Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Elemental Abundances in X-ray Binary Outflows

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper tentatively claims that elemental abundances in four X-ray binary outflows are non-solar and rise with atomic number, matching some core-collapse supernova yields.

desk verdict Careful, honest abundance measurements in four LMXB outflows with a real method comparison; the AMD power-law assumption is the main weak point, but the non-solar abundance claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19440 v1 pith:6I4ASZ4I submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.HE

Noa Keshet , Ehud Behar , Jon M. Miller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raybinariesoutflowselementalabundancesabsorptionmeasuredistributionChandra/HETGsupernovayieldsaccretionphysics
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 sets out to establish that the outflowing gas seen in absorption against four low-mass X-ray binaries is not of solar composition, and that its abundance pattern encodes the history of the compact object. Using Chandra/HETG spectra, the authors reconstruct the ionization distribution of the wind and derive elemental abundances relative to iron. They report a tentative trend of increasing abundance with atomic number that resembles some core-collapse supernova yield models, though no model matches exactly. If this trend is real, outflow spectroscopy becomes a way to infer the mass and metallicity of the supernova that created the black hole or neutron star, for material that cannot be observed directly.

What carries the argument

The central object is the absorption measure distribution (AMD), the distribution of hydrogen column density over ionization parameter, $dN_H/d\log \xi$. Each measured ionic column is related to the elemental abundance by $N_{\rm ion}=A_Z \int f_{\rm ion}(\xi)\,(dN_H/d\log\xi)\,d\log\xi$, where $f_{\rm ion}$ comes from Cloudy photoionization calculations. The paper assumes the AMD is a single power law with slope 1.0 and fixes its normalization by requiring that H-like and He-like ions of the same element give the same abundance, then averages the resulting elemental abundances. The alternative method is a global spectral fit with one or two discrete $\xi$ components using SPEX's pion model, with Fe abundance fixed to solar. The power-law AMD carries the argument: if it is wrong, the abundances are systematically wrong, and the paper itself notes that in GX 13+1 the S abundance from H-like and He-like ions cannot be reconciled by the single power law, yet the power law is retained.

What would settle it

Take a high-signal X-ray spectrum of GX 13+1's He- and H-like sulfur lines and measure their columns independently; if the S abundance inconsistency that the paper had to accept under a single power law persists, the assumed AMD shape is wrong and the abundance trend may be an artifact of that assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper discovers that the outflows of GRS 1915+105, GX 13+1, and 4U 1630-472, together with the previously measured GRO J1655-40, have non-solar elemental abundances relative to Fe when analyzed by a uniform ion-by-ion method. The abundance ratios in GX 13+1 rise steadily with atomic number to super-solar values for Ar, Ca, and Cr; 4U 1630-472 is sub-solar across the board; GRS 1915+105 shows a mixed pattern with high Cr and Mn. The paper compares these patterns with core-collapse supernova yields and finds that a high-mass, super-solar-metallicity model resembles GRS 1915+105, while a low-mass, sub-solar-metallicity model resembles the rising trend of GX 13+1 and 4U 1630-472, but in no case is the match exact. It also shows that global fits with one or two discrete ionization components recover the main abundance trends, though individual elements such as Cr can disagree between the two methods.

