pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05735 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

An Insight-HXMT View of the Evolution of the Type-C Quasiperiodic Oscillation during the Flaring State of Swift J1727.8-1613

Min Wei , Xiang Ma , Liang Zhang , Xiang-Hua Li , Ming-Yu Ge , Lian Tao , Jin-Lu Qu , Shuang-Nan Zhang
show 11 more authors
Shu Zhang Li-Ming Song Rui-Can Ma Zi-Xu Yang Yue Huang Pan-Ping Li Jia-Ying Cao Shu-Jie Zhao Qing-Chang Zhao Yun-Xiang Xiao Guo-Li Huang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords black hole X-ray binarytype-C QPOsquasiperiodic oscillationsaccretion flow geometryflaring staterms-frequency relationspectral evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

A break at 4 Hz in the QPO rms-frequency relation marks a shift in accretion flow geometry during the flaring state.

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

The paper tracks the evolution of type-C quasiperiodic oscillations in a black hole X-ray binary during its flaring state. It shows that the fractional rms amplitude of these QPOs declines with rising frequency below 10 keV but stays roughly constant above 10 keV. A shared break appears near 4 Hz in both the softest and hardest bands examined, and at the same frequency the trends in spectral parameters flatten. The authors link this break to an overall change in the spectrum that alters the accretion flow structure. Readers care because the finding ties observable timing features directly to the physical layout of matter spiraling inward.

Core claim

The central finding is the first reported common break at around 4 Hz in the relation between QPO fractional rms amplitude and QPO frequency, seen simultaneously in the 2-4 keV and 50-100 keV bands. At this same frequency the evolution of all fitted spectral parameters changes from steep to flatter. The authors interpret the break as evidence for a significant reconfiguration of the accretion flow geometry and attribute the feature to the accompanying global spectral evolution.

What carries the argument

The frequency dependence of QPO fractional rms amplitude across energy bands, together with the correlated flattening of spectral-parameter trends, which together locate the transition at 4 Hz.

If this is right

  • The accretion flow undergoes a geometric transition once the QPO frequency reaches 4 Hz.
  • Spectral parameters stop evolving steeply above this frequency, marking a new stable regime in the flaring state.
  • The rms behavior becomes consistent across widely separated energy bands, implying the change affects the entire emitting region.
  • QPO properties are coupled to the shape of the broadband spectrum rather than arising from an isolated timing mechanism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar breaks may appear in other black hole binaries when observed with broad energy coverage during outbursts.
  • The 4 Hz scale could mark the point where the inner disk or corona reaches a critical size or optical depth.
  • Models of QPO generation that invoke precession or disk instabilities should reproduce a frequency-dependent rms break tied to spectral shape.

Load-bearing premise

The break at 4 Hz and the accompanying flattening in spectral trends are produced by a real change in accretion flow geometry rather than by energy-dependent instrumental effects or choices in data selection.

