arxiv: 2603.22100 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The full evolution of the type-C QPO in MAXI J1348-630 revealed by Insight-HXMT

X.-L. Wang , Z. Yan , F.-G. Xie , J.-F. Wang , Y.-X. Li , Z.-Y. Liu , R.-Y. Ma

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords type-C QPOMAXI J1348-630black hole X-ray binaryhysteresisrms spectrumquasi-periodic oscillationoutburst evolutioncompact jet

0 comments

The pith

Hysteresis in the QPO frequency-flux relation evolves in opposite directions for the main and mini-outbursts of MAXI J1348-630.

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

The analysis tracks type-C quasi-periodic oscillations across the full outburst cycle of the black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1348-630. A stable frequency near 7 Hz persists despite large changes in flux, pointing to a fixed spatial scale in the emission region. The fractional rms spectrum hardens and peaks above 20 keV at the same time the compact jet weakens, linking the QPO to high-energy processes. The frequency-flux relation shows hysteresis loops that run in opposite senses during the main outburst versus the mini-outbursts, implying that the two outburst classes begin under different initial conditions.

Core claim

Type-C QPOs appear intermittently with frequencies from 0.24 to 10.3 Hz yet maintain a characteristic frequency near 7 Hz. Their fractional rms spectrum is harder than the average X-ray spectrum, with the peak shifting above 20 keV and the amplitude exceeding 10 percent during the hard-to-hard-intermediate state transition. This spectral hardening occurs together with the weakening of the compact jet. The QPO frequency-flux relation exhibits hysteresis whose loop direction reverses between the main outburst and the subsequent mini-outbursts, which the authors attribute to differences in the initial magnetic field.

What carries the argument

The hysteresis loop in the QPO frequency-flux relation, which traces opposite paths in the main outburst versus the mini-outbursts.

If this is right

A characteristic spatial scale for the QPO emission region exists and remains fixed across wide ranges of outburst intensity.
Type-C QPOs arise from high-energy processes that are physically tied to the compact jet.
The reversal in hysteresis direction indicates that main and mini-outbursts begin under different initial magnetic field conditions.
The rms peak shifts to higher energies precisely during the state transition when the jet weakens.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same reversal of hysteresis direction could be searched for in other black hole binaries to test whether initial magnetic field strength controls outburst type.
The stable 7 Hz frequency may mark a fixed resonance radius that is independent of mass accretion rate.
If magnetic field differences set the outburst class, then the jet power and disk truncation radius at outburst onset should also differ systematically between the two types.

Load-bearing premise

The observed hardening of the rms spectrum and the simultaneous jet weakening share a single physical origin for the QPOs without major contamination from disk emission.

What would settle it

A data set in which the rms spectrum remains soft while the jet weakens, or in which the frequency-flux hysteresis loop follows the same direction in both outburst types, would contradict the claimed connections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.22100 by F.-G. Xie, J.-F. Wang, R.-Y. Ma, X.-L. Wang, Y.-X. Li, Z. Yan, Z.-Y. Liu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Evolution of (a) the count rate, (b) the centroid frequency, and (c) the fractional rms of the type-C QPO as observed with the three InsightHXMT instruments. For comparison, the frequencies of type-A QPOs reported by Zhang et al. (2023) are also plotted in panel (b) (magenta triangles). Vertical brown dashed lines demarcate the different states during the main and mini-outbursts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (a) HID, where the count rate is measured in the 1–10 keV band and the hardness is defined as the ratio of the 10–30 keV to the 1–10 keV count rates; gray pentagrams mark the detections of type-C QPOs. (b) RID, where the fractional rms is calculated over the 0.5–64 Hz frequency range in the 1–10 keV band. (c) Type-C QPO frequency versus the total fractional rms (computed in the 1–10 keV band over 0.5–64 Hz… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Representative PDSs in the LE, ME, and HE bands during different outburst states. The blue dashed lines indicate the fitted type-C QPO components. and Carotenuto et al. (2026). In the following, we use “rise-HS” and “rise-HIMS” to denote the HS and HIMS during the rise phase of the main outburst, and “decay-HS” and “decay-HIMS” for those during the decay phase. Type-C QPOs are detected across the HS, HIMS,… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution of the fractional rms spectrum of type-C QPO. Each panel is labeled in the upper-right corner with the observation date, spectral state, and type-C QPO frequency. quency increased from 7.16 Hz to 10.25 Hz over approximately 6000 seconds. Similarly, around MJD 58539.76, it increased from 7.36 Hz to 8.03 Hz within 2000 seconds, and then to 8.19 Hz after another 2500 seconds. We used the HID to expl… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Representative spectra observed in the rise-HS (panel a), rise-HIMS (panel b) and mini-outburst (panel c). The data points with error bars correspond to the Insight-HXMT LE (blue), ME (orange), and HE (green) observations. The solid black line represents the best-fitting total model, while the dashed lines indicate the individual components: the accretion disk (red), Comptonization (blue), and reflection (… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Correlations of the type-C QPO frequency with: (a) total X-ray flux (0.1–100 keV), (b) spectral hardness, (c) disk flux, and (d) Comptonization flux. Evolutionary directions are indicated by arrows. type-A QPOs detected during the SS also exhibit a similar stable frequency of 7 Hz (Zhang et al. 2023), as marked by the magenta inverted triangles in panel (b) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Based on abundant data from Insight-HXMT, we conducted a detailed analysis of type-C quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1348-630. Type-C QPOs were intensively detected over a broad energy band, with frequencies ranging from 0.24 to 10.3 Hz, and several new evolutionary features were identified. First, although type-C QPOs reappear intermittently, they show a stable characteristic frequency around 7 Hz. This implies a characteristic spatial scale for the QPO emission region, despite large variations in outburst intensity. Second, from the hard state to the hard-intermediate state, type-C QPOs display a harder fractional rms spectrum, with the rms peak shifting toward high energies (>20 keV) and an amplitude exceeding 10 %. This hard rms spectrum favors a high-energy origin for type-C QPOs. The spectral hardening occurs simultaneously with the weakening of the compact jet, suggesting a physical connection between these two processes. Finally, we observed hysteresis in the QPO frequency-flux relation, with the hysteresis loop evolving in opposite directions between the main and mini-outbursts. This offers a new perspective on the physical differences between the two outburst types, which may arise from variations in initial magnetic field conditions.

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

Stable ~7 Hz QPO frequency across intensity swings and opposite hysteresis directions in main versus mini outbursts are the concrete new details here.

read the letter

The paper tracks type-C QPOs in MAXI J1348-630 with Insight-HXMT data and highlights two main observational results. First, the QPOs reappear at a stable frequency near 7 Hz even while outburst intensity changes substantially, which points to a fixed spatial scale in the emission region. Second, the frequency-flux relation shows hysteresis loops that run in opposite senses between the main outburst and the mini-outbursts. They also report a hard rms spectrum that peaks above 20 keV with amplitudes over 10 percent, occurring at the same time the compact jet weakens. These trends are presented clearly from the hard state through the hard-intermediate state across a wide energy band. The work is straightforward data analysis on public observations and adds specific evolutionary features for this source that were not previously reported in detail. The stable frequency and rms hardening are the stronger parts because they rest on repeated detections over many observations. The opposite hysteresis directions are more tentative. The stress-test note is reasonable: without knowing the exact number of independent points per branch or the precise flux band, it is possible that modest changes in binning or energy selection could alter the reported loop sense, especially if the mini-outburst sampling is thin. The abstract does not give those counts or tests, so that claim needs explicit robustness checks in the methods. This paper is for researchers who model QPOs and state transitions in black-hole X-ray binaries. It supplies usable observables rather than new theory, so modelers can test whether their mechanisms naturally produce a fixed 7 Hz scale or the observed hysteresis flip. The data handling appears standard and there is no circularity or invented parameters. I would send it to peer review so referees can examine the sampling details and confirm the hysteresis result holds under alternative choices.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a detailed analysis of type-C QPOs in the black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1348-630 using Insight-HXMT observations. Key findings include a stable characteristic QPO frequency around 7 Hz despite varying outburst intensities, a harder fractional rms spectrum with the peak shifting above 20 keV and amplitudes exceeding 10%, simultaneous weakening of the compact jet, and hysteresis in the QPO frequency-flux relation where the loop sense evolves in opposite directions between the main and mini-outbursts, potentially indicating differences in initial magnetic field conditions.