Load-bearing premise

Every abundance in the ion-by-ion analysis depends on the assumption that the outflow's ionization distribution is a single power law with slope 1.0; if the true distribution differs, all derived abundances will be systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the abundances are genuinely non-solar, outflow gas is not simply disk gas with cosmic composition but carries chemical material from the binary's formation, likely from the supernova that produced the compact object.
  • A confirmed rise of abundance with atomic number would give a discriminating observable for core-collapse supernova yield models, tying progenitor mass and metallicity to an observed X-ray spectrum.
  • The finding that a single power-law AMD with slope 1.0 describes all three new outflows suggests a common ionization structure in LMXB winds, distinct from the shallower AMDs found in AGN outflows.
  • Discrepancies between ion-by-ion and global-fit abundances for specific elements (e.g., Cr) imply that abundance claims from either method alone should be treated cautiously until higher-resolution spectra settle them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the atomic-number trend survives higher-resolution XRISM spectra, the same AMD-based analysis could be applied to a larger sample of outflows to map a distribution of compact-object progenitor masses, not just individual cases.
  • Inference: the comparison currently uses a few discrete supernova yield models; a Bayesian fit over the full mass-metallicity grid could quantitatively rank models even if no single model matches exactly, and would also propagate uncertainties from the AMD shape.
  • Inference: because the paper fixes Fe to solar abundance, a hidden column of fully ionized gas at high $\xi$ would shift the absolute scale of all relative abundances coherently; accounting for such a column could improve the supernova-model comparison.
  • Inference: if the universal slope-1.0 AMD is physically real rather than a fitting artifact, it may point to a common launching or ionization stratification mechanism in X-ray binary outflows that theoretical wind models could be tested against.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a uniform analysis of Chandra/HETG grating spectra of outflows in three low-mass X-ray binaries (GRS 1915+105, GX 13+1, and 4U 1630-472), and combines these with the previously published results for GRO J1655-40. Two methods are compared: an ion-by-ion approach that reconstructs the absorption measure distribution (AMD) and derives elemental abundances from Eq. (2), and a global SPEX fitting approach using one or two discrete ionization components. The main scientific claims are that the outflows have non-solar elemental abundances relative to Fe, that all AMDs are steep power-laws with slope 1.0 favoring high ionization, and that there is a tentative trend of increasing abundance with atomic number that resembles some core-collapse supernova yield models, though no model matches exactly.

Significance. If the abundance trend is real, it would provide a rare chemical fingerprint of the supernova progenitor that formed the compact object, with implications for progenitor mass and metallicity. The paper has several strengths: it applies a consistent methodology across three sources, reports ionic column densities and abundances with explicit uncertainties, uses two independent analysis methods, and includes self-consistency checks using H-like and He-like ions of the same element. The comparison with previously published abundances is careful. However, the central claim of an increasing abundance trend rests heavily on an assumed AMD shape that is not derived from first principles and that the paper itself shows to be internally inconsistent for one element in one source.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (2)] The ion-by-ion abundances are all computed from Eq. (2) using a single power-law AMD with slope 1.0 assumed a priori for all three targets. The paper does not report a goodness-of-fit for this AMD, and for GX 13+1 it explicitly states that this power-law cannot reconcile the sulfur abundance derived from S+15 and S+14. Yet the same power-law is retained for all abundance derivations in Table 6. Since the reported uncertainties are statistical only, the systematic error from the AMD shape is not propagated into the abundances that drive the increasing-with-Z trend and the SN-model comparison in Fig. 4. I request a quantitative exploration of the AMD shape (e.g., a broken power-law, a fitted slope, or an explicit systematic error term) to demonstrate that the trend is not an artifact of the assumed parameterization.
  2. [§4.2, Table 6, Fig. 2] The global SPEX fits for GRS 1915+105 yield two discrete components (log xi = 3.96 with NH = 0.42E24 cm-2 and log xi = 4.84 with NH = 0.13E24 cm-2) that imply a decreasing AMD with xi, whereas the ion-by-ion analysis assumes an increasing power-law with slope +1.0. The resulting abundance trends differ: the ion-by-ion method finds no obvious trend, while the global fit shows a moderate increase with atomic number. The paper attributes this to the crudeness of the global fit, but this is not sufficient because the sign of the AMD slope directly changes the abundances obtained from Eq. (2). The universal-slope claim in the abstract must be reconciled with this discrepancy, or the conclusions about abundance trends need to be restricted to the cases where the two methods agree.
  3. [§4.3, Fig. 4] The comparison to the Nomoto et al. supernova yields is purely qualitative. The paper states that 'none of the SN models fits perfectly any of the outflow abundances' and that the agreement is 'far from perfect,' yet the abstract concludes that the trend 'fits some core-collapse supernova models.' Without a quantitative measure such as a chi-squared statistic or likelihood, this statement overstates the support. I recommend either adding a quantitative comparison metric or softening the abstract and conclusion to say that the trend is 'qualitatively similar' to some models rather than 'fits' them.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1] The sentence 'This is achieved for all three targets using a single power-law AMD with a slope of 1.0' is immediately followed by a sentence stating that for GX 13+1 the single power-law cannot reconcile the sulfur abundances. This apparent contradiction should be rephrased to state explicitly that the power-law is adopted despite failing the self-consistency test for one element.
  2. [Table 5] The asymmetric error notation for v_out (e.g., '-930 -60 +150') is nonstandard and ambiguous; use conventional upper/lower error notation or explicitly define the error format.
  3. [Table 1 and Table 2] The word 'Table' is typeset with an erroneous space ('T able') in several table headers; this should be corrected.
  4. [§3.1] The text says 'The final values used in the analysis are those measured by the ion-by-ion code, which are listed in Table 3,' but Table 3 lists ionic column densities N_ion, not the final abundances. Please clarify the wording.
  5. [Figures 3 and 4] The y-axis label 'A_Z/A_Z(solar)' should use consistent subscript formatting, and the current label 'AZ' could be confused with a product of A and Z.
  6. [References] The citation 'XRISM collaboration 2025, in preparation' is incomplete; provide a fuller reference or remove it from the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: abundances are measured line-strength fits, the AMD is a nuisance parameter with acknowledged systematic risk, and the SN-model comparison uses external yields.

