pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.03269 · v1 · pith:AFEJBEONnew · submitted 2024-11-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Simultaneous Optical and X-ray Detection of a Thermonuclear Burst in the 2024 Outburst of EXO 0748-676

Amy H. Knight , Lauren Rhodes , Douglas J. K. Buisson , James H. Matthews , Noel Castro Segura , Adam Ingram , Matthew Middleton , Timothy P. Roberts This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray burstsneutron star binariesreprocessingEXO 0748-676type I burstssimultaneous observationsoptical timinglight travel time
0
0 comments X

The pith

A type I X-ray burst in EXO 0748-676 shows an optical peak lagging the X-ray peak by 4.46 seconds.

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

The paper presents the simultaneous X-ray and optical detection of a thermonuclear type I burst from the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary EXO 0748-676 during its 2024 outburst. The optical signal rises on a similar timescale to the X-ray but peaks 4.46 ± 1.71 s later and decays faster. This timing places the reprocessing site within a few light seconds of the X-ray emitting region. The authors conclude that the companion star, accretion disc, or ablated material could all serve as the reprocessor.

Core claim

The optical peak lags the X-ray peak by 4.46 ± 1.71 s, with similar rise times but a shorter optical decay timescale, indicating that the X-ray burst is reprocessed into optical light at a site within a few light seconds of the neutron star.

What carries the argument

The measured 4.46-second lag between X-ray and optical peaks, used to constrain the light-travel distance to the reprocessing site.

If this is right

  • The companion star, accretion disc, and ablated material remain plausible reprocessing sites given the short lag.
  • Similar rise times in both bands support direct reprocessing of the burst emission.
  • The faster optical decay compared to X-ray decay suggests differences in emission geometry or cooling at the reprocessing site.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeated simultaneous detections could test whether reprocessing sites change across different burst strengths or accretion states.
  • Combining the lag with eclipse timing data might narrow the reprocessor to a single component such as the disc edge.
  • If the lag scales with burst fluence in future events, it could constrain the radial distribution of reprocessing material.

Load-bearing premise

The detected optical signal is reprocessed X-ray burst emission rather than an unrelated flare or artifact.

What would settle it

A simultaneous observation in which an X-ray burst shows no corresponding optical signal or a lag inconsistent with light-travel times of a few seconds would falsify the reprocessing interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.03269 by Adam Ingram, Amy H. Knight, Douglas J. K. Buisson, James H. Matthews, Lauren Rhodes, Matthew Middleton, Noel Castro Segura, Timothy P. Roberts.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: 0.5 − 10 keV combined EPIC light curve of ObsID 0935191701. The individual contributions from MOS1, MOS2 and PN are shown for comparison. Bottom: Full V and B band light curve from the Optical Monitor using the exposures that are coincident with the Combined EPIC light curve. In both panels, the pairs of dashed red lines mark the start of the X-ray ingress and end of the egress respectively and the ma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ), which has a weak optical component and decays faster than the corresponding X-ray burst. Thus, the difference in our mea￾sured decay times may be a result of a highly variable population of optical/X-ray burst events, for which the variability is likely related to the medium reprocessing the X-ray emission. Alternatively, the difference may be a consequence of observing a variable fraction of the X-ray … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Combined EPIC phase-folded and averaged X-ray eclipse profile, fit with a simple eclipse model. The total duration of the eclipse is ∼ 585s, consisting of a 25 ± 5s ingress, an 80 ± 15s egress and a 480 ± 10s totality. decay, shorter optical decays have been observed when the optical component is weak (Paul et al. 2012), similar to that found here. We note that observing the optical emission to be lagged b… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The neutron star low-mass X-ray binary, EXO 0748--676, recently returned to outburst after a $\sim$ 16 year-long quiescence. Since its return, there has been a global effort to capture the previously unseen rise of the source and to understand its somewhat early return to outburst, as it is typical for a source to spend longer in quiescence than in outburst. Here, we report on the simultaneous optical and X-ray detection of a type I X-ray burst, captured by XMM-Newton during a DDT observation on 30th June 2024. The data show 3 X-ray eclipses consistent with the known ephemeris and one type I X-ray burst at 60492.309 MJD. The X-ray burst is reprocessed into the optical band and captured by XMM-Newton's Optical Monitor during a 4399 s exposure with the B filter in image + fast mode. We determine that the optical peak lags the X-ray peak by 4.46 $\pm$ 1.71s. The optical and X-ray rise times are similar, but the optical decay timescale is shorter than the X-ray decay timescale. The reprocessing site is likely within a few light seconds of the X-ray emitting region, so the companion star, accretion disc and ablated material are all plausible.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the simultaneous X-ray and optical detection of a type I thermonuclear burst from the neutron star LMXB EXO 0748-676 during its 2024 outburst, observed with XMM-Newton. Three X-ray eclipses are identified as consistent with the known ephemeris, and a burst is detected at MJD 60492.309. The optical burst, captured by the Optical Monitor in B-filter image+fast mode, shows a peak lagging the X-ray peak by 4.46 ± 1.71 s; rise times are similar while the optical decay is shorter. The authors conclude that the reprocessing site lies within a few light seconds of the X-ray emitting region.