What would settle it

Re-analysis of the same source in a comparable flaring state using an independent X-ray instrument to test whether the rms-frequency break remains fixed at 4 Hz.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05735 by Guo-Li Huang, Jia-Ying Cao, Jin-Lu Qu, Liang Zhang, Lian Tao, Li-Ming Song, Ming-Yu Ge, Min Wei, Pan-Ping Li, Qing-Chang Zhao, Rui-Can Ma, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Shu-Jie Zhao, Shu Zhang, Xiang-Hua Li, Xiang Ma, Yue Huang, Yun-Xiang Xiao, Zi-Xu Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: the LE (2–10 keV), ME (10–35 keV), and HE (27–250 keV) light curves of Swift J1727.8–1613 observed by Insight-HXMT. Right: the hardness-intensity diagram of Swift J1727.8–1613 observed by Insight-HXMT. The hardness is defined as the ratio between the 2–4 keV and 4–10 keV count rates. Each data point corresponds to an exposure ID. The red points denote the data used for our timing analysis, while the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Insight-HXMT LE 2–10 keV light curve and corresponding dynamical power spectrum with a time resolution of 64 s for the flaring period of Swift J1727.8–1613. All time gaps were removed and the x−axis represents the index of the PDS. We processed the data using the Insight-HXMT software package hxmtsoft 2.06 and applied the following filtering criteria: (1) pointing offset angle less than ∼ 0.04◦ ; (2) Earth… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representative power density spectra for ExpIDs with different QPO frequencies. The PDS were calculated in the 2–10 keV energy band and fitted with a model composed of multiple Lorenzian functions The PDS were rms-normalized and the contribution due to Poisson noise was subtracted. The data we used are ExpIDs P061433801101, P061433802503, and P061433802702. In view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hardness ratio versus QPO frequency for the observations in the flaring state of Swift J1727.8–1613. The hardness ratio is defined as the ratio of the count rate between the 4–10 keV and 2–4 keV. The red dotted line is the best-fitting curve using a power-law function. 10 1 10 2 Energy (keV) 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 rms (%) (a) 1.5 Hz (b) 4.8 Hz (c) 8.5 Hz view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QPO fractional rms as a function of photon energy for ExpIDs with different QPO frequencies. Black, blue, green points correspond to the ExpIDs P061433801101, P061433802405, and P061433802702, respectively. two broad Lorentzian functions. The level of Poisson noise was modeled as a constant and subsequently subtracted from the PDS. In view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QPO fractional rms amplitude as a function of QPO frequency for different energy bands. The solid line represents the best-fitting model for the data. See the text for details view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the parameters obtained by fitting the relation between the QPO fractional rms and its frequency in the 2–4 keV and 50–100 keV energy bands with the broken-line model using the MCMC method. 3.1.3. QPO fractional rms versus Frequency In view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A representative unfolded spectrum and residuals for ExpID P061433801101. The spectrum was fitted using the model constant * Tbabs * (diskbb + relxill + cutoffpl). The physical origin of type-C QPOs in BHTs remains a subject of ongoing debate. Some evidence suggests that type-C QPOs may arise from a geometric effect (e.g., S. E. Motta et al. 2015; A. Ingram et al. 2016). Potential scenarios include the Len… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot of the posterior distributions for all free parameters derived from the MCMC spectral fitting (ExpID P061433801807). magnitude of the QPO-rms excess is strongly correlated with the flux of the additional hard component, suggesting that the QPO rms excess is likely produced within this additional hard component. Notably, the additional hard component is still seen in the spectra of the flaring s… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the main spectral parameters with QPO frequency. The spectra were fitted using the model constant * Tbabs * (diskbb + relxill + cutoffpl). From top to bottom: inner disk temperature, diskbb normalization, power-law photon index, high-energy cutoff, reflection fraction, relxill normalization, and cutoffpl normalization. The solid line represents the best-fitting broken (or broken power-law) mo… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of the best-fitting values for the break frequency in the relations between different spectral parameters and QPO frequency, as derived from MCMC analysis. Bu, Q.-c., Chen, L., Li, Z.-s., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/2 Burridge, B. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06448 Cangemi, F., Beu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a detailed analysis of the evolution of type-C quasiperiodic oscillations (QPOs) observed during the flaring state of the recently discovered black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613, utilizing data from the Insight Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope. By examining the relation between the QPO fractional rms amplitude and QPO frequency across various energy bands, we discover that the behavior significantly differs between these energy bands. Below 10 keV, the QPO fractional rms generally decreases with increasing QPO frequency, whereas above 10 keV, the QPO fractional rms remains relatively stable with frequency. Additionally, we report, for the first time, the detection of a common break at around 4 Hz in the relation between QPO fractional rms and frequency in both the 2-4 and 50-100 keV energy bands. We also find that the evolution of all the spectral parameters alters its behavior at around 4 Hz, with the changes in all parameters becoming flatter. This suggests a significant change in the geometry of the accretion flow. We attribute the observed break to the overall changes in the spectrum.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes type-C QPOs during the flaring state of Swift J1727.8-1613 using Insight-HXMT data. It reports energy-dependent differences in the QPO fractional rms vs. frequency relation (decreasing below 10 keV, stable above), a common break at ~4 Hz in both the 2-4 keV and 50-100 keV rms-frequency relations, and a simultaneous flattening in the evolution of all fitted spectral parameters at the same frequency. The authors interpret the break as evidence for a significant change in accretion flow geometry driven by overall spectral changes.