full rationale

The paper's central abundances are not predictions from a fitted model; they are derived from measured ionic column densities via Eq. (2). The AMD is reconstructed to enforce internal consistency between H-like and He-like ions of the same element, which is a self-consistency constraint on a nuisance parameter, not a definition of the abundance result. Although the choice of a single power-law AMD with slope 1.0 is an ansatz and the paper explicitly notes that for GX 13+1 it fails to reconcile the S abundances from different ions, this is a stated systematic limitation rather than circularity. The increasing-abundance-with-atomic-number trend is not encoded in the AMD, which is independent of Z, so the trend cannot be forced by construction. The comparison to core-collapse supernova yields uses external models (Nomoto et al. 2006, 2013), not the paper's own fitted values. Self-citations to Keshet et al. (2024) supply the method and the GRO J1655-40 data point, both previously published; they are inputs to the analysis, not conclusions derived here. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior self-citation is used to forbid alternative models. The paper's own caveat that 'there is no reason to assume this shape a-priori' acknowledges the main systematic risk without making the derivation circular. Overall, the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurements rest on the assumed power-law AMD, the Cloudy photoionization balance, and the solar Fe normalization. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are mostly modeling choices in the fitting procedure.

free parameters (5)
  • AMD power-law slope = 1.0 (all three targets)
    Assumed single power-law to satisfy abundance consistency between H-like and He-like ion pairs; not derived from a physical model (Sec 3.1, Sec 4.1).
  • AMD high-log xi cutoff = 6.5 (GRS 1915+105), 5.4 (GX 13+1), 5.4 (4U 1630-472)
    Chosen where Fe+25 fractional abundance drops to 10% of peak to keep the AMD finite; affects total column normalization (Sec 4.1).
  • Turbulent velocity vturb = 140 km/s (GRS 1915+105), 420 km/s (GX 13+1), 560 km/s (4U 1630-472)
    Adopted values; affect curve-of-growth ionic column measurements (Sec 3.1).
  • Fe abundance normalization = Solar (1.0 relative)
    Fixed to solar because no H lines are observed; all other abundances are measured relative to Fe (Sec 4.1).
  • Comptonization optical depth = 0.001
    Fixed for all targets in global fits (Sec 3.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The outflow is in steady-state photoionization equilibrium described by the ionization parameter xi.
    Used to connect ionic column densities to hydrogen column via Eq. 2; the balance between photoionization and recombination is assumed (Sec 1, Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption Ionic fractional abundances f_ion(xi) are correctly computed by Cloudy for each target SED.
    The f_ion values are taken from Cloudy photoionization calculations for the specific broadband continuum (Sec 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The AMD can be represented by a power-law, possibly broken.
    Assumed shape with no physical derivation; acknowledged in Sec 5 as a limitation.
  • domain assumption No H lines are observable, so all abundances are relative; Fe is assumed solar.
    Necessary normalization for relative abundances (Sec 1, Sec 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elemental Abundances in X-ray Binary Outflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6I4ASZ4I