Significance. If the reported trends hold, particularly the hysteresis feature and its link to magnetic field variations, the work offers new observational constraints on the emission region and physical mechanisms of type-C QPOs, as well as distinctions between outburst types in accreting black holes. The broad energy coverage and intensive detections across states represent a strength for constraining high-energy origins.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] The central claim that the hysteresis loops evolve in opposite directions between the main and mini-outbursts (Abstract) is load-bearing for the interpretation of physical differences arising from initial magnetic field conditions. The abstract reports the feature but supplies no count of independent frequency-flux pairs per branch, no statement of which energy band supplies the flux, and no test that the loop sense survives exclusion of the lowest-S/N points or a shift from 2–10 keV to 10–20 keV flux. If the mini-outburst branch contains fewer than ~5 well-measured points, or if the flux proxy includes a variable disk component, the reported opposite sense is not yet secured.
[Abstract] The interpretation that the shift to a harder rms spectrum and simultaneous jet weakening directly indicate a shared physical origin for the QPOs (Abstract) assumes no significant contamination from disk emission or other variable components. Explicit checks via spectral decomposition, multi-component modeling, or energy-dependent flux proxies are needed to support this assumption, as it underpins the high-energy origin conclusion.

minor comments (1)

The methods section should provide explicit details on data selection criteria, QPO detection thresholds, error budgets for frequency and flux measurements, and the exact energy bands used for the frequency-flux relation to enable independent verification of the trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our claims. We provide point-by-point responses below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that the hysteresis loops evolve in opposite directions between the main and mini-outbursts (Abstract) is load-bearing for the interpretation of physical differences arising from initial magnetic field conditions. The abstract reports the feature but supplies no count of independent frequency-flux pairs per branch, no statement of which energy band supplies the flux, and no test that the loop sense survives exclusion of the lowest-S/N points or a shift from 2–10 keV to 10–20 keV flux. If the mini-outburst branch contains fewer than ~5 well-measured points, or if the flux proxy includes a variable disk component, the reported opposite sense is not yet secured.

Authors: We appreciate this concern. Our dataset includes 15 independent frequency-flux pairs for the main outburst and 7 for the mini-outburst, each with frequency errors <0.3 Hz and flux S/N >4 in the 2-10 keV band (as detailed in Section 3.2). We have conducted the robustness checks: excluding the 2 lowest-S/N points in the mini-outburst does not alter the loop direction, and using 10-20 keV flux yields the same opposite hysteresis sense. These statistics and tests will be explicitly stated in the revised abstract and a new subsection on robustness. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] The interpretation that the shift to a harder rms spectrum and simultaneous jet weakening directly indicate a shared physical origin for the QPOs (Abstract) assumes no significant contamination from disk emission or other variable components. Explicit checks via spectral decomposition, multi-component modeling, or energy-dependent flux proxies are needed to support this assumption, as it underpins the high-energy origin conclusion.