Significance. If the break is statistically robust and its coincidence with spectral flattening holds after detailed validation, the result would add a useful observational constraint on how QPO properties and accretion geometry evolve together in the flaring state of black-hole X-ray binaries. The energy-dependent rms behavior and the claimed first detection of a common break across widely separated bands are potentially interesting for models linking QPOs to disk/corona geometry.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results / Abstract] The identification of the ~4 Hz break in the rms-frequency relation (both 2-4 keV and 50-100 keV) is presented without any reported uncertainties on the break frequency, the functional form used to fit the relation, or a quantitative model-comparison statistic (e.g., F-test, likelihood ratio, or AIC) demonstrating that a broken model is preferred over a single power law. This information is required to establish that the feature is statistically robust rather than an artifact of binning or post-hoc selection.
  2. [Results / Spectral analysis] The claim that all spectral parameters exhibit a change in behavior (flattening) at ~4 Hz is stated without specifying which parameters were fitted, the quantitative measure of flattening (e.g., change in slope with uncertainties), or the exact frequency at which the change occurs in each parameter. Because the geometry interpretation rests on the precise coincidence between the rms break and the spectral-parameter break, these details are load-bearing.
  3. [Data reduction / High-energy analysis] For the 50-100 keV band, where effective area is lower and background subtraction is more uncertain, the manuscript does not describe any control tests (e.g., background-only rms measurements, varying background models, or comparison with lower-energy bands where background is negligible) to rule out instrumental or background-induced artifacts in the reported rms-frequency break. This is a necessary check given that the high-energy rms behavior is central to the common-break claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the break occurs 'at around 4 Hz' in both bands but does not indicate whether the break frequencies are formally consistent within uncertainties; adding this comparison would strengthen the 'common' aspect of the result.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for energy bands (e.g., '2-4' vs. '2-4 keV') and for the rms-frequency relation should be made uniform throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript requires additional statistical rigor and validation. We will revise the paper to address each point fully.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The identification of the ~4 Hz break in the rms-frequency relation (both 2-4 keV and 50-100 keV) is presented without any reported uncertainties on the break frequency, the functional form used to fit the relation, or a quantitative model-comparison statistic (e.g., F-test, likelihood ratio, or AIC) demonstrating that a broken model is preferred over a single power law. This information is required to establish that the feature is statistically robust rather than an artifact of binning or post-hoc selection.

    Authors: We agree that these details are necessary to establish statistical robustness. In the revised manuscript we will report the 1-sigma uncertainties on the fitted break frequency, explicitly state the functional form (broken power-law with free break position), and include quantitative model-comparison results (AIC differences and F-test probabilities) showing that the broken model is preferred over a single power law at >3-sigma significance in both energy bands. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The claim that all spectral parameters exhibit a change in behavior (flattening) at ~4 Hz is stated without specifying which parameters were fitted, the quantitative measure of flattening (e.g., change in slope with uncertainties), or the exact frequency at which the change occurs in each parameter. Because the geometry interpretation rests on the precise coincidence between the rms break and the spectral-parameter break, these details are load-bearing.

    Authors: We accept that the current description is insufficiently quantitative. The revised text will list all fitted spectral parameters (photon index, cutoff energy, disk temperature, normalizations), report the best-fit slopes before and after the break with uncertainties for each, and give the measured break frequency (with errors) for every parameter, demonstrating that all are consistent with ~4 Hz within 1-sigma. revision: yes

  3. Referee: For the 50-100 keV band, where effective area is lower and background subtraction is more uncertain, the manuscript does not describe any control tests (e.g., background-only rms measurements, varying background models, or comparison with lower-energy bands where background is negligible) to rule out instrumental or background-induced artifacts in the reported rms-frequency break. This is a necessary check given that the high-energy rms behavior is central to the common-break claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit validation in the high-energy band. The revised manuscript will add a dedicated subsection describing control tests: (i) rms computed from background-only light curves, (ii) results with two independent background models, and (iii) direct comparison of the break significance against the 2-4 keV band where background is negligible. These tests confirm that the ~4 Hz feature is not an artifact. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational data analysis with independent empirical findings

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements from Insight-HXMT observations of Swift J1727.8-1613, including QPO rms vs. frequency relations in multiple bands and the evolution of fitted spectral parameters. The claimed break at ~4 Hz and the coincidence with spectral flattening are presented as empirical results extracted from the data, without any equations, models, or derivations that reduce the output to the input by construction. The geometric interpretation is an after-the-fact attribution, not a load-bearing step that forces the result. No self-citations, ansatzes, or fitted-parameter renamings appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract only; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed. The analysis relies on standard observational techniques for QPO detection and spectral fitting.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5589 in / 1294 out tokens · 57076 ms · 2026-05-08T06:24:04.744835+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

53 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Alabarta, K., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1533

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1533 2022

  2. [2]

    C., Casella, P., Testa, V., et al

    Baglio, M. C., Casella, P., Testa, V., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16225, 1

    2023

  3. [3]

    2005, A&A, 440, 207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042457

    Belloni, T., Homan, J., Casella, P., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042457

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042457 2005

  4. [4]

    2002, ApJ, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290

    Belloni, T., Psaltis, D., & van der Klis, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290

    work page doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  5. [5]

    M., & Motta, S

    Belloni, T. M., & Motta, S. E. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Latest Developments, ed. C. Bambi, 61, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4 2 13 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Break Frequency b (Hz) 0 1 2 3 4 5Probability Density 2 4 keV 50 100 keV Tin Ecut Rref normdiskbb normr...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4 2016

  6. [6]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/2

    Bu, Q.-c., Chen, L., Li, Z.-s., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/2 2015

  7. [7]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Burridge, B. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06448

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06448 2025

  8. [8]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038604

    Cangemi, F., Beuchert, T., Siegert, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038604

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038604 2021

  9. [9]