@misc{pith2026250619440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elemental Abundances in X-ray Binary Outflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6I4ASZ4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19440}
}
read the original abstract

Line resolved X-ray spectra of outflows from X-ray binaries are interesting since they provide quantifiable measures of the accreted material on to the compact object (black hole or neutron star), which can not be observed directly in the accretion disk. One such measurement that has been largely overlooked is that of the elemental abundances, which potentially provide insights into the origin of the ejected material. Using the Chandra/HETG grating spectrometer we measure and present elemental abundances in four low-mass X-ray binaries. We compare two measurement methods. One is by fitting line series of individual ions and reconstructing the absorption measure distribution (AMD), and the other is a global fit with one or two individual ionization components. All outflows feature a steep AMD strongly favoring high ionization degrees. The present abundances are consistent with previous works suggesting the abundances in the outflows are non-solar. We find a tentative trend of increasing abundances with atomic number, which fits some core-collapse supernova models, but no exact match to a specific one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (top panel) Distribution of measured ionic column densities Nion in the GRS 1915+105 outflow, each plotted at its ξ of maximal formation. This outlines the overall distribution of NH with ξ, showing a gradual increase with ξ. The dashed lines represent the local slopes from H-like and He-like ion pairs, which are used to reconstruct the continuous AMD in Eq. 2 (bottom panel). Since there is no H in the spectrum, H-l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AMDs for all targets in the current sample, including GRO J1655-40 from Keshet et al. (2024). Normalization is determined by assuming a solar Fe/H abundance for all targets. The dashed lines represent integration over the discrete pion absorption components found in the global fits ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measured elemental abundances for all targets in the sample, and including GRO J1655-40 (from Keshet et al. 2024). Abundances are given relative to Fe and to the solar values. Data points with no error bars represent upper limits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the outflow abundances measured with the ion-by-ion method to different SN model yields, taken from Nomoto et al. (2006, 2013). The models differ by the initial progenitor mass M and metallicity Z. Models are the same in all panels. Lines are drawn betwee…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    i ι =jr? ZjZҔϧ- q9')y x ֌Y.D

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Schulz , N

    Allen , J. L., Schulz , N. S., Homan , J., et al. 2018, , 861, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2d1 2018

  5. [5]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  6. [6]

    M., Shahbaz , T., Charles , P

    Bandyopadhyay , R. M., Shahbaz , T., Charles , P. A., & Naylor , T. 1999, , 306, 417, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02547.x

    arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    R., Davis , J

    Canizares , C. R., Davis , J. E., Dewey , D., et al. 2005, , 117, 1144, 10.1086/432898

    doi:10.1086/432898 2005

  8. [8]

    Cox , A. N. 2000, Allen's astrophysical quantities

    2000

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 368, 10.1002/asna.201612315

    D \' az Trigo , M., & Boirin , L. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 368, 10.1002/asna.201612315

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137. 1302.4485

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0062, 10.1038/s41550-017-0062

    Fukumura , K., Kazanas , D., Shrader , C., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0062, 10.1038/s41550-017-0062

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Gatuzz , E., D \' az Trigo , M., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., & Migliari , S. 2019, , 482, 2597, 10.1093/mnras/sty2850

