pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30894 · v1 · pith:XIKYJ3SAnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Energy-Resolved Limits on Orbital X-ray Polarization Modulation in Cygnus X-1

Sohee Chun , Bert Vander Meulen , Kun Hu , Henric Krawczynski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 01:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Cygnus X-1X-ray polarizationorbital modulationblack hole X-ray binariesstellar wind scatteringIXPEpolarization upper limitsspectral hardness correction
0
0 comments X

The pith

No significant orbital or half-orbital modulation appears in Cygnus X-1 X-ray polarization after hardness correction.

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

The paper tests the prediction that scattering off the companion star and its focused wind should produce polarization modulation at the orbital period or half-period in black hole X-ray binaries. All available IXPE observations of Cygnus X-1 are analyzed after noting that the normalized Stokes parameters track the spectral hardness ratio linearly in each energy band. A simultaneous harmonic regression removes this trend before testing for periodicity at both P_orb and P_orb/2; a parallel fit of Monte Carlo radiative-transfer templates for companion and wind scattering is also performed. Neither method finds a signal above noise, producing 99% upper limits on the modulation amplitudes that sit at or below the predicted values from stellar scattering. The non-detections are therefore sensitivity-limited rather than contradictory to the underlying model.

Core claim

After removing the spectral hardness trend, neither approach reveals statistically significant orbital modulation: permutation tests yield p > 0.01 in all bands, with 99% confidence upper limits of 0.47%, 0.67%, and 1.81% on the P_orb amplitude and 0.54%, 0.77%, and 2.13% on the P_orb/2 amplitude in the 2-4 keV, 4-6 keV, and 6-8 keV bands, respectively. The best-fit stellar companion and wind-scattering amplitude scaling factors in the three bands of A = 0.78±0.89, 0.96±0.62, and −1.02±1.11 are consistent with a null result. These non-detections are sensitivity-limited, as the predicted stellar companion and wind-scattering RMS amplitudes in the three bands of ≈0.10%, ≈0.33%, and ≈0.49% are

What carries the argument

Simultaneous harmonic regression that decouples linear correlations of normalized Stokes parameters with spectral hardness ratio, together with direct fitting of 3D Monte Carlo radiative-transfer templates for stellar-companion and wind scattering.

If this is right

  • Additional exposure is required to reach the predicted signal amplitudes of roughly 0.1–0.5% RMS.
  • Once the predicted modulation is detected, its energy dependence can constrain the density and geometry of the focused stellar wind.
  • The same regression-plus-template approach can be applied to other black-hole X-ray binaries observed by IXPE.
  • Current data already exclude modulation amplitudes larger than the stated percentages at 99% confidence in each band.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear hardness correlation persists in future data, the same correction technique will remain essential for isolating orbital signals.
  • The limits provide a quantitative benchmark for the exposure needed to test wind-scattering predictions in high-mass X-ray binaries generally.
  • A non-detection at current sensitivity leaves open whether the actual scattering amplitudes are smaller than modeled or simply remain below the noise floor.
  • Extending the analysis to include phase-resolved spectral fitting could further tighten constraints on wind parameters even before modulation is detected.

Load-bearing premise

The normalized Stokes parameters correlate linearly with the spectral hardness ratio in all three energy bands, allowing the regression to fully separate spectral variability from any orbital modulation signal.

