Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Complex Energy-Dependent Behaviour of Quasi-Periodic Oscillation Observed in GRS 1915+105

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The apparent energy-dependent shift of the QPO frequency in GRS 1915+105 is better explained by two overlapping variability components than by a single oscillator whose frequency changes with energy.

desk verdict Careful, transparent LAXPC extension of the Mendez et al. two-component framework, but the two-component claim needs a calibrated model comparison before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13068 v1 pith:55RW2T6U submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.HE

Vaibhav Sharma , Ranjeev Misra , V. Jithesh , Shivani Chaudhary , Khushi Jirawala , J S Yadav , Pankaj Jain , N J Juris This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationsGRS1915+105blackholeX-raybinariesenergy-dependentQPOfrequencypowerdensityspectraphaselagsAstroSatLAXPCLorentziandecomposition
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 tries to establish that the apparent rise of the quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) frequency with X-ray energy in GRS 1915+105 is not an intrinsic property of a single oscillator. It argues, from AstroSat/LAXPC data in one orbit, that the QPO feature is better described by two closely spaced Lorentzian variability components: a narrow QPO and a broader "shoulder," whose centroid frequencies and widths stay fixed across energy bands while their relative strengths change. The case rests on simultaneous fits to four energy-resolved power spectra, on the absence of temporal frequency drift in dynamic power spectra, and on distinct fractional-rms and phase-lag energy dependences of the two components, most clearly in the second segment. If right, it implies that energy-dependent QPO frequency shifts seen in black hole X-ray binaries can arise from unresolved multiple variability components rather than from energy-dependent accretion geometry.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a simultaneous multi-Lorentzian fit. A Lorentzian is a bell-shaped peak in the power spectrum defined by a centroid frequency, a width (inverse quality factor), and a normalization. The paper ties the centroid frequency and width of each Lorentzian across the four energy-resolved power spectra, allowing only the normalizations (hence fractional rms) to vary; this forces any apparent frequency shift to be explained by changing relative amplitudes rather than by a moving centroid. This is combined with the constant-phase-lag cross-spectrum model, in which each component is internally coherent and mutually incoherent with others, and the real and imaginary parts of the cross-spectrum are fitted as the same Lorentzian profile multiplied by $\cos\phi$ and $\sin\phi$, with $\phi$ a frequency-independent phase lag per component. Dynamic power spectra computed in short windows serve as a control, testing whether the apparent shift could be a time-dependent drift rather than an energy effect.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to generate simulated light curves using a single Lorentzian whose centroid frequency genuinely increases with photon energy and then run the same simultaneous fitting pipeline; if the two-component model still improves $\chi^2$ there, the statistical preference alone cannot discriminate the interpretations, and one would instead look for direct evidence of two independent oscillators, such as a coherence dip between their frequencies or a flat phase lag within each component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the 4.0–40.0 keV band of a single AstroSat/LAXPC orbit, the QPO feature appears as a single peak in each of three light-curve segments, with centroids near 5.64, 6.64, and 4.61 Hz. When power spectra are made in four energy bands, the peak seems to shift upward with energy in Segments 1 and 2, but not in Segment 3. The paper shows that this apparent shift disappears under simultaneous modeling: a model with two Lorentzian components, with centroid frequencies and widths tied across energy bands, fits better than one drifting Lorentzian