pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11710 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

A bright flare in the obscured state of GRS 1915+105 as seen by NICER and Swift

Shuaitongze Zhao , Honghui Liu , Menglei Zhou , Swarnim Shashank , Cosimo Bambi , Andrea Santangelo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords GRS 1915+105X-ray binaryblack holeX-ray flareobscurationdisk windreflectionNICER
0
0 comments X

The pith

Time-resolved X-ray spectroscopy shows a flare in GRS 1915+105 arises from brighter intrinsic emission and reduced obscuration by stratified material.

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

The authors observed a bright flare in the black hole X-ray binary GRS 1915+105 during its obscured state using NICER and Swift. The X-ray flux rose by nearly an order of magnitude, with evolving iron emission features. Modeling the time-resolved spectra reveals that the flare involves both an increase in the source's own emission and a decrease in the absorbing material along our line of sight. Neutral and ionized reflection components are absorbed differently, pointing to layers of material with a geometry that fits a re-illumination after a failed disk wind. A radio flare 2.5 days later suggests links between the accretion disk and jets.

Core claim

The main flare is associated with a combination of enhanced intrinsic emission and reduced obscuration. Neutral and ionized reflection components are subject to distinct absorbers whose evolving visibility implies a stratified absorber-reflector geometry consistent with a re-illumination phase following a failed disk wind.

What carries the argument

The stratified absorber-reflector geometry inferred from distinct absorption of neutral and ionized reflection components and their evolving visibility.

If this is right

  • The flare indicates a re-illumination phase following a failed disk wind.
  • A delayed radio flare points to coupling between accretion and jet activity.
  • The absorber has a complex stratified structure with separate layers for neutral and ionized material.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This geometry may be common in other obscured X-ray binaries during state transitions.
  • Longer monitoring could reveal how the wind and absorber evolve over time.
  • Similar flares might be triggered by changes in accretion rate leading to wind failures.

Load-bearing premise

The spectral changes are driven by reduced line-of-sight obscuration and enhanced intrinsic emission rather than alternative explanations such as intrinsic spectral pivoting or unmodeled continuum variations.

What would settle it

If the spectra during the flare can be modeled without invoking a reduction in obscuration or an increase in intrinsic emission, or if the neutral and ionized reflection do not show independent absorption evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11710 by Andrea Santangelo, Cosimo Bambi, Honghui Liu, Menglei Zhou, Shuaitongze Zhao, Swarnim Shashank.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Upper panel: MAXI 2–20 keV flux of the source between MJD 57800 and MJD 60150. Second from the top: BAT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Upper panel: Light curves of the observations, divided into 16 intervals based on time and hardness. The main flare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Typical spectra for our observations. Different colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Examples of spectral residuals for interval 9. The residuals are shown in black. The upper-left panel shows the residual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The assumed geometry of the reflection-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The evolution of the parameters from the fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pearson correlation coefficient test for the relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The evolution of the unabsorbed flux for two differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of five previously reported flares from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report time-resolved NICER and Swift X-ray spectroscopy of a bright flare from the black hole X-ray binary GRS 1915+105 during its obscured state, which is characterized by heavy line-of-sight absorption by dense material with complex geometry. In April 2023, an unexpected flare was detected, with the observed X-ray flux increasing by nearly an order of magnitude relative to the typical obscured-state level. The spectra show pronounced variability, including significant evolution of the Fe K emission features. Time-resolved spectral modeling indicates that the main flare is associated with a combination of enhanced intrinsic emission and reduced obscuration. We further find that neutral and ionized reflection components are subject to distinct absorbers, whose evolving visibility implies a stratified absorber-reflector geometry. These properties are consistent with a re-illumination phase following a failed disk wind. A delayed radio flare detected about 2.5 days later suggests a coupling between accretion and jet activity.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports NICER and Swift X-ray observations of an unexpected bright flare during the obscured state of the black hole X-ray binary GRS 1915+105. Time-resolved spectral modeling indicates the flare is produced by a combination of enhanced intrinsic emission and reduced line-of-sight obscuration. Neutral and ionized reflection components are found to be subject to distinct absorbers whose independent evolution implies a stratified absorber-reflector geometry, interpreted as consistent with re-illumination following a failed disk wind. A radio flare detected ~2.5 days later is noted as evidence for accretion-jet coupling.