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 799, 10.1086/518416

    Holczer , T., Behar , E., & Kaspi , S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 799, 10.1086/518416

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Raassen , A

    Kaastra , J. S., Raassen , A. J. J., de Plaa , J., & Gu , L. 2024, SPEX X-ray spectral fitting package , 3.08.00, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10822753

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Bautista , M

    Kallman , T. R., Bautista , M. A., Goriely , S., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 701, 865, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/865

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, , 934, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6b

    Keshet , N., & Behar , E. 2022, , 934, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6b

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Keshet , N., Behar , E., & Kallman , T. R. 2024, , 966, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3803

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2000, , 539, 413, 10.1086/309200

    Kotani , T., Ebisawa , K., Dotani , T., et al. 2000, , 539, 413, 10.1086/309200

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Reynolds , C

    Lee , J. C., Reynolds , C. S., Remillard , R., et al. 2002, , 567, 1102, 10.1086/338588

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Canizares , C

    Marshall , H. L., Canizares , C. R., Hillwig , T., et al. 2013, , 775, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/75

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Raymond , J., Fabian , A., et al

    Miller , J. M., Raymond , J., Fabian , A., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 953, 10.1038/nature04912

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Raymond , J., Reynolds , C

    Miller , J. M., Raymond , J., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 680, 1359, 10.1086/588521

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Raymond , J., Fabian , A

    Miller , J. M., Raymond , J., Fabian , A. C., et al. 2016, , 821, L9, 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L9

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.05412, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.05412

    Neilsen , J., & Degenaar , N. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.05412, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.05412

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Neilsen , J., & Lee , J. C. 2009, , 458, 481, 10.1038/nature07680

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, , 822, 20, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/20

    Neilsen , J., Rahoui , F., Homan , J., & Buxton , M. 2016, , 822, 20, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/20

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    Nomoto , K., Tominaga , N., Umeda , H., Kobayashi , C., & Maeda , K. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    A., et al

    Peretz , U., Behar , E., Kriss , G. A., et al. 2018, , 609, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731655

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    M., et al

    Rogantini , D., Homan , J., Plotkin , R. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05452, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05452

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2014, , 789, 57, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/57

    Seifina , E., Titarchuk , L., & Shaposhnikov , N. 2014, , 789, 57, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/57

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    2003, , 339, 1031, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06258.x

    Shahbaz , T. 2003, , 339, 1031, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06258.x

    2003

  25. [33]

    2016, , 823, 159, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/159

    Shidatsu , M., Done , C., & Ueda , Y. 2016, , 823, 159, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/159

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Parsons , S

    Steeghs , D., McClintock , J. E., Parsons , S. G., et al. 2013, , 768, 185, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/185

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro , M., Maejima , H., Toda , K., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 1144422, 10.1117/12.2565812

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 518, 1789, 10.1093/mnras/stac3210

    Tomaru , R., Done , C., & Mao , J. 2023, , 518, 1789, 10.1093/mnras/stac3210

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, , 497, 4970, 10.1093/mnras/staa2254

    Tomaru , R., Done , C., Ohsuga , K., Odaka , H., & Takahashi , T. 2020, , 497, 4970, 10.1093/mnras/staa2254

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Kaastra , J., et al

    Trueba , N., Miller , J. M., Kaastra , J., et al. 2019, , 886, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f70

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    1998, , 492, 782, 10.1086/305063

    Ueda , Y., Inoue , H., Tanaka , Y., et al. 1998, , 492, 782, 10.1086/305063

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    2004, , 609, 325, 10.1086/420973

    Ueda , Y., Murakami , H., Yamaoka , K., Dotani , T., & Ebisawa , K. 2004, , 609, 325, 10.1086/420973

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    2009, , 695, 888, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/888

    Ueda , Y., Yamaoka , K., & Remillard , R. 2009, , 695, 888, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/888

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.