in both Segment 1 ($\chi^2$ reduction from 471.1 to 445.5) and Segment 2 (from 714.7 to 671) at equal degrees of freedom. The two components have centroids 5.52 and 6.20 Hz in Segment 1 and 6.66 and 7.94 Hz in Segment 2, and they show distinct fractional-rms energy spectra, with the shoulder exceeding the QPO by $2.8\sigma$ at 20–40 keV in Segment 2, and distinct phase-lag spectra, with a $3.6\sigma$ difference in the same band. Dynamic power spectra with 38-second windows show no clear temporal evolution of the frequency, supporting the interpretation that the energy dependence is a projection of two stationary components rather than a time-dependent drift.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the variability really consists of two steady, independent oscillators whose frequencies and widths are the same at every photon energy; if a single oscillator actually changes frequency, coherence, or phase with energy, the better two-component fit could be a modeling artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energy-dependent QPO centroid shifts reported in other black hole X-ray binaries should be re-checked with tied-frequency two-component fits, since what looks like a drift may be a changing mix of two stationary oscillators.
  • The QPO shoulder emerges as a distinct variability component with its own rms and phase-lag spectra, not merely an asymmetric tail of the main QPO, particularly above 20 keV.
  • The constant-phase-lag model provides a self-consistent description of the phase-lag spectrum around both component frequencies, so no intrinsic energy-dependent frequency is required by these data.
  • High-energy band coverage is what separates the two components in this observation, meaning future wide-band timing instruments can test this decomposition in other sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test beyond this paper would be to re-fit RXTE or Insight-HXMT observations of other black hole X-ray binaries that show energy-dependent QPO frequencies, such as XTE J1550–564 and Swift J1727.8–1613, with the same tied-frequency two-Lorentzian model; if the two-component preference repeats, the interpretation becomes general rather than source-specific.
  • The model assumes the two components are mutually incoherent with flat phase lags; one could measure the coherence function across the QPO feature, expecting lower coherence between the two component frequencies if they are truly independent oscillators.
  • A simulation study could inject a single energy-dependent Lorentzian into realistic LAXPC noise and run the identical fitting procedure; if the two-component model still wins, the chi-square improvement alone is not decisive, and the physical discriminator must be the distinct rms and phase-lag energy spectra.
  • The shoulder's low quality factor and steep rms rise resemble a Type-B-like companion in another source; tracking the shoulder across spectral states or longer observations could reveal whether it is a separate QPO type or a different variability process.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an energy-resolved timing analysis of the low-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the black hole X-ray binary GRS 1915+105 using one AstroSat/LAXPC observation (Orbit 02360). Power density spectra are constructed in four energy bands and fitted first with a single Lorentzian QPO whose centroid shifts with energy, and then with a two-Lorentzian model (QPO plus QPO shoulder) in which the centroid frequencies and widths are tied across energy bands. The two-component model yields a lower chi-square at the same number of degrees of freedom in the two segments where a frequency-energy trend is seen. The authors also fit the PDS together with the real and imaginary parts of the cross-spectrum using a constant-phase-lag model, reporting distinct fractional rms amplitude and phase-lag energy spectra for the two components, and conclude that the apparent energy-dependent evolution of the QPO feature may result from more than one variability component. A dynamic PDS analysis is used to argue against temporal frequency drift as the cause of the apparent energy dependence.