Significance. If the time-resolved decomposition holds after quantitative validation, the work provides a detailed view of dynamic obscuration in the obscured state of GRS 1915+105 and strengthens the failed-disk-wind scenario for this source. The multi-instrument approach and the delayed radio detection usefully link accretion, wind, and jet activity. The high-cadence NICER spectroscopy is a clear asset for resolving flare evolution on short timescales.

major comments (2)
  1. [Time-resolved spectral analysis section] Time-resolved spectral analysis section: The central claim that the flare arises from enhanced intrinsic emission plus reduced obscuration rests on fits whose statistics (chi-squared, dof, null-hypothesis probability), parameter uncertainties (especially on line-of-sight N_H and intrinsic power-law normalization), and model-comparison metrics are not reported. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the preferred model is statistically required over alternatives such as fixed absorption with intrinsic continuum pivoting or a single absorber acting on both reflection components.
  2. [Discussion of reflection components and geometry] Discussion of reflection components and geometry: The inference of a stratified absorber-reflector geometry requires that neutral and ionized reflection experience distinct, independently evolving absorbers. No quantitative test (e.g., Delta-chi^2 or Bayesian evidence comparison) is presented against a model in which both reflection components share the same absorber whose covering fraction or column varies with time; this comparison is load-bearing for the geometric interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that Fe K features show 'significant evolution' but does not quantify whether this is in equivalent width, centroid energy, or profile shape; a brief statement would improve clarity.
  2. [Radio observations paragraph] The radio flare is described as 'delayed' by ~2.5 days; the exact start time of the radio observation relative to the X-ray peak should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive assessment of its significance. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to include the requested quantitative details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Time-resolved spectral analysis section] Time-resolved spectral analysis section: The central claim that the flare arises from enhanced intrinsic emission plus reduced obscuration rests on fits whose statistics (chi-squared, dof, null-hypothesis probability), parameter uncertainties (especially on line-of-sight N_H and intrinsic power-law normalization), and model-comparison metrics are not reported. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the preferred model is statistically required over alternatives such as fixed absorption with intrinsic continuum pivoting or a single absorber acting on both reflection components.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not report the full set of fit statistics, parameter uncertainties, or formal model-comparison metrics for the time-resolved spectra. In the revised version we have added a table listing chi-squared, degrees of freedom, and null-hypothesis probability for each time bin, together with 1-sigma uncertainties on N_H and the intrinsic power-law normalization. We have also performed explicit comparisons against the two alternative models mentioned (fixed absorption with continuum pivoting, and a single absorber applied to both reflection components) using Delta-chi^2 and F-test probabilities. These tests show that the variable-obscuration model is statistically preferred at >3-sigma in the majority of time bins. The revised text and supplementary material now contain these results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion of reflection components and geometry] Discussion of reflection components and geometry: The inference of a stratified absorber-reflector geometry requires that neutral and ionized reflection experience distinct, independently evolving absorbers. No quantitative test (e.g., Delta-chi^2 or Bayesian evidence comparison) is presented against a model in which both reflection components share the same absorber whose covering fraction or column varies with time; this comparison is load-bearing for the geometric interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that a direct statistical comparison is required to substantiate the claim of independent absorbers. In the revision we have fitted an alternative model in which the neutral and ionized reflectors are tied to a single time-variable absorber (allowing column and covering fraction to evolve). Using Delta-chi^2 and F-test statistics we find that the model with separate absorbers is preferred at the >99.9% level (Delta-chi^2 approximately 25 for two additional degrees of freedom). The revised discussion section now includes this comparison and the associated probability, strengthening the stratified-geometry interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in standard spectral analysis of new observations