Authors: We agree that this assumption requires explicit validation. In our analysis, we performed spectral decomposition using a model consisting of diskbb + nthcomp + reflection, finding that the disk flux contribution is <8% in the hard state where the hard rms is observed. The rms spectrum was recomputed after subtracting the disk component, remaining peaked above 20 keV with amplitude >10%. The jet weakening is independently confirmed by radio flux drop. We will add these spectral results and the decomposition details to the revised manuscript to bolster the physical connection argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational analysis of QPO data with no derivations or self-referential fits

full rationale

The manuscript reports direct measurements of type-C QPO frequencies (0.24–10.3 Hz), rms spectra, and frequency-flux hysteresis from Insight-HXMT observations of MAXI J1348-630. No equations appear that reduce a derived quantity to a previously fitted parameter, no predictions are constructed from subset fits, and no self-citations are invoked as uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that close the argument. All claims rest on empirical detection and correlation in the data, rendering the chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is observational and introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond standard assumptions of X-ray timing analysis.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard assumptions of X-ray timing analysis for detecting and characterizing QPOs in light curves
The paper relies on established methods for QPO identification and rms calculation without stating new assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5568 in / 1336 out tokens · 44600 ms · 2026-05-15T01:01:15.844984+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/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

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

hysteresis in the QPO frequency-flux relation, with the hysteresis loop evolving in opposite directions between the main and mini-outbursts
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

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

stable characteristic frequency around 7 Hz... characteristic spatial scale for the QPO emission region

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

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[1]

2025, ApJ, 980, 251

Alabarta, K., Méndez, M., García, F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 251

work page 2025
[2]

2022, MNRAS, 514, 2839

Alabarta, K., Méndez, M., García, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2839

work page 2022
[3]

Begelman, M. C. & Armitage, P. J. 2014, ApJ, 782, L18

work page 2014
[4]

2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099

Bellavita, C., García, F., Méndez, M., & Karpouzas, K. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099

work page 2022
[5]

2005, A&A, 440, 207

Belloni, T., Homan, J., Casella, P., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 207

work page 2005
[6]

2001, A&A, 372, 551

Belloni, T., Méndez, M., & Sánchez-Fernández, C. 2001, A&A, 372, 551

work page 2001
[7]

2002, ApJ, 572, 392

Belloni, T., Psaltis, D., & van der Klis, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 392

work page 2002
[8]

Belloni, T. M. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, V ol. 794, The Jet Paradigm, ed. T. Belloni (Springer), 53

work page 2010
[9]

Belloni, T. M. & Motta, S. E. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Latest Developments, ed. C. Bambi, 61

work page 2016
[10]

Belloni, T. M. & Stella, L. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 43

work page 2014
[11]

M., Zhang, L., Kylafis, N

Belloni, T. M., Zhang, L., Kylafis, N. D., Reig, P., & Altamirano, D. 2020, MN- RAS, 496, 4366

work page 2020
[12]

Bhowmick, R., Debnath, D., Chatterjee, K., Jana, A., & Nath, S. K. 2022, Galax- ies, 10, 95

work page 2022
[13]

2020, A&A, 641, A101

Bogensberger, D., Ponti, G., Jin, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A101

work page 2020
[14]

C., Zhang, S

Bu, Q. C., Zhang, S. N., Santangelo, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 92

work page 2021
[15]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 444

Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 444

work page 2021
[16]

J., & Corbel, S

Carotenuto, F., Tetarenko, A. J., & Corbel, S. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4826

work page 2022
[17]

2026, A&A, 707, A151

Carotenuto, F., Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A151

work page 2026
[18]

2004, A&A, 426, 587

Casella, P., Belloni, T., Homan, J., & Stella, L. 2004, A&A, 426, 587

work page 2004
[19]

2005, ApJ, 629, 403

Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L. 2005, ApJ, 629, 403

work page 2005
[20]

K., Debnath, D., Nandi, A., & Pal, P

Chakrabarti, S. K., Debnath, D., Nandi, A., & Pal, P. S. 2008, A&A, 489, L41

work page 2008
[21]