What would settle it

Detection of P_orb or P_orb/2 polarization amplitude above the reported 99% upper limits (for example, >0.47% in the 2-4 keV band) at p < 0.01 in new or reprocessed IXPE data would falsify the non-detection result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30894 by Bert Vander Meulen, Henric Krawczynski, Kun Hu, Sohee Chun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: X-ray polarization in Cygnus X-1 from IXPE. Top and bottom panels show the polarization degree (PD) and angle (PA) as a function of Modified Julian Date (MJD). Data points are color-coded by spectral state, defined by the hardness ratio (HR; hard state if HR ≥ 0.46 and soft state if HR < 0.46). The PD is higher in the hard state than in the soft state, while the PA remains stable across states. All statist… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hardness ratio (HR) as a function of orbital phase for the 26 one-day bins. The absence of significant correla￾tion shows that the spectral state sampling is approximately uniform across orbital phases, validating the simultaneous regression approach of Section 4. 5.599829±0.000016 days (C. Brocksopp et al. 1999), our 2022–2024 observations correspond to ∼3,300 elapsed orbital cycles. Propagating the perio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized Stokes parameters q (top row) and u (bottom row) as a function of hardness ratio for the 2–4 keV (left), 4–6 keV (middle), and 6–8 keV (right) energy bands. The dashed lines show the HR-dependent trends extracted from the first harmonic regression (Porb; Section 4). The corresponding trends derived from the second harmonic (Porb/2) model are nearly identical, except in the noise-dominated 6–8 ke… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Polarization degree (PD, top row) and polarization angle (PA, bottom row) as a function of the hardness ratio (HR) in the 2–4, 4–6, and 6–8 keV energy band columns (left to right). Green and blue points represent observations in the hard (HR ≳ 0.46) and soft (HR ≲ 0.46) states, respectively. The vertical dotted line shows the approximate state transition boundary. The horizontal colored dashed lines indica… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Injection-recovery test for all three energy bands (columns) under the 1st (top row) and 2nd (bottom row) harmonic models. For each injected amplitudes Rinj (x-axis), 103 trials were run with fake signals injected into simulated noise drawn from the observational uncertainties (Equation 8). Points show the mean recovered amplitude Rrec (y-axis) over these trials. The black dashed line indicates perfect rec… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Null amplitude distributions from 104 phase-shuffled datasets for the 2–4 keV (blue), 4–6 keV (orange), and 6–8 keV (green) bands for the first (upper) and second (lower) harmonics. The vertical solid line marks the observed amplitude Robs, the quantity of interest, and the dashed line marks the 99th percentile upper limits. A signal would appear as Robs lying in the upper tail of the null distribution. Ba… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: IXPE Stokes residual curves (q and u) phase-folded over the orbital period for the 2–4 keV (left), 4–6 keV (middle), and 6–8 keV (right) energy bands. Black circles with error bars represent the observed data points after removing the HR trend. The colored curves show the best-fit 3D Monte Carlo radiative transfer templates predicted by the SKIRT simulation (B. Vander Meulen et al. 2026), scaled by the bes… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reflection off the companion star and its focused stellar wind is predicted to modulate the X-ray polarization of black hole X-ray binaries at half the orbital period ($P_{\rm orb}/2$), with an energy-dependent amplitude. We test this prediction against all publicly available IXPE observations of Cygnus X-1, comprising 26 one-day bins from 12 observation IDs spanning 2022-2024. Since the normalized Stokes parameters correlate linearly with the spectral hardness ratio in all three energy bands (2-4, 4-6, and 6-8 keV), we employ a simultaneous harmonic regression that decouples spectral variability from orbital modulation at both $P_{\rm orb}/2$ and $P_{\rm orb}$, complemented by direct fitting of 3D Monte Carlo radiative transfer stellar companion and wind-scattering templates. After removing the spectral hardness trend, neither approach reveals statistically significant orbital modulation: permutation tests yield $p > 0.01$ in all bands, with 99% confidence upper limits of 0.47%, 0.67%, and 1.81% on the $P_{\rm orb}$ amplitude and 0.54%, 0.77%, and 2.13% on the $P_{\rm orb}/2$ amplitude in the 2-4 keV, 4-6 keV, and 6-8 keV bands, respectively. The best-fit stellar companion and wind-scattering amplitude scaling factors in the three bands of $A = $ 0.78$\pm$0.89, 0.96$\pm$0.62, and $-$1.02$\pm$1.11 are consistent with a null result. These non-detections are sensitivity-limited, as the predicted stellar companion and wind-scattering RMS amplitudes in the three bands of $\approx$0.10%, $\approx$0.33%, and $\approx$0.49% are at or below the statistical noise floor of $\sim$0.15%, $\sim$0.31%, and $\sim$0.84%. We quantify the additional exposure required to detect the predicted signal and constrain the wind physics.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes all publicly available IXPE observations of Cygnus X-1 (26 one-day bins from 12 observation IDs, 2022-2024) to test predictions of orbital X-ray polarization modulation at P_orb/2 (and P_orb) arising from reflection off the companion star and focused stellar wind. After noting linear correlations between normalized Stokes parameters and spectral hardness ratio in the 2-4, 4-6, and 6-8 keV bands, the authors apply simultaneous harmonic regression to decouple spectral variability from orbital signals, supplemented by direct fits of 3D Monte Carlo radiative-transfer templates for stellar-companion and wind-scattering contributions. Permutation tests yield p > 0.01 in all bands, producing 99% upper limits of 0.47%/0.54%, 0.67%/0.77%, and 1.81%/2.13% on the P_orb and P_orb/2 amplitudes, respectively; the fitted scaling factors A are consistent with zero. The non-detections are attributed to sensitivity limits, and the additional exposure needed to reach the predicted RMS amplitudes (~0.10-0.49%) is quantified.