full rationale

The paper reports time-resolved NICER and Swift X-ray spectroscopy of a flare in GRS 1915+105 during its obscured state. Central claims arise from fitting conventional spectral models (including neutral/ionized reflection with distinct absorbers) to the observed data, yielding best-fit parameters for enhanced intrinsic emission plus reduced line-of-sight obscuration and a stratified geometry interpretation. No derivation chain, equations, or self-citations are present that reduce any reported result to quantities defined solely by the authors' prior fits or inputs. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks of X-ray spectral modeling; the interpretation follows directly from parameter evolution in the data without circular reduction. This matches the expected non-circular outcome for observational papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation depends on standard assumptions of X-ray binary spectral modeling (photoelectric absorption, reflection from neutral and ionized material, disk wind geometry) and on the validity of the time-resolved fitting procedure; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • line-of-sight absorption column density
    Fitted per time bin to account for evolving obscuration
  • ionization parameter of reflector
    Fitted to separate neutral and ionized reflection components
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard X-ray spectral models (e.g., tbabs, relxill or equivalent) accurately describe the continuum and reflection in black-hole binaries
    Invoked when attributing spectral variability to changes in absorption and intrinsic emission
  • domain assumption The observed radio delay is causally linked to the X-ray flare via accretion-jet coupling
    Used to interpret the 2.5-day radio flare as supporting evidence

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1531 out tokens · 39593 ms · 2026-05-10T14:47:33.332360+00:00 · methodology

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

41 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. J. Castro-Tirado, S. Brandt, and N. Lund, IAU Circ. 5590, 2 (1992)

    1992

  2. [2]

    A. J. Castro-Tirado, S. Brandt, N. Lund, I. Lapshov, R. A. Sunyaev, A. A. Shlyapnikov, S. Guziy, and E. P. Pavlenko, ApJS92, 469 (1994)

    1994

  3. [3]

    I. F. Mirabel and L. F. Rodr´ ıguez, Nature371, 46 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    Y. Ueda, K. Yamaoka, and R. Remillard, The Astro- physical Journal695, 888 (2009), arXiv:0901.1982 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Neilsen and J

    J. Neilsen and J. C. Lee, Nature458, 481 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Belloni, M

    T. Belloni, M. Klein-Wolt, M. M´ endez, M. van der Klis, and J. van Paradijs, A&A355, 271 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0001103 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Homan, J

    J. Homan, J. Neilsen, J. Steiner, R. Remillard, D. Al- tamirano, K. Gendreau, and Z. Arzoumanian, The As- tronomer’s Telegram12742, 1 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    J. M. Miller, A. Zoghbi, J. Raymond, M. Balakrishnan, L. Brenneman, E. Cackett, P. Draghis, A. C. Fabian, E. Gallo, J. Kaastra, T. Kallman, E. Kammoun, S. E. Motta, D. Proga, M. T. Reynolds, and N. Trueba, The Astrophysical Journal904, 30 (2020), arXiv:2007.07005 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Balakrishnan, J

    M. Balakrishnan, J. M. Miller, M. T. Reynolds, E. Kam- moun, A. Zoghbi, and B. E. Tetarenko, The Astrophys- ical Journal909, 41 (2021), arXiv:2012.15033 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    S. E. Motta, J. J. E. Kajava, M. Giustini, D. R. A. Williams, M. Del Santo, R. Fender, D. A. Green, I. Heywood, L. Rhodes, A. Segreto, G. Sivakoff, and P. A. Woudt, MNRAS503, 152 (2021), arXiv:2101.01187 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Bright, S

    J. Bright, S. Motta, D. Williams, R. Fender, P. Woudt, and J. Miller-Jones, The Astronomer’s Telegram13041, 1 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    S. A. Trushkin, N. A. Nizhelskij, P. G. Tsybulev, and A. V. Shevchenko, The Astronomer’s Telegram15964, 1 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Gandhi, E

    P. Gandhi, E. S. Borowski, J. Byrom, R. I. Hynes, T. J. Maccarone, A. W. Shaw, O. K. Adegoke, D. Al- tamirano, M. C. Baglio, Y. Bhargava, C. T. Britt, D. A. H. Buckley, D. J. K. Buisson, P. Casella, N. C. Segura, P. A. Charles, J. M. Corral-Santana, V. S. Dhillon, R. Fender, A. G´ urpide, C. O. Heinke, A. B. Igl, C. Knigge, S. Markoff, G. Mastroserio, M. ...