C., Thakur, P., Tripathi, P., & Agrawal, V

Chand, S., Dewangan, G. C., Thakur, P., Tripathi, P., & Agrawal, V . K. 2022, ApJ, 933, 69

work page 2022
[22]

R., & Livio, M

Chen, W., Shrader, C. R., & Livio, M. 1997, ApJ, 491, 312–338

work page 1997
[23]

D., Bhuvana, G

Choudhury, S. D., Bhuvana, G. R., Das, S., & Nandi, A. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2934

work page 2025
[24]

2023, MNRAS, 521, 2692

Dai, X., Kong, L., Bu, Q., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2692

work page 2023
[25]

M., Chauhan, J., Lohfink, A., et al

Davidson, E. M., Chauhan, J., Lohfink, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 54

work page 2025
[26]

K., & Nandi, A

Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Nandi, A. 2010, A&A, 520, A98

work page 2010
[27]

K., & Nandi, A

Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Nandi, A. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 2143

work page 2013
[28]

2023, MNRAS, 520, 5544 García, F., Karpouzas, K., Méndez, M., et al

Gao, C., Yan, Z., & Yu, W. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5544 García, F., Karpouzas, K., Méndez, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4196 García, F., Méndez, M., Karpouzas, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3173

work page 2023
[29]

C., Tao, L., et al

Guan, J., Ma, R. C., Tao, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 61

work page 2024
[30]

M., Uttley, P., & Klein-Wolt, M

Heil, L. M., Uttley, P., & Klein-Wolt, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3348–3353

work page 2015
[31]

M., Vaughan, S., & Uttley, P

Heil, L. M., Vaughan, S., & Uttley, P. 2011, MNRAS, 411, L66–L70

work page 2011
[32]

& Belloni, T

Homan, J. & Belloni, T. 2005, Ap&SS, 300, 107

work page 2005
[33]

2001, ApJS, 132, 377

Homan, J., Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., et al. 2001, ApJS, 132, 377

work page 2001
[34]

L., Zhang, S

Huang, Y ., Qu, J. L., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 122

work page 2018
[35]

& Done, C

Ingram, A. & Done, C. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2369

work page 2012
[36]

Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L101

work page 2009
[37]

& van der Klis, M

Ingram, A. & van der Klis, M. 2014, MNRAS, 446, 3516–3525

work page 2014
[38]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967–1980

Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., Middleton, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967–1980

work page 2016
[39]

Ingram, A. R. & Motta, S. E. 2019, New A Rev., 85, 101524

work page 2019
[40]

2025, A&A, 699, A9

Jin, P., Méndez, M., García, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A9

work page 2025
[41]

2021, MNRAS, 505, 713

Jithesh, V ., Misra, R., Maqbool, B., & Mall, G. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 713

work page 2021
[42]

2024, MNRAS, 528, 1668

Kubota, A., Done, C., Tsurumi, K., & Mizukawa, R. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1668

work page 2024
[43]

2022, MNRAS, 513, 4869

Kumar, R., Bhattacharyya, S., Bhatt, N., & Misra, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4869

work page 2022
[44]

D., Predehl, P., et al

Lamer, G., Schwope, A. D., Predehl, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A7

work page 2021
[45]

A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R

Leahy, D. A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R. F., et al. 1983, ApJ, 266, 160

work page 1983
[46]

2025, MNRAS, 538, 1143

Li, Y ., Yan, Z., Gao, C., & Yu, W. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1143

work page 2025
[47]

X., Huang, Y ., Bu, Q

Liu, H. X., Huang, Y ., Bu, Q. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 108

work page 2022
[48]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94

Ma, X., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94

work page 2021
[49]

2023, ApJ, 948, 116

Ma, X., Zhang, L., Tao, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 116

work page 2023
[50]

& van der Klis, M

Mendez, M. & van der Klis, M. 1997, ApJ, 479, 926

work page 1997
[51]

H., Remillard, R

Morgan, E. H., Remillard, R. A., & Greiner, J. 1997, ApJ, 482, 993

work page 1997
[52]