Significance. If the result holds, the work supplies the first energy-resolved observational upper limits on the predicted orbital polarization modulation in a canonical black-hole X-ray binary, demonstrating that current IXPE data are sensitivity-limited rather than in tension with the stellar-wind reflection model. The combination of permutation tests on hardness-detrended data and external Monte Carlo template fitting provides a reproducible, non-circular statistical framework. Quantifying the exposure required to detect the signal offers concrete guidance for future observations and for constraining wind clumping or geometry parameters.

major comments (1)
  1. [section introducing the simultaneous harmonic regression] The central analysis rests on the premise that normalized Stokes parameters correlate linearly with the hardness ratio in each band, allowing the simultaneous harmonic regression to fully remove spectral variability before periodicity testing. While the abstract states that the correlation exists, the manuscript does not appear to report the correlation coefficients, residual scatter after the linear fit, or any diagnostic plots; without these, it is difficult to judge whether the detrending is complete or whether unmodeled non-linear residuals could bias the p-values or upper limits.
minor comments (2)
  1. The 26 one-day bins are drawn from 12 observation IDs; a table listing the ObsIDs, exposure times, and mean hardness ratios per bin would improve reproducibility and allow readers to assess any post-selection effects.
  2. The reported scaling factors A = 0.78±0.89, 0.96±0.62, -1.02±1.11 are stated to be consistent with a null result, but the text does not explicitly compare their uncertainties to the predicted RMS amplitudes (~0.10%, 0.33%, 0.49%) to illustrate the sensitivity floor.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [section introducing the simultaneous harmonic regression] The central analysis rests on the premise that normalized Stokes parameters correlate linearly with the hardness ratio in each band, allowing the simultaneous harmonic regression to fully remove spectral variability before periodicity testing. While the abstract states that the correlation exists, the manuscript does not appear to report the correlation coefficients, residual scatter after the linear fit, or any diagnostic plots; without these, it is difficult to judge whether the detrending is complete or whether unmodeled non-linear residuals could bias the p-values or upper limits.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by explicitly reporting the correlation coefficients, residual statistics, and diagnostic information to allow readers to evaluate the linearity assumption and completeness of the detrending. In the revised version we will add these details (Pearson r values per band, residual RMS after the linear fit, and a supplementary figure showing the data, fits, and residuals) in the section describing the simultaneous harmonic regression. This addition will confirm that any residual non-linearity is negligible relative to the statistical uncertainties and does not affect the reported p-values or upper limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's central result is a null detection of orbital polarization modulation after applying an empirical linear detrending of normalized Stokes parameters against observed spectral hardness ratio, followed by permutation tests and external Monte Carlo template fits to derive upper limits. The linearity relation is presented as a data-driven observation used to justify the regression step, not as a definitional premise that forces the outcome. The fitted scaling factors A are reported as results (consistent with zero) rather than inputs that define the claimed limits by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes from prior author work are invoked as load-bearing elements in the provided text. The statistical procedure is externally falsifiable via the permutation tests and remains independent of the target null result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the linear hardness-polarization correlation used to remove spectral variability and on the accuracy of the 3D Monte Carlo radiative transfer models for stellar companion and wind scattering. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • amplitude scaling factor A = 0.78±0.89 (2-4 keV), 0.96±0.62 (4-6 keV), -1.02±1.11 (6-8 keV)
    Fitted scaling of the stellar companion and wind-scattering template amplitude in each energy band to the data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Normalized Stokes parameters correlate linearly with spectral hardness ratio in each energy band
    Invoked to justify simultaneous harmonic regression that decouples spectral variability from orbital modulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5958 in / 1519 out tokens · 54677 ms · 2026-07-01T01:27:21.305296+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

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 688, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450131 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ahlberg, V., Kravtsov, V., & Poutanen, J. 2024, A&A, 688, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450131 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, P...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450131 2024

  2. [2]

    D., et al

    Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Lalla, N. D., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Perspectives, ed

    Bambi, C. 2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Perspectives, ed. C. Bambi & A. Cárdenas-Avendaño (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 149–182, doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-2871-8_5 Bałucińska-Church, M., Church, M. J., Charles, P. A., et al. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 311, 861, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-87...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2871-8_5 2024

  4. [4]