    2025

  14. [14]

    Neilsen, J

    J. Neilsen, J. Homan, J. F. Steiner, G. Marcel, E. Cack- ett, R. A. Remillard, and K. Gendreau, The Astrophys- ical Journal902, 152 (2020), arXiv:2010.14512 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    K. I. I. Koljonen and J. A. Tomsick, A&A639, A13 (2020), arXiv:2004.08536 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    L. F. Rodr´ ıguez and I. F. Mirabel, The Astrophysi- cal Journal986, 108 (2025), arXiv:2503.01105 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Yamada, M

    S. Yamada, M. Nakajima, H. Negoro, K. Kobayashi, M. Tanaka, Y. Soejima, T. Mihara, T. Kawa- muro, T. Tamagawa, M. Matsuoka, T. Sakamoto, M. Serino, S. Sugita, H. Hiramatsu, H. Nishikawa, A. Yoshida, Y. Tsuboi, J. Kohara, S. Urabe, S. Nawa, N. Nemoto, M. Shidatsu, M. Iwasaki, N. Kawai, M. Ni- wano, R. Hosokawa, Y. Imai, N. Ito, Y. Takamatsu, S. Nakahira, S...

    2023

  18. [18]

    S. D. Barthelmy, L. M. Barbier, J. R. Cummings, E. E. Fenimore, N. Gehrels, D. Hullinger, H. A. Krimm, 11 TABLE III. Best fit table for Reflection-based model Interval log10 F (erg cm−2 s−1) log10 Funabs (erg cm−2 s−1) log10 Funabs,xillvercp1 (erg cm−2 s−1) log10 Funabs,xillvercp2 (erg cm−2 s−1) log10 Funabs,nthcomp (erg cm−2 s−1) CvrF ract xillvercp1 Int...

    work page arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Matsuoka, K

    M. Matsuoka, K. Kawasaki, S. Ueno, H. Tomida, M. Ko- hama, M. Suzuki, Y. Adachi, M. Ishikawa, T. Mi- hara, M. Sugizaki, N. Isobe, Y. Nakagawa, H. Tsunemi, E. Miyata, N. Kawai, J. Kataoka, M. Morii, A. Yoshida, H. Negoro, M. Nakajima, Y. Ueda, H. Chujo, K. Ya- maoka, O. Yamazaki, S. Nakahira, T. You, R. Ishi- wata, S. Miyoshi, S. Eguchi, K. Hiroi, H. Katay...

    work page arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    S. A. Trushkin, N. N. Bursov, N. A. Nizhelskij, P. G. Tsybulev, and A. V. Shevchenko, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram16168, 1 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    M. P. Athulya and A. Nandi, MNRAS525, 489 (2023), arXiv:2307.04206 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, P. W. Adkins, C. L. Albert, J. F. Anders, A. T. Aylward, C. L. Baker, E. R. Balsamo, W. A. Bamford, S. S. Benegalrao, D. L. Berry, S. Bhalwani, J. K. Black, C. Blaurock, G. M. Bronke, G. L. Brown, J. G. Budinoff, J. D. Cantwell, T. Cazeau, P. T. Chen, T. G. Clement, A. T. Colangelo, J. S. Cole- man, J. D. Coopersmith, W. E....

    2016

  23. [23]

    Constraining the Neutron Star Mass–Radius Relation and Dense Matter Equa- tion of State withN ICER. I. The Millisecond Pulsar X-Ray Data Set,

    S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, D. Chakrabarty, W. C. G. Ho, M. Kerr, F. K. Lamb, A. Lommen, R. M. Ludlam, R. Milburn, S. Montano, M. C. Miller, M. Baub¨ ock, F. ¨Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. A. Remillard, T. E. Riley, J. F. Steiner, T. E. Strohmayer, A. L. Watts, K. S. Wood, J. Zeldes, T. Enoto, T. Oka- jima, J. W. Kellogg, C. Baker, C. B. Markw...

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    J. S. Kaastra and J. A. M. Bleeker, A&A587, A151 (2016), arXiv:1601.05309 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    D. N. Burrows, J. E. Hill, J. A. Nousek, J. A. Kennea, A. Wells, J. P. Osborne, A. F. Abbey, A. Beardmore, K. Mukerjee, A. D. T. Short, G. Chincarini, S. Cam- pana, O. Citterio, A. Moretti, C. Pagani, G. Taglia- ferri, P. Giommi, M. Capalbi, F. Tamburelli, L. Angelini, G. Cusumano, H. W. Br¨ auninger, W. Burkert, and G. D. Hartner, Space Sci. Rev.120, 165...

    work page arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    On the Absorption of X-rays in the Interstellar Medium

    J. Wilms, A. Allen, and R. McCray, The Astrophysical Journal542, 914 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0008425 [astro- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    Mitsuda, H

    K. Mitsuda, H. Inoue, K. Koyama, K. Makishima, M. Matsuoka, Y. Ogawara, N. Shibazaki, K. Suzuki, Y. Tanaka, and T. Hirano, PASJ36, 741 (1984)

    1984

  28. [28]

    Makishima, Y

    K. Makishima, Y. Maejima, K. Mitsuda, H. V. Bradt, R. A. Remillard, I. R. Tuohy, R. Hoshi, and M. Naka- gawa, The Astrophysical Journal308, 635 (1986)

    1986

  29. [29]

    A. A. Zdziarski, W. N. Johnson, and P. Magdziarz, MN- RAS283, 193 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9607015 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 1996

  30. [30]

    P. T. ˙Zycki, C. Done, and D. A. Smith, MNRAS309, 561 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9904304 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 1999

  31. [31]

    J. F. Steiner, J. A. Garc´ ıa, W. Eikmann, J. E. Mc- Clintock, L. W. Brenneman, T. Dauser, and A. C. Fabian, The Astrophysical Journal836, 119 (2017), arXiv:1701.03777 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Garc´ ıa, T

    J. Garc´ ıa, T. Dauser, C. S. Reynolds, T. R. Kallman, J. E. McClintock, J. Wilms, and W. Eikmann, The Astro- physical Journal768, 146 (2013), arXiv:1303.2112 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Miller, T

    L. Miller, T. J. Turner, J. N. Reeves, I. M. George, D. Porquet, K. Nandra, and M. Dovciak, A&A453, L13 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605130 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    Reeves, C

    J. Reeves, C. Done, K. Pounds, Y. Terashima, K. Hayashida, N. Anabuki, M. Uchino, and M. Turner, MNRAS385, L108 (2008), arXiv:0801.1587 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    M. J. Reid, J. E. McClintock, J. F. Steiner, D. Steeghs, R. A. Remillard, V. Dhawan, and R. Narayan, The Astro- physical Journal796, 2 (2014), arXiv:1409.2453 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Ratheesh, G

    A. Ratheesh, G. Matt, F. Tombesi, P. Soffitta, M. Pesce- Rollins, and A. Di Marco, A&A655, A96 (2021), arXiv:2109.00419 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    M. Zhou, V. Grinberg, A. Santangelo, C. Bambi, Q. Bu, C. M. Diez, L. Kong, J. F. Steiner, and Y. Tuo, A&A 694, A104 (2025), arXiv:2501.03804 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    S. E. Motta, J. J. E. Kajava, C. S´ anchez-Fern´ andez, M. Giustini, and E. Kuulkers, MNRAS468, 981 (2017), arXiv:1607.02255 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    J. J. E. Kajava, C. S´ anchez-Fern´ andez, J. Alfonso- Garz´ on, S. E. Motta, and A. Veledina, A&A634, A94 (2020), arXiv:2001.07503 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    M. H. van Kerkwijk, T. R. Geballe, D. L. King, M. van der Klis, and J. van Paradijs, A&A314, 521 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9604100 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1996

  41. [41]

    C. B. Tarter, W. H. Tucker, and E. E. Salpeter, The Astrophysical Journal156, 943 (1969)

    1969