Significance. The paper is a careful observational study that applies a recent modeling approach (Méndez et al. 2024) to a new AstroSat/LAXPC observation, extending the two-component QPO interpretation to a different instrument with potentially better high-energy sensitivity. The data reduction follows standard LAXPC procedures, the fits are transparent with chi-square and degrees of freedom reported, and the interpretation is hedged in the abstract. The dynamic PDS analysis is a useful check against a trivial time-drift explanation. However, the statistical case for two components over a single energy-dependent Lorentzian is incomplete: the reported improvements in chi-square are between non-nested models and are not calibrated by simulations, bootstrap, or an information criterion. The later fractional-rms and phase-lag contrasts are derived within the assumed two-component, mutually incoherent framework, so they do not independently establish the existence of two components. The result is plausible and important if it holds, but the current evidence is not yet decisive.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and Abstract] The central claim rests on the comparison between a single energy-dependent Lorentzian and two energy-independent Lorentzians. In Segment 1 the chi-square improves from 471.1 to 445.5 for 509 degrees of freedom, and in Segment 2 from 714.7 to 671 for 660 degrees of freedom, i.e. equal degrees of freedom in each case. Because these models are non-nested, an equal-DOF Δχ² of 25.6 or 43.7 has no standard chi-square null distribution. The two Lorentzians are also strongly blended (separations of 0.68 and 1.28 Hz versus shoulder FWHM of roughly 1.2–1.7 Hz), so a single asymmetric or skewed line shape could plausibly mimic their sum. To support the conclusion that the QPO feature really comprises two components, please provide a calibration of the Δχ² distribution, for example by parametric bootstrap simulations of a single energy-dependent Lorentzian fitted with the two-Lorentzian model, or by using an information criterion / cross-validation on held-out energy bands. Without such a calibration, the superiority of the two-component model is not statistically established.
  2. [§3.5 and Figure 9] The 'reproduction' of the observed phase-lag spectrum by the derived model is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation of the two-component model. The model phase lags are computed from the same fitted cos and sin amplitudes that were used to model the real and imaginary parts of the cross-spectrum, under the explicit assumption that the variability consists of mutually incoherent Lorentzian components. Agreement between the derived and observed phase-lag spectra therefore confirms internal consistency of the assumed model class, but it cannot on its own discriminate between the two-component hypothesis and a single oscillator whose phase behavior changes with energy.
  3. [§§3.3–3.5 (modeling assumptions)] The physical interpretation assumes that the QPO feature consists of two stationary, mutually incoherent Lorentzian oscillators with energy-independent centroid frequencies and widths, and frequency-independent phase lags. The fractional-rms contrast in Figure 6 and the phase-lag contrast in Figure 10 are computed after accepting this decomposition, and they do not independently confirm that two components exist. If the true variability is a single oscillator whose frequency, coherence, or phase behavior genuinely changes with energy, the two-Lorentzian model could still improve chi-square without having physical reality. Please address this alternative explicitly, either by simulation-based model comparison of a single energy-dependent Lorentzian against the two-component model, or by identifying a measurable discriminant that is not constructed from the two-component fit. The current text does not rule out the single-oscillator alternative.
  4. [§3.2 and Figure 4] The dynamic PDS analysis used to argue against temporal drift has unquantified sensitivity. With a 38-s segment length and 0.08 Hz frequency resolution, the ability to detect a frequency drift of the magnitude and character that could produce the apparent energy-dependent shift is not demonstrated with injected signals or Monte Carlo simulations. Since this argument is used to support the 'intrinsic rather than time-dependent' statement in §4.1, it would strengthen the paper to report a sensitivity estimate or an upper limit on the drift amplitude that the dynamic PDS can exclude.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4] In the text describing Segment 2, '20-40 eV' should read '20-40 keV'.
  2. [§2] The observation identification string 'T01 030T01 9000000358' appears with irregular spacing (also in the Introduction); use a consistent formatting convention, preferably with the standard AstroSat proposal/observation syntax.
  3. [§3.5] The phase-lag formula phi(ν) = tan^{-1}(Im[CS]/Re[CS]) is not numbered; consider numbering it for ease of reference.
  4. [Figures 2, 6, 9, 10] Figure axes and captions use inconsistent notation for fractional rms ('frms' in the text, 'RMS' in Figure 6) and for phase lag ('Phase Lag (rad)' vs 'Phase Lag (radians)'); unify these labels.
  5. [Throughout] The text alternates between 'PDS' and 'PDSs' inconsistently (e.g., 'the PDS are generated' in §2); this is a stylistic issue but should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase-lag 'reproduction' and the frms/phase-lag 'support' for two components reduce to the fitted two-Lorentzian model; the central Δχ² comparison is empirical but uncalibrated.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 (Discussion; see also Sections 3.4 and 3.5)]
    "The simultaneous fit of the energy-resolved PDSs (Figure 5), together with the corresponding frms amplitude (Figure 6) and phase-lag spectra (Figure 10), supports that the observed QPO feature is composed of two distinct components, namely the QPO and the QPO shoulder."