Significance. If robust, the timing measurement supplies a direct constraint on reprocessing geometry in an LMXB during outburst, helping to discriminate among the companion star, accretion disk, and ablated material as possible sites. Such simultaneous multi-wavelength burst data remain rare and can test models of burst emission and reprocessing physics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Timing / lag measurement (abstract and results)] The reported lag of 4.46 ± 1.71 s (abstract) is only ~2.6σ from zero. The manuscript must detail the peak-finding procedure (e.g., Gaussian fitting, cross-correlation function) and include robustness checks such as Monte Carlo simulations or tests against background subtraction and binning choices; without these, the inference that the reprocessing site is “within a few light seconds” rests on a marginal detection whose statistical weight is modest.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Timing / lag measurement (abstract and results)] The reported lag of 4.46 ± 1.71 s (abstract) is only ~2.6σ from zero. The manuscript must detail the peak-finding procedure (e.g., Gaussian fitting, cross-correlation function) and include robustness checks such as Monte Carlo simulations or tests against background subtraction and binning choices; without these, the inference that the reprocessing site is “within a few light seconds” rests on a marginal detection whose statistical weight is modest.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the reported lag of 4.46 ± 1.71 s corresponds to a significance of approximately 2.6σ. In the revised manuscript we will expand the methods section to fully detail the peak-finding procedure (Gaussian profile fitting to the background-subtracted light curves) and will add explicit robustness tests, including Monte Carlo realizations that vary background levels and binning. These additions will allow a clearer assessment of the measurement. The upper bound implied by the lag uncertainty remains a few light seconds, supporting the geometric conclusion even at the current significance level. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct timing measurement from light curves; no reduction to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper's central result is the reported 4.46 ± 1.71 s lag between X-ray and optical peaks, obtained by direct comparison of observed light-curve maxima in simultaneous XMM-Newton data. No equations, models, or self-citations are invoked to derive this lag from a parameter that is itself defined by the same lag; the value is extracted from the data without circular redefinition. The subsequent statement that the reprocessing site lies within a few light-seconds follows from the small measured lag but does not feed back into the lag calculation itself. The paper therefore contains no load-bearing steps matching any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard identification of type I bursts and the accuracy of the published eclipse ephemeris; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The published eclipse ephemeris for EXO 0748-676 remains valid in 2024
    Used to confirm the three observed X-ray eclipses and place the burst in context.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5811 in / 1259 out tokens · 27702 ms · 2026-05-23T17:47:23.248336+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aftab N., Paul B., Kretschmar P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2a77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...29A 243, 29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2a77 2019

  2. [2]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501..261A 501, 261

    Albayati A. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501..261A 501, 261

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3657 2021

  3. [3]

    C., et al., 2023, Thermonuclear Type-I X-ray Bursts and Burst Oscillations from the Eclipