Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 13 references

Circumstellar Disc and X-ray Variability in the Be/X-ray Binary SXP 5.05 During its 2024 Outburst

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The 2024 outburst of the Be/X-ray binary SXP 5.05 was a weaker accretion episode than its 2013 outburst, with a circumstellar disc roughly 7% smaller in radius, as inferred from reduced optical variability and confirmed by shorter, fainter

desk verdict New 2024 NICER/OGLE data on a rare eclipsing Be/X-ray binary give a plausible qualitative picture of a weaker outburst, but the paper's one quantitative claim—a ~7% smaller disc—rests on a magnitude substitution that doesn't hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19373 v1 pith:JWTCXO2Y submitted 2026-06-17 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Chintan Patel , Sayantan Bhattacharya , Karan Akbari , Rajapandi Nadar , Sudip Bhattacharyya , Manojendu Choudhury This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords Be/X-raybinarySXP5.05circumstellardiscX-rayoutburstaccretionneutronstarpulsarNICEROGLEphotometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the year-2024 outburst of the Be/X-ray binary SXP 5.05 was intrinsically weaker than its 2013 outburst because the Be star's circumstellar disc was slightly smaller and less dense. Combining NICER X-ray monitoring with two decades of OGLE optical photometry, it shows a shorter, fainter X-ray decay, a smaller optical variability amplitude (0.15 mag vs 0.30 mag), and a persistent phase-locked dip in the orbital light curve. The quantitative claim is that the disc radius in 2024 was about 93% of its 2013 value, a ~7% shrinkage that would directly reduce the fuel available for accretion. If correct, SXP 5.05 is a rare system where the neutron star serves as a line-of-sight probe of a Be disc that changes measurably on decade timescales.

What carries the argument

The central object is the circumstellar decretion disc of the Be star, whose emitting area is assumed to scale with the disc radius squared (F∝R²_disc). This yields the magnitude-to-radius identity R2/R1 = 10^{-0.2 Δm}, used to convert the optical amplitude difference into a disc-size ratio. The other key mechanism is the orbital-phase-folded optical light curve, which isolates a stable non-axisymmetric density structure (the dip near phase 0.7-0.8) that the neutron star samples as it orbits. The X-ray hardness-intensity diagram tracks the spectral state transition from soft/high to hard/low.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the disc size in both epochs — e.g., via optical interferometry resolving the disc, or via Hα line flux that traces disc extent — that shows no significant size difference would falsify the claim. Alternatively, if a future outburst shows a similar optical amplitude but a much higher X-ray peak, the amplitude-to-size scaling would be invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a comparison between two outbursts of SXP 5.05 separated by ~10.6 years. The 2024 outburst was 'shorter and fainter' than 2013, with lower peak count rate (~8-10 to ~1 counts/s decline vs. higher in 2013) and reduced fluence. The optical light curves show a halved variability amplitude (ΔI≈0.15 mag vs 0.30 mag), which the authors attribute to a less extended or less dense circumstellar disc. Using the simplified scaling F∝R²_disc, they obtain R_2024/R_2013 ≈ 10^{-0.2×0.15} ≈ 0.93, i.e., a disc 'moderately (~7%) smaller'. Additionally, a phase-locked dip near orbital phase 0.7-0.8 persists across both epochs, indicating a stable non-axisymmetric disc structure that in

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative '7% smaller disc' rests on the assumption that the optical variability amplitude scales directly with the disc's emitting area (F∝R²_disc) and that the 0.15 mag amplitude can be treated as the inter-epoch magnitude difference; if the modulation traces a non-axisymmetric density structure or inclination change instead of disc size, the radius ratio collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a 7% smaller disc halves the optical variability and weakens the X-ray outburst, then disc size is a primary control on outburst energetics in SXP 5.05, not just accretion physics.
  • The persistence of the phase-locked optical dip over a decade implies the non-axisymmetric disc structure (a warp or density enhancement) is long-lived, surviving between outbursts.
  • The softer-to-harder spectral evolution during the 2024 decline matches the standard picture of magnetically channeled accretion; the stable 5.05 s spin period shows the neutron star's rotation is unaffected by the weaker episode.
  • These results make SXP 5.05 a benchmark for using X-ray dips as disc probes, strengthening the case for coordinated X-ray/optical monitoring of Be/X-ray binaries.
  • If the disc continues to shrink, a future outburst should be even fainter, or absent, unless the disc regrows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 7% figure is likely a lower limit: if the density or temperature distribution also changed, the actual radius difference could be larger (the paper itself notes this).
  • The assumption that ΔI=0.15 mag (an intra-epoch modulation) can be substituted for the inter-epoch magnitude difference in Eq. (1) is questionable — the intra-epoch modulation may reflect a non-axisymmetric density contrast rather than mean disc size; a fairer comparison would use the mean brightness between epochs.
  • A testable extension: measure the optical brightness baseline (not just amplitude) in future quiescent phases; a smaller mean disc would show a systematic reddening or brightness change, separable from amplitude effects.
  • Connecting to neighbouring systems, the same F∝R²_disc scaling could be applied to other Be/X-ray binaries with multi-epoch photometry to see whether disc-size changes predict outburst strength across the class.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyses the 2024 outburst of the Be/X-ray binary SXP 5.05 using NICER X-ray data and OGLE I-band optical photometry, and compares it with the 2013 outburst. It reports a declining X-ray light curve with a soft-to-hard transition, coherent pulsations near 5.05 s with pulse fractions ~0.5–0.7, a reduced optical modulation amplitude (ΔI ≈ 0.15 mag vs 0.30 mag), and Eq. (3) inferring a disc radius ~7% smaller in 2024 than in 2013. Phase-folded optical light curves are used to argue for a persistent non-axisymmetric disc feature near phase 0.7–0.8 and for structural evolution across outburst and quiescent epochs. The central claim is that the 2024 outburst was a weaker accretion episode driven by a less extended/dense circumstellar disc.

Significance. The paper's value lies in the multi-epoch comparison of a rare eclipsing Be/X-ray binary, using public NICER and OGLE data. If the qualitative picture is correct, it strengthens the interpretation of SXP 5.05 as a system whose X-ray and optical variability is governed by the evolving Be-star disc, and it adds a second outburst epoch to the 2013 baseline. The timing analysis is competently executed and the pulse-period measurement is consistent with previous values at the ~3σ level. However, the only new quantitative result—the 7% disc-size reduction—depends on an unjustified substitution in Eq. (3), and the X-ray data set loses 12 of 18 observations, including a six-visit gap in the middle of the outburst. As a result, the quantitative claim is not supported, and the qualitative 'weaker 2024 outburst' claim rests on sparse coverage.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (3)] The quantity Δm in Eq. (1) is the difference in magnitude between two epochs at comparable orbital phase (or mean magnitudes), not the peak-to-trough amplitude within a single epoch. The paper sets ΔI = 0.15 mag, which is the 2024 modulation amplitude, and obtains R2024/R2013 = 10^{−0.2×0.15} ≈ 0.93. This is not a valid application of Eq. (1). The 2013 amplitude is 0.30 mag and the 2024 amplitude is 0.15 mag, but neither the 0.15 mag nor the difference of the two amplitudes is the inter-epoch magnitude difference required. Unless the mean I-band magnitude of the system in 2024 is shown to be 0.15 mag fainter than in 2013, the 7% number has no basis. The paper itself calls the scaling 'much simplifying' and a lower limit, but still carries the 7% into the conclusions and abstract. This is load-bearing and needs to be removed or replaced with a proper inter-epoch measurement.
  2. [§2.1/Table 1 and §4.1] The X-ray data used for the outburst light curve consist of only 6 of 18 ObsIDs. ObsIDs 7204640105–7204640110 (MJD 60522–60530) are all empty after GTI filtering, creating an ~8-day gap in the middle of the decline. The claims of a monotonic decline from ~8–10 ct/s to ~1 ct/s, and the comparison of duration and peak with the 2013 outburst, are therefore based on very sparse sampling. The 2013 comparison is not quantified anywhere: no 2013 X-ray light curve or fluence is shown. I recommend either supplementing with the 2013 data (e.g., from Coe et al. 2015) in a consistent way, or softening the 'shorter and fainter' / 'reduced fluence' conclusions to what the sparse 2024 coverage can support.
  3. [§4.3, Eqs. (2)–(3)] Even if the correct inter-epoch Δm were used, the inference R ∝ 10^{−0.2Δm} relies on F ∝ R^2 for the disc emission. This ignores density distribution, inclination, and non-axisymmetric structure—factors that the cited literature (Coe et al. 2015; Brown et al. 2019) identifies as dominant drivers of SXP 5.05's variability. The paper acknowledges the simplification but still elevates the 7% result to a quantitative conclusion. A quantitative disc-size statement is not supported without modelling these effects or adopting an independent disc-size diagnostic.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1/Table 1] The text says ObsIDs 7204640101 and 7204640105–7204640110 yielded empty GTI intervals, but Table 1 also marks 7204640102 with the † symbol. Please clarify which ObsIDs were excluded and why.
  2. [§3.3 vs Table 3] The text reports P = 5.04286 ± 0.00254 s for segment 6 of ObsID 7204640104, but Table 3 lists 5.044 ± 0.003 s for that segment. The 'mean spin period' in §4.4 is also not clearly defined as a weighted mean of Table 3. Please reconcile the values and state the averaging procedure.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'mostly og short durations' in §3.2; 'NICERX-ray' in the abstract; and missing spaces before some parenthetical references. A careful proofread is needed.
  4. [References] Coe et al. (2015) appears twice in the reference list with different page ranges and DOIs (2387–2403 vs 2387–2399; stu2568 vs stu2595). One entry appears to be a duplicate. Also, the caption of Figure 8 cites 'Table 6. [Coe et al., 2015]' in a non-standard format.
  5. [Figure 8] The four phase-folded light curves have different time baselines and possibly different numbers of points per bin, but no binning information or error bars are visible in the caption. The visual comparison of 'amplitude' and 'morphology' would be easier to assess with stated binning and error bars.
  6. [§3.4] The description of the phase-folded profiles says 'no two epochs share an identical morphology' and 'no single well-defined minimum' for epoch 2, but these statements are not quantified with a statistical measure (e.g., a fit or significance test). Please provide a quantitative comparison or temper the wording.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quantitative disc-size reduction in Eq. (3) is a deterministic rescaling of the observed optical amplitude; remaining analysis is observational.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Eq. (3)]
    "Applying this relation to the observed optical amplitudes, with ∆I ∼ 0.30 mag during the 2013 outburst and ∼ 0.15 mag in 2024, we obtain: R2024/R2013 ≈ 10^{−0.2×0.15} ≈ 0.93. This suggests that the circumstellar disc during the 2024 outburst was moderately (∼7%) smaller than during the 2013 event."