    The frms amplitudes and phase lags are not independent measurements: they are fitted parameters of the same two-Lorentzian model that defines the components. Normalizations are free per energy band, and each component has its own phase angle in the cross-spectrum fit, so distinct frms and phase-lag values are available by construction. The 2.8σ and 3.6σ contrasts are differences between fitted parameters of the assumed model, not tests of whether the second Lorentzian exists. The only genuinely independent evidence offered is the equal-DOF Δχ² improvement in Section 3.3, so citing the model's own outputs as confirmation of the model is circular reinforcement.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 and Figure 9 caption]
    "To model the real and imaginary parts of the CS, we define additional models in xspec: for each variability component, the real and imaginary parts are described as Lorentzian×cos(ϕ) and Lorentzian×sin(ϕ), respectively, where ϕ represents the phase lag ... and is treated as a free parameter. ... The solid red curves show the phase-lag spectra derived from the best-fitting models to the real and imaginary parts of the cross-spectrum, without directly fitting the phase lags."

    The 'derived' model phase-lag curves are algebraically determined by the same fitted cos and sin amplitudes: for each component, Re_model = Lorentzian×cos(ϕ) and Im_model = Lorentzian×sin(ϕ), with ϕ a free parameter, so the model phase lag is arctan(Im_model/Re_model). The 'observed' phase lags are arctan(Im_data/Re_data) from the same binned cross-spectrum. Agreement between the two is therefore expected by construction; the exercise is a self-consistency check, not an independent prediction. Presenting it as 'demonstrating' the model provides a self-consistent description is accurate but should not be read as independent validation.

full rationale

The core model comparison in Section 3.3 is not circular: the two-component model with frequency and FWHM tied across energy bands is a genuinely different parameterization from the single-Lorentzian-per-band model, and its better χ² is an empirical statement about the data. However, the two models are non-nested and have equal DOF, so the reported Δχ² of 25.6 and 43.7 has no standard χ² null distribution; no simulation or bootstrap calibration is provided. This is a statistical weakness, not a circularity, but it weakens the independent content of the central claim. The circularity arises in the supporting evidence: the frms and phase-lag contrasts presented as confirmation of two components are parameters of the same two-Lorentzian model used to define the components, and the Figure 9 phase-lag 'reproduction' is a transformation of the fitted real and imaginary parts of the cross-spectrum. The paper labels the latter a derived, self-consistent description, which is honest, but the broader narrative treats these by-construction outputs as independent support. There is no load-bearing self-citation: citations to Yadav et al. (2016a) and Sharma et al. (2026) are motivational, and the phase-lag methodology is imported from Mendez et al. (2024), an external group. Overall, the central claim is partially circular: the two-component decomposition is defined by a fit, and its fitted properties are then recycled as evidence for the decomposition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model comparison rests on free Lorentzian parameters and the constant-phase cross-spectrum framework. Nothing is derived from first principles; the claim is a phenomenological re-description of one observation, supported by the differential behavior of fitted amplitudes and phase lags.

free parameters (5)
  • QPO centroid frequency and width (lower-frequency Lorentzian) = Segment 1: 5.52±0.04 Hz, Q~13.8; Segment 2: 6.66±0.03 Hz, Q~11.68
    Fitted to the full-band PDS and tied across energy bands in the simultaneous fit (Section 3.3). The central two-component claim depends on these values.
  • QPO shoulder centroid frequency and width (higher-frequency Lorentzian) = Segment 1: 6.20±0.15 Hz, Q~5.34; Segment 2: 7.94±0.12 Hz, Q~4.64
    Second Lorentzian introduced in Section 3.3; its existence is the paper's main claim.
  • Component normalizations (frms amplitudes) per energy band = Segment 2: QPO rms 2.12 to 5.36%, shoulder rms 0.99 to 7.86% across bands
    Free normalizations in each of the four energy bands; the differing energy trends of these fitted values are the evidence for distinct components (Section 3.4).
  • Phase lag phi per component per energy band = Segment 2, 20 to 40 keV: QPO -1.19±0.10 rad, shoulder -1.86±0.16 rad
    Free parameters in the constant-phase cross-spectrum model (Section 3.5); the 0.66±0.18 rad difference is a key result.
  • Power-law normalization for deadtime noise = not quoted
    Negative-normalization power law added to model deadtime effects in the full-band PDS fit (Section 3.5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The PDS can be decomposed into a sum of Lorentzian components plus a zero-centred broad-band component
    Standard multi-Lorentzian parameterization of X-ray variability (Nowak 2000; Belloni et al. 2002), invoked in Sections 3.1 to 3.3.
  • domain assumption Each variability component is internally coherent, has a frequency-independent phase lag between energy bands (linear response), and components are mutually incoherent
    The constant-phase-lag model taken from Mendez et al. (2024), used in Section 3.5 to extract component phase lags. Frequency-dependent intra-component phase behavior would invalidate the decomposition.
  • domain assumption LAXPC dead-time-corrected Poisson noise subtraction and the background correction factor C/(C-B) are correct
    The frms normalization follows Belloni and Hasinger (1990) and the LAXPC pipeline (Section 2); standard but not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption The dynamic PDS with 38 s windows and 0.08 Hz resolution would reveal any temporal frequency evolution relevant to the observed shift
    Used in Section 3.2 to conclude the frequency shift is intrinsic rather than time-dependent; sensitivity is not quantified.
invented entities (1)
  • QPO shoulder (second Lorentzian variability component)
    purpose: Explains the apparent energy-dependent QPO frequency shift as the changing relative strength of a second, slightly higher-frequency oscillation
    Introduced ad hoc in Section 3.3 to improve the PDS fit. Analogous components were reported by Mendez et al. (2024) in RXTE data of the same source and by Jin et al. (2026) in Swift J1727.8-1613, but those are analyses within the same interpretive framework, not independent falsifiable handles for this observation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complex Energy-Dependent Behaviour of Quasi-Periodic Oscillation Observed in GRS 1915+105." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55RW2T6U

