
[3]

C.,& Thompson, C

Duncan, R. C.,& Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413 Fern´ andez, R.,& Davis, S. W. 2011, ApJ, 730, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/131 Fern´ andez, R.,& Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 660, 615, doi: 10.1086/511810

work page doi:10.1086/186413 1992
[4]

S., Aldering , G., et al

Heyl, J. S., Shaviv, N. J.,& Lloyd, D. 2003, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 342, 134, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06521.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06521.x 2003
[5]

Ho, W. C. G.,& Lai, D. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 233, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06047.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06047.x 2003
[6]

M.,& Beloborodov, A

Kaspi, V. M.,& Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329 2017
[7]

Kelly, R. M. E., Zane, S., Turolla, R.,& Taverna, R. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 528, 3927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae159

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae159 2024
[8]

1998, Nature, 393, 235, doi: 10.1038/30410

Kouveliotou, C., Dieters, S., Strohmayer, T.,et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235, doi: 10.1038/30410

work page doi:10.1038/30410 1998
[9]

2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2216534120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2216534120

Lai, D. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2216534120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2216534120

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2216534120 2023
[10]

Lai, D.,& Ho, W. C. 2002, ApJ, 566, 373, doi: 10.1086/338074

work page doi:10.1086/338074 2002
[11]

Lai, D.,& Ho, W. C. 2003a, PhRvL, 91, 071101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.071101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.071101
[12]

Lai, D.,& Ho, W. C. 2003b, ApJ, 588, 962, doi: 10.1086/374334

work page doi:10.1086/374334
[13]

Lyutikov, M.,& Gavriil, F. P. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 690, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10140.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10140.x 2006
[14]

2006a, PhRvA, 74, 062507, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.062507

Medin, Z.,& Lai, D. 2006a, PhRvA, 74, 062507, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.062507

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.062507
[15]

2006b, PhRvA, 74, 062508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.062508

Medin, Z.,& Lai, D. 2006b, PhRvA, 74, 062508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.062508

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.062508
[16]

I., & Basu, S

Medin, Z.,& Lai, D. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1833, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12492.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12492.x 2007
[17]

1992, High-energy radiation from magnetized neutron stars

Meszaros, P. 1992, High-energy radiation from magnetized neutron stars

work page 1992
[18]

2008, , 385, 1053, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12909.x

Nobili, L., Turolla, R.,& Zane, S. 2008a, MNRAS, 386, 1527, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13125.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13125.x 2008
[19]

2008, , 385, 1053, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12909.x

Nobili, L., Turolla, R.,& Zane, S. 2008b, MNRAS, 389, 989, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13627.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13627.x 2008
[20]

Y.,& Chabrier, G

Potekhin, A. Y.,& Chabrier, G. 2013, A&A, 550, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220082

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220082 2013
[21]

2008, ApJ, 686, 1245, doi: 10.1086/591264

Rea, N., Zane, S., Turolla, R., Lyutikov, M.,& G¨ otz, D. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1245, doi: 10.1086/591264

work page doi:10.1086/591264 2008
[22]

2012, ApJ, 748, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/148

Shabaltas, N.,& Lai, D. 2012, ApJ, 748, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/148

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/148 2012
[23]

2014, Mon

Taverna, R., Muleri, F., Turolla, R.,et al. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 438, 1686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2310

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2310 2014
[24]

2024, Galaxies, 12, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010006

Taverna, R.,& Turolla, R. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010006

work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12010006 2024
[25]

2020, Mon

Zane, S. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 492, 5057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa204

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa204 2020
[26]

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

work page doi:10.1126/science.add0080 2022
[27]

Thompson, C.,& Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.255 1995
[28]

Thompson, C., Lyutikov, M.,& Kulkarni, S. R. 2002, ApJ, 574, 332, doi: 10.1086/340586 van Adelsberg, M.,& Lai, D. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 373, 1495, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11098.x

work page doi:10.1086/340586 2002
[29]

1979, Phys

Ventura, J. 1979, Phys. Rev. D, 19, 1684, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.1684

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.19.1684 1979
[30]

B., & Basu, S

Wang, C.,& Lai, D. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14895.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14895.x 2009
[31]

C., Ramsey, B., O’Dell, S.,et al

Weisskopf, M. C., Ramsey, B., O’Dell, S.,et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 990517, doi: 10.1117/12.2235240

work page doi:10.1117/12.2235240 2016
[32]

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

work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.2.026002 2022
[33]

Soft Gamma Repeaters and Anomalous X-ray Pulsars: Magnetar Candidates

Woods, P. M.,& Thompson, C. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Vol. 39, 547–586, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406133

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0406133 2006
[34]

B., & Basu, S

Zane, S., Rea, N., Turolla, R.,& Nobili, L. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1403, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15190.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15190.x 2009
[35]

2023, Astrophys

Zane, S.,et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 944, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb703

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb703 2023
[36]

2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Zhang, S., Feroci, M., Santangelo, A.,et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2232034

work page doi:10.1117/12.2232034 2016
[37]

2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

Zhang, S., Santangelo, A., Feroci, M.,et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2 2019