    The disc radius ratio is computed solely from the observed optical amplitude ΔI via the assumed scaling R∝10^{−0.2Δm}. Since Eq. (3) is a monotonic transformation of the input amplitude, the '7% smaller disc' is not an independent prediction but a rescaling of the observed 0.15 mag amplitude. Moreover, the paper substitutes the intra-epoch modulation amplitude (peak-to-trough) into an equation that requires the inter-epoch mean magnitude difference (m2−m1). Thus the quantitative result is determined by the input choice alone, and any conclusion drawn from it is equivalent to the input under the assumed power law. The paper acknowledges the assumption as 'much simplifying,' but still reports the 7% as a quantitative result, making it a fitted input called a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central qualitative claims—that the 2024 outburst is weaker and shorter, with spectral evolution, and that optical modulation is reduced—are directly based on observations (NICER and OGLE) and involve no circularity. No self-citation is load-bearing; the key prior works (Coe et al. 2015, Brown et al. 2019) are by different authors. The only circularity-adjacent step is the quantitative disc-size estimate in §4.3. Equation (3) takes the observed optical amplitude difference (or rather the 2024 intra-epoch amplitude) and maps it through a power-law assumption to a disc-radius ratio. Because the output is a deterministic function of the input, the '∼7% smaller disc' does not add new information; it is a rebadging of the observed 0.15 mag amplitude. Additionally, the equation is misapplied: it requires a magnitude difference between epochs, but the paper uses the modulation amplitude. While the authors flag the scaling as 'much simplifying,' the result is still used as a quantitative conclusion, so the derivation partially reduces to its own input. This is a moderate circularity (score 4), not a complete collapse, because the main narrative rests on the raw observational comparison rather than on the transformed disc-size number.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central story leans on a handful of unpriced assumptions: the F∝R² mapping that turns the optical amplitude into the 7% radius change, the decade-old orbital ephemeris used for phase folding, the direct comparability of 2013 and 2024 instruments, and a two-component spectral model that could only be fit to 4 of 18 observations. No genuinely free fitted parameter drives the conclusions; the concerning item is the ad hoc substitution of the intra-epoch modulation amplitude for the inter-epoch magnitude difference in Eq. (3). No new physical entities are introduced — the non-axisymmetric/warped disc is carried over from Coe et al. 2015 and Brown et al. 2019.

free parameters (1)
  • Δm plug-in value in Eq. (3) (0.15 mag) = 0.15 mag — the 2024 intra-epoch modulation amplitude
    Eq. (3) uses Δm = 0.15 mag as the magnitude difference between epochs, but Eq. (1) requires the inter-epoch mean-flux difference. The 0.15 mag is the peak-to-peak amplitude of the 2024 folded optical profile, an ad hoc substitution that directly fixes the 7% disc-shrinkage result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Optical excess flux scales with disc emitting area: F ∝ R²_disc
    Invoked in §4.3 to convert ΔI into a radius ratio (Eqs. 2–3); ignores density distribution, inclination, and temperature dependence, which the paper acknowledges only in passing as caveats.
  • domain assumption The Coe et al. 2015 ephemeris (P_orb = 17.13 d, T0 = 56680.45 MJD) remains accurate through 2024 without period drift
    Used for all phase folding in §2.2 and Fig. 8. If the orbital period drifted over ~10.6 yr, the 'phase-locked dip' at φ≈0.7–0.8 could be a folding artifact. No new ephemeris is measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption 2013 outburst properties (longer, more luminous) are directly comparable to NICER measurements
    §4.1's weaker/shorter comparison assumes that the different instruments used in 2013 (per Coe et al. 2015) can be compared to NICER count rates/luminosities without a cross-calibration treatment; the 2013 quantitative values are never stated.
  • domain assumption TBabs(bbodyrad + powerlaw) is an adequate continuum model for the 0.5–10 keV NICER spectra
    Standard modeling choice in §3.2. Residuals are within ±3σ, but the model was fit to only 4 of 18 observations, and NH had to be fixed to 0.5×10^22 cm⁻² for two of the four (Table 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circumstellar Disc and X-ray Variability in the Be/X-ray Binary SXP 5.05 During its 2024 Outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWTCXO2Y

@misc{pith2026260719373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circumstellar Disc and X-ray Variability in the Be/X-ray Binary SXP 5.05 During its 2024 Outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWTCXO2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19373}
}
read the original abstract

Be/X-ray binaries provide a unique opportunity to study the interaction between neutron stars and circumstellar discs. SXP 5.05 is a particularly rare system, exhibiting eclipse-like X-ray variability attributed to obscuration by the Be star disc rather than a simple stellar eclipse. Motivated by its unusual geometry and the well-studied 2013 outburst, we present a multiwavelength analysis of its 2024 outburst using NICER X-ray observations and long-term optical monitoring from OGLE. The X-ray light curve shows a declining outburst with lower peak intensity and shorter duration compared to 2013, indicating a reduced accretion episode. The spectral evolution, characterized through hardness ratios, reveals a transition from a soft, high-intensity state to a harder, low-intensity state. Coherent pulsations near 5.05 s are detected throughout the observations, with properties consistent with previous measurements. The optical light curves show a reduced variability amplitude relative to 2013, possibly from a less extended or less dense circumstellar disc. Orbital-phase-folded optical profiles reveal a persistent, phase-locked dip structure, indicating a stable non-axisymmetric disc component that evolves across outburst phases. Together, these results support a picture in which the observed variability is driven by changes in disc structure and viewing geometry. SXP 5.05 thus remains a key system for probing the time-dependent properties of Be star discs through combined X-ray and optical observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intensity and hardness as a function of time (MJD), as the outburst progresses. We do not see the source turn softer again; either the transition was not monitored, or there are additional physics from the geometry and obscuration in SXP 5.05. (See sec 4) for details. 2 4 6 8 10 Intensity (ct/s, 0.3 10 keV) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Hardness ratio (3 10 / 0.3 3 keV) ObsID 7204640103 7204640104 72046401… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The hardness-intensity diagram (HID) of SXP 5.05 through NICER observations, with hard￾ness defined as the range 3-10 keV/0.3-3 keV. We can clearly see a separation in the hardness-intensity plane. 2.2 Optical Photometry: OGLE Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment data (OGLE-II, III and IV [Udalski et al., 1997] [Udal￾ski, 2004]) were used to investigate the long-term behavior of SXP 5.05. OGLE has been regularly… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. OGLE I - band optical light curves of SXP 5.05 during two outburst epochs separated by ∼3880 days (≈ 10.6 yr). Top: MJD 56570 – 56710 (2013–2014), peak brightness I ≈ 15.60 mag, amplitude ∆I ≈ 0.30 mag. Bottom: MJD 60455 – 60565 (2024), amplitude ∆I ≈ 0.15 mag. This provides a direct comparison of the two outbursts and see the ∆I ≈ is lower for the 2024 outburst. intensity. 3.2 Spectral Analysis The NICER observatio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral fitting of the 0.5–10 keV NICER spectrum of SXP 5.05 using the XSPEC model TBabs(bbodyrad + powerlaw) (see Section 3.2). The top panel shows the unfolded source spectrum (black crosses) together with the best￾fitting total model (solid red line). The dashed gr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure shows the spin period peak observed at 5.04286 s for SXP 5.05 observed in 2024 with NICER in 0.3-10 keV energy range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure show the pulse profile ob￾tained by folding the light curve at ∼ 5.05 s for en￾ergy ranges of 0.3-10 keV for the source SXP 5.05 observed with NICER during its 2024 outburst. 4 Discussion 4.1 Outburst duration and fluence The 2024 outburst of SXP 5.05, as o…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase folded I-band light curves of SXP 5.05 folded at Porb = 17.13 d with reference epoch T0 = 56680.45 MJD ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Power spectra (left) and pulse profiles (right) for GTI segments 1–6 of ObsID 7204640103. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Continued: Power spectra (left) and pulse profiles (right) for GTI segments 7–11 of ObsID 7204640103. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Energy dependence of the pulse fraction for individual GTI segments. The first three panels correspond to ObsID 7204640103 (GTI 1–3), followed by ObsID 7204640104 (GTI 1–8). 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. O. Brown, M. J. Coe, W. C. G. Ho, and A. T. Okazaki. Modelling the observable behaviour of sxp 5.05. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486 0 (3): 0 3078--3086, 2019. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1037

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1037 2019

  2. [2]

    M. J. Coe , E. S. Bartlett , A. J. Bird , F. Haberl , J. A. Kennea , V. A. McBride , L. J. Townsend , and A. Udalski . SXP 5.05 = IGR J00569-7226: using X-rays to explore the structure of a Be star's circumstellar disc . MNRAS, 447 0 (3): 0 2387--2403, March 2015. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2568

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2568 2015

  3. [3]

    M. J. Coe, E. S. Bartlett, A. J. Bird, et al. Sxp 5.05 = igr j00569-7226: using x-rays to explore the structure of a be star's circumstellar disc. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447 0 (3): 0 2387--2399, 2015. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2595

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2595 2015

  4. [4]

    M. J. Coe et al. Optical properties of small magellanic cloud x-ray binaries. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 356: 0 502--514, 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08467.x

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Gendreau , Zaven Arzoumanian , and Takashi Okajima

    Keith C. Gendreau , Zaven Arzoumanian , and Takashi Okajima . The Neutron star Interior Composition ExploreR (NICER): an Explorer mission of opportunity for soft x-ray timing spectroscopy . In Tadayuki Takahashi , Stephen S. Murray , and Jan-Willem A. den Herder , editors, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, volume 8443 of...

    doi:10.1117/12.926396 2012

  6. [6]

    Gendreau , Zaven Arzoumanian , Phillip W

    Keith C. Gendreau , Zaven Arzoumanian , Phillip W. Adkins , Cheryl L. Albert , John F. Anders , Andrew T. Aylward , Charles L. Baker , Erin R. Balsamo , William A. Bamford , Suyog S. Benegalrao , Daniel L. Berry , Shiraz Bhalwani , J. Kevin Black , Carl Blaurock , Ginger M. Bronke , Gary L. Brown , Jason G. Budinoff , Jeffrey D. Cantwell , Thoniel Cazeau ...

    2016

  7. [7]

    W \=o tan: Comprehensive time-series detrending in python

    Michael Hippke, Trevor J David, Gijs D Mulders, and Ren \'e Heller. W \=o tan: Comprehensive time-series detrending in python. The Astronomical Journal, 158 0 (4): 0 143, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    NICER SCORPEON Background Model

    Craig Markwardt , Zaven Arzoumanian , Keith Gendreau , Jeremy Hare , and Nicer Team . NICER SCORPEON Background Model . In AAS High Energy Astrophysics Division Meeting \#21, volume 21 of AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, page 105.36, May 2024

    2024

Show all 13 references
  1. [9]

    Be/x-ray binaries

    Pablo Reig. Be/x-ray binaries. Astrophysics and Space Science, 332: 0 1--29, 2011. doi:10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Optical gravitational lensing experiment

    A Udalski, M Kubiak, and M Szymanski. Optical gravitational lensing experiment. ogle-2--the second phase of the ogle project. arXiv preprint astro-ph/9710091, 1997

    1997 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The optical gravitational lensing experiment

    Andrzej Udalski. The optical gravitational lensing experiment. real time data analysis systems in the ogle-iii survey. arXiv preprint astro-ph/0401123, 2004

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D. A. Verner , G. J. Ferland , K. T. Korista , and D. G. Yakovlev . Atomic Data for Astrophysics. II. New Analytic Fits for Photoionization Cross Sections of Atoms and Ions . ApJ, 465: 0 487, July 1996. doi:10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    Wilms , A

    J. Wilms , A. Allen , and R. McCray . On the Absorption of X-Rays in the Interstellar Medium . ApJ, 542 0 (2): 0 914--924, October 2000. doi:10.1086/317016

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.