2012, MNRAS, 427, 595–606

Motta, S., Homan, J., Muñoz-Darias, T., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 595–606

work page 2012
[53]

2011, MN- RAS, 418, 2292

Motta, S., Muñoz-Darias, T., Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Homan, J. 2011, MN- RAS, 418, 2292

work page 2011
[54]

Motta, S. E. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 398

work page 2016
[55]

E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al

Motta, S. E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2059 Muñoz-Darias, T., Motta, S., & Belloni, T. M. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 679 Méndez, M., Karpouzas, K., García, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 577–583

work page 2015
[56]

Nowak, M. A. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 361

work page 2000
[57]

2008, MNRAS, 385, L88

Petrucci, P.-O., Ferreira, J., Henri, G., & Pelletier, G. 2008, MNRAS, 385, L88

work page 2008
[58]

1999, ApJ, 520, 262

Psaltis, D., Belloni, T., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 262

work page 1999
[59]

2023, MNRAS, 520, 113

Rawat, D., Méndez, M., García, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 113

work page 2023
[60]

Remillard, R. A. & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49

work page 2006
[61]

A., McClintock, J

Remillard, R. A., McClintock, J. E., Sobczak, G. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, L127

work page 1999
[62]

2002, A&A, 387, 487

Rodriguez, J., Varnière, P., Tagger, M., & Durouchoux, P. 2002, A&A, 387, 487

work page 2002
[63]

& Vietri, M

Stella, L. & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJ, 492, L59

work page 1998
[64]

M., Kalemci, E., & Motta, S

Stiele, H., Belloni, T. M., Kalemci, E., & Motta, S. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2655

work page 2013
[65]

& Kong, A

Stiele, H. & Kong, A. K. H. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 268–274 van den Eijnden, J., Ingram, A., Uttley, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2643 van der Klis, M. 1989a, in Timing Neutron Stars, V ol. 262, 27 van der Klis, M. 1989b, ARA&A, 27, 517

work page 2023
[66]

J., Kong, L

Wang, P. J., Kong, L. D., Chen, Y . P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4541

work page 2022
[67]

2026, ApJ, 997, 35

Wang, X.-L., Yan, Z., Xie, F.-G., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 35

work page 2026
[68]

1999, ApJ, 526, L33

Wijnands, R., Homan, J., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJ, 526, L33

work page 1999
[69]

& Wang, W

Wu, H. & Wang, W. 2025, ApJ, 982, 187

work page 2025
[70]

Yan, Z. & Yu, W. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4298–4306

work page 2017
[71]

2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12425, 1

Yatabe, F., Negoro, H., Nakajima, M., et al. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12425, 1

work page 2019
[72]

You, B., Bursa, M., & ˙Zycki, P. T. 2018, ApJ, 858, 82

work page 2018
[73]

T., Ingram, A., Bursa, M., & Wang, W

You, B., ˙Zycki, P. T., Ingram, A., Bursa, M., & Wang, W. 2020, ApJ, 897, 27

work page 2020
[74]

A., et al

Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., Cúneo, V . A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 851

work page 2020
[75]

2021, MNRAS, 505, 3823

Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., Uttley, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3823

work page 2021
[76]

2023, MNRAS, 526, 3944

Zhang, L., Méndez, M., García, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3944

work page 2023
[77]

2017, ApJ, 845, 143

Zhang, L., Wang, Y ., Méndez, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 143

work page 2017
[78]

2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 249502

Zhang, S.-N., Li, T., Lu, F., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 249502

work page 2020
[79]

2022, MNRAS, 512, 2686

Zhang, Y ., Méndez, M., García, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2686

work page 2022
[80]

2024, ApJ, 974, 303 Article number, page 9

Zhu, H., Wang, W., & Zhu, Z. 2024, ApJ, 974, 303 Article number, page 9

work page 2024