@misc{pith2026260813068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complex Energy-Dependent Behaviour of Quasi-Periodic Oscillation Observed in GRS 1915+105},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55RW2T6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13068}
}
read the original abstract

We present complex energy-resolved properties of quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the black hole X-ray binary GRS 1915+105 using an observation from the LAXPC instrument onboard AstroSat. Power density spectra (PDSs) are constructed in multiple energy bands and modeled with multi-Lorentzian components to investigate the energy dependence of QPO properties. The QPO frequency shows a modest increase with energy. Dynamic PDS analysis does not reveal clear evidence for time-dependent evolution of the QPO frequency, suggesting that the observed frequency shift is not primarily driven by temporal variability. We perform simultaneous fitting of energy-resolved PDSs and find that a model in which the QPO feature is described by two Lorentzian components provides a better fit. The two components exhibit different evolution in fractional root mean square amplitude as a function of energy. We further examine the phase-lag properties by simultaneously modeling the PDS and the real and imaginary parts of the cross-spectrum and find distinct phase-lag behavior for the two components. Overall, these results indicate that the apparent energy-dependent evolution of the QPO feature may be a result of the presence of more than one variability component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orbit 02360 light curve of GRS 1915+105: The light curve is divided into three segments: Segment 1 (left of the red dashed line), Segment 2 (between the red dashed and blue dot-dashed lines), and Segment 3 (right of the blue dot-dashed line). vided in the LAXPC software10 for data reduction. The raw Level-1 data are first processed into Level-2 event files, which contain the arrival time and energy informa￾tion of i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power density spectra (PDS) of GRS 1915+105 in the 4.0-40.0 keV energy range. The figure shows the PDSs of the full orbit (top left) and Segments 1 (top right), 2 (bottom left), and 3 (bottom right). Bottom panels of all PDSs represent the residuals . 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Energy (keV) 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.25 QPO Frequency (Hz) Segment 1 Segment 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Energy Dependence of QPO Frequency in GRS 1915+105: The red and black data points correspond to Seg￾ments 1 and 2, respectively. (QPO with Q ∼ 11.68 ) and 7.94 ± 0.12 (QPO shoulder with Q ∼ 4.64) in Segment 2. The quality factor (Q) is defined as the ratio of the centroid frequency to the width of the Lorentzian profile. 3.4. Fraction Root Mean Square Amplitude To investigate this further, we compute the frms am￾pli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dynamic power density spectra of Segments 1 (left) and 2 (right) of GRS 1915+105 . 10−3 0.01 ν x P ν 2 5 −2 0 2 (data−model)/error Frequency (Hz) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simultaneous fits to the energy-resolved PDSs of Segment 2 of GRS 1915+105. The black, red, green, and blue points correspond to the 4.0–8.0 keV, 8.0–12.0 keV, 12.0–20.0 keV, and 20.0–40.0 keV bands, respectively. The PDSs are fitted with three Lorentzian components, w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy dependence of frms amplitude for Segments 1 (left) and 2 (right) of GRS 1915+105 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top-left panel shows the fit (red solid line) to the PDS in the 4.0–40.0 keV energy range in Segment 1 of GRS 1915+105, modelled with five Lorentzian components (black dotted lines) and a power-law. The middle-top panel shows the fit to the real part of the cross-s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Representative simultaneous fits of PDS, real and imaginary part of the CS for Segment 2 of GRS 1915+105. Left, Middle, and Right: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observed and derived phase-lag spectra for Segments 1 (left panel) and 2 (right panel) of GRS 1915+105. The phase lags are calculated from the cross-spectrum between the 8.0-12.0 keV energy band and the 4.0-8.0 keV reference band. The black points with error bars repre…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase lag of QPO and QPO Shoulder as a function of energy for Segments 1 (left) and 2 (right) of GRS 1915+105 . In Segment 1, the red and blue points correspond to the Lorentzian components with centroid frequencies of 5.54 Hz and 6.51 Hz, respectively, while in Segme…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Yadav, J