    An Improved Orbital Ephemeris for Cygnus X-1

    Brocksopp, C., Tarasov, A. E., Lyuty, V. M., & Roche, P. 1999, A&A, 343, 861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812077

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9812077 1999

  5. [5]

    C., McLean, I

    Brown, J. C., McLean, I. S., & Emslie, A. G. 1978, A&A, 68, 415

    1978

  6. [6]

    2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381

    Camps, P., & Baes, M. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381 2020

  7. [7]

    G., Schwarz, H

    Clarke, D., Stewart, B. G., Schwarz, H. E., & Brooks, A. 1983, A&A, 126, 260 Di Marco, A., Soffitta, P., Costa, E., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f 1983

  8. [8]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 2755, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811020779

    Done, C. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 2755, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811020779

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271811020779 2011

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierliński, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 Dovčiak, M., Muleri, F., Goosmann, R. W., Karas, V., &

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 2007

  10. [10]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/75 Dovčiak, M., Podgorný, J., Svoboda, J., et al

    Matt, G. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/75 Dovčiak, M., Podgorný, J., Svoboda, J., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12050054

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/75 2011

  11. [11]

    R., & Bolton, C

    Gies, D. R., & Bolton, C. T. 1986a, ApJ, 304, 371, doi: 10.1086/164171

    work page doi:10.1086/164171

  12. [12]

    R., & Bolton, C

    Gies, D. R., & Bolton, C. T. 1986b, ApJ, 304, 389, doi: 10.1086/164172

    work page doi:10.1086/164172

  13. [13]

    Good, P. I. 2005, Permutation, Parametric, and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses, 3rd edn. (New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media)

    2005

  14. [14]

    2013, A&A, 554, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321128 15

    Grinberg, V., Hell, N., Pottschmidt, K., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321128 15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321128 2013

  15. [15]

    A., et al

    Hanke, M., Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 690, 330, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/330

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/330 2009

  16. [16]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  17. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  18. [18]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 10837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3961

    Jana, A., & Chang, H.-K. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 10837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3961

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3961 2024

  19. [19]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007 2015

  20. [20]

    V., Piirola, V., et al

    Kravtsov, V., Berdyugin, A. V., Piirola, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038745

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038745 2020

  21. [21]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555411

    Kravtsov, V., Bocharova, A., Veledina, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555411

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555411 2025

  22. [22]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/133

    Krawczynski, H. 2012, ApJ, 754, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/133

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/133 2012

  23. [23]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7725

    Krawczynski, H., & Beheshtipour, B. 2022, ApJ, 934, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7725

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7725 2022

  24. [24]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovčiak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    work page doi:10.1126/science.add5399 2022

  25. [25]

    Leahy, D. A. 1987, A&A, 180, 275

    1987

  26. [26]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  27. [27]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1933

    Majumder, S., Kushwaha, A., Singh, S., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1933

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1933 2026

  28. [28]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363 Miškovičová, I., Hell, N., Hanke, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322490

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb3363 2021

  29. [29]

    2005, Science, 307, 77, doi: 10.1126/science.1105746 O’brien, R

    Narayan, R., & Quataert, E. 2005, Science, 307, 77, doi: 10.1126/science.1105746 O’brien, R. M. 2007, Quality & Quantity, 41, 673, doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1105746 2005

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Poutanen, J., Zdziarski, A. A., & Ibragimov, A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 389, 1427, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13666.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13666.x 2008

  31. [31]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022 2021

  32. [32]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    work page doi:10.1086/160554 1982

  33. [33]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 701, 1175, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1175

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1175 2009

  34. [34]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/908

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/908 2010

  35. [35]

    F., Nathan, E., Hu, K., et al

    Steiner, J. F., Nathan, E., Hu, K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 969, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad58e4 Vander Meulen, B., Camps, P., Savić, Ð., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A297, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450773 Vander Meulen, B., Camps, P., Stalevski, M., & Baes, M. 2023, A&A, 674, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245783 Vander Meulen, B., ...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad58e4 2024

  36. [36]

    SciPy1.0: FundamentalalgorithmsforscientificcomputinginPython,

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  37. [37]

    C., Silver, E

    Weisskopf, M. C., Silver, E. H., Kestenbaum, H. L., Long, K. S., & Novick, R. 1978, ApJL, 220, L117, doi: 10.1086/182648

    work page doi:10.1086/182648 1978

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1937

    Zhang, W., Dovčiak, M., Bursa, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1937

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1937 2022