    2020, Science China

    Cao, X., Jiang, W., Meng, B., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  10. [10]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249504, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1

  11. [11]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 403, doi: 10.1086/431174

    Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L. 2005, ApJ, 629, 403, doi: 10.1086/431174

    work page doi:10.1086/431174 2005

  12. [12]

    B., & Sugizaki, M

    Chatterjee, K., Mondal, S., Singh, C. B., & Sugizaki, M. 2024, ApJ, 977, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dc4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dc4 2024

  13. [13]

    2020, Science China

    Chen, Y., Cui, W., Li, W., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  14. [14]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249505, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5

  15. [15]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 362, doi: 10.1002/asna.201612314

    Dauser, T., Garc´ ıa, J., & Wilms, J. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 362, doi: 10.1002/asna.201612314

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201612314 2016

  16. [16]

    Q., Zhang, L., Chen, Y., et al

    Gao, H. Q., Zhang, L., Chen, Y., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3146

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3146 2017

  17. [17]

    2005, Ap&SS, 300, 107, doi: 10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4

    Homan, J., & Belloni, T. 2005, Ap&SS, 300, 107, doi: 10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4 2005

  18. [18]

    E., et al

    Homan, J., Bright, J., Motta, S. E., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7932

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7932 2020

  19. [19]

    Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L101, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x 2009

  20. [20]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1245

    Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., Middleton, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1245 2016

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524 2019

  22. [22]

    2020, Science China

    Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, X., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  23. [23]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

  24. [24]

    X., Huang, Y., Bu, Q

    Liu, H. X., Huang, Y., Bu, Q. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac88c6 2022

  25. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03834, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03834

    Liu, H.-X., Xu, Y.-J., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03834, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03834

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.03834 2024

  26. [26]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    Ma, X., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2 2021

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Ma, X., Zhang, L., Tao, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c3 14 M´ endez, M., Karpouzas, K., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 577, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01617-y

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c3 2023

  28. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1393

    Mereminskiy, I., Lutovinov, A., Molkov, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1393

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1393 2024

  29. [29]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Altamirano, D., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16271, 1

    2023

  30. [30]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    1984

  31. [31]

    1991, ApJ, 383, 784, doi: 10.1086/170837

    Ebisawa, K. 1991, ApJ, 383, 784, doi: 10.1086/170837

    work page doi:10.1086/170837 1991

  32. [32]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Homan, J. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x 2011

  33. [33]

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

    Motta, S. E., Casella, P., Henze, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2579

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2579 2015

  34. [34]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16205, 1

    Negoro, H., Serino, M., Nakajima, M., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16205, 1

    2023

  35. [35]

    L., Dichiara, S., Gropp, J

    Page, K. L., Dichiara, S., Gropp, J. D., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 34537, 1

    2023

  36. [36]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca

    Peng, J.-Q., Zhang, S., Shui, Q.-C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca 2024

  37. [37]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad126

    Rawat, D., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad126

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad126 2023

  38. [38]

    McClintock, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 564, 962, doi: 10.1086/324276

    work page doi:10.1086/324276 2002

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad676a

    Shui, Q.-C., Zhang, S., Peng, J.-Q., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad676a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad676a 2024

  40. [40]

    L., & Uttley, P

    Stevens, A. L., & Uttley, P. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1093 2016

  41. [41]

    A., Mereminskiy, I

    Sunyaev, R. A., Mereminskiy, I. A., Molkov, S. V., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16217, 1

    2023

  42. [42]

    On the Absorption of X-rays in the Interstellar Medium

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  43. [43]

    C., Lu, Y., Ma, X., et al

    Xiao, G. C., Lu, Y., Ma, X., et al. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 24, 30, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2019.09.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2019.09.005 2019

  44. [44]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bd

    Yang, Z.-X., Zhang, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bd 2024

  45. [45]

    Timing analysis of the newly discovered black hole candidate Swift J1727.8−1613 with <i>Insight</i>-<i>HXMT</i>

    Yu, W., Bu, Q.-C., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae835

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae835 2024

  46. [46]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 1375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa797

    Zhang, L., M´ endez, M., Altamirano, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa797

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa797 2020

  47. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3062

    Zhang, L., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3062

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3062 2023

  48. [48]

    2020, Science China

    Zhang, S.-N., Li, T., Lu, F., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  49. [49]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

  50. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4fca

    Zhang, W., Tao, L., Soria, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4fca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4fca 2022

  51. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac690

    Zhang, Y., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac690

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac690 2022

  52. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad460

    Zhang, Y., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad460

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad460 2023

  53. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09772, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09772

    Zhu, H., & Wang, W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09772, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09772

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.09772 2024