    Agrawal, P. C., Yadav, J. S., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 30, doi: 10.1007/s12036-017-9451-z

    doi:10.1007/s12036-017-9451-z 2017

  2. [2]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0150

    Banerjee, A., Bhattacharjee, A., Chatterjee, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0150

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0150 2021

  3. [3]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    Veledina, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922 2022

  4. [4]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 230, 103

    Belloni, T., & Hasinger, G. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 230, 103

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    2000, A&A, 355, 271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001103

    Belloni, T., Klein-Wolt, M., M´ endez, M., van der Klis, M., & van Paradijs, J. 2000, A&A, 355, 271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001103

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0001103 2000

  6. [6]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290

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

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  7. [7]

    Belloni, T., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W. H. G., et al. 1997, A&A, 322, 857

    1997

  8. [8]

    M., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., & Bhattacharya, D

    Belloni, T. M., M´ endez, M., Garc´ ıa, F., & Bhattacharya, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3639

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3639 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    M., Motta, S

    Belloni, T. M., Motta, S. E., & Mu˜ noz-Darias, T. 2011, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 39, 409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.3388 B¨ ottcher, M., & Liang, E. P. 1998, ApJ, 506, 281, doi: 10.1086/306226 B¨ ottcher, M., & Liang, E. P. 1999, ApJL, 511, L37, doi: 10.1...

    2011 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 426, 587, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041231

    Casella, P., Belloni, T., Homan, J., & Stella, L. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 426, 587, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041231

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

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

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

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

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

    Chakrabarti, S. K., Debnath, D., Nandi, A., & Pal, P. S. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 489, L41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810136

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    S., & Jain, P

    Dhaka, R., Misra, R., Yadav, J. S., & Jain, P. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2075

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´ nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    1997, ApJL, 482, L57, doi: 10.1086/310695

    Hua, X.-M., Kazanas, D., & Titarchuk, L. 1997, ApJL, 482, L57, doi: 10.1086/310695

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2009

  9. [17]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2373

    Ingram, A., & van der Klis, M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2373

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524 12

    2019

  11. [19]

    Vincentelli, F. M. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 706, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555907

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    G., van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., et al

    Jonker, P. G., van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 374, doi: 10.1086/309029

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3502

    Veledina, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3502

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Bradt, H., Morgan, E

    Levine, A. M., Bradt, H., Morgan, E. H., Remillard, R., & MIT/GSFC ASM Team. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 2970, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.12.019

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Qu, J

    Li, Z. B., Qu, J. L., Song, L. M., Ding, G. Q., & Zhang, C. M. 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 1704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts149

    doi

  16. [24]

    B., Zhang, S., Qu, J

    Li, Z. B., Zhang, S., Qu, J. L., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 433, 412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt737

    doi

  17. [25]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac615 M´ endez, M., Peirano, V., Garc´ ıa, F., et al

    Majumder, S., Sreehari, H., Aftab, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac615 M´ endez, M., Peirano, V., Garc´ ıa, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3786

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    H., Remillard, R

    Morgan, E. H., Remillard, R. A., & Greiner, J. 1997, ApJ, 482, 993, doi: 10.1086/304191

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    Motta, S. E. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 398, doi: 10.1002/asna.201612320

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    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

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Morgan, E

    Muno, M. P., Morgan, E. H., & Remillard, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 527, 321, doi: 10.1086/308063

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    Nowak, M. A. 1994, ApJ, 422, 688, doi: 10.1086/173762

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    Nowak, M. A. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 318, 361, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03779.x

    2000

  24. [32]

    Begelman, M. C. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 477, L91, doi: 10.1086/310528

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    Begelman, M. C. 1999, ApJ, 510, 874, doi: 10.1086/306610

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    A., & Wagoner, R

    Nowak, M. A., & Wagoner, R. V. 1993, ApJ, 418, 187, doi: 10.1086/173381

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Misra, R., & Uttley, P

    Pahari, M., Neilsen, J., Yadav, J. S., Misra, R., & Uttley, P. 2013, ApJ, 778, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/136

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    1999, ApJ, 520, 262, doi: 10.1086/307436

    Psaltis, D., Belloni, T., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 262, doi: 10.1086/307436

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Lu, F

    Qu, J. L., Lu, F. J., Lu, Y., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 836, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/836

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    Rawat, D., Misra, R., Jain, P., & Yadav, J. S. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac154

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2000, ApJ, 541, 883, doi: 10.1086/309469

    Reig, P., Belloni, T., van der Klis, M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 883, doi: 10.1086/309469

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C., et al

    Rodriguez, J., Corbel, S., Hannikainen, D. C., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 615, 416, doi: 10.1086/424036

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    F., et al

    Rodriguez, J., Durouchoux, P., Mirabel, I. F., et al. 2002, A&A, 386, 271, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020218

    2002 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Dedhia, D

    Roy, J., Agrawal, P. C., Dedhia, D. K., et al. 2016, Experimental Astronomy, 42, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-016-9508-z

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    S., Garg, A., & Jain, P

    Sharma, V., Misra, R., Yadav, J. S., Garg, A., & Jain, P. 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2280, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2280

    2026 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Tandon, S

    Singh, K. P., Tandon, S. N., Agrawal, P. C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, 91441S, ...

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    McClintock, J. E. 2000, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004215

    2000 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    A., & ˙Zycki, P

    Sobolewska, M. A., & ˙Zycki, P. T. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 405, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10475.x

    2006

  40. [48]

    1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075

    Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    Stella, L., Vietri, M., & Morsink, S. M. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 524, L63, doi: 10.1086/312291

    1999 doi

  42. [50]

    2000, ApJL, 542, L111, doi: 10.1086/312935 van den Eijnden, J., Ingram, A., & Uttley, P

    Titarchuk, L., & Osherovich, V. 2000, ApJL, 542, L111, doi: 10.1086/312935 van den Eijnden, J., Ingram, A., & Uttley, P. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw610 van den Eijnden, J., Ingram, A., Uttley, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2634 van...

    2000

  43. [51]

    1999, ApJL, 526, L33, doi: 10.1086/312365

    Wijnands, R., Homan, J., & van der Klis, M. 1999, ApJL, 526, L33, doi: 10.1086/312365

    1999 doi

  44. [52]

    S., Misra, R., Verdhan Chauhan, J., et al

    Yadav, J. S., Misra, R., Verdhan Chauhan, J., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 833, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/27 13

    doi

  45. [53]

    S., Agrawal, P

    Yadav, J. S., Agrawal, P. C., Antia, H. M., et al. 2016b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051D, ...

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt968

    Yan, S.-P., Ding, G.-Q., Wang, N., Qu, J.-L., & Song, L.-M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt968

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2885

    Yan, S.-P., Ji, L., Liu, S.-M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2885

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 5536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1041

    Zhang, L., M´ endez, M., Altamirano, D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 5536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1041

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ce4

    Zhu, H., & Wang, W. 2024, ApJ, 968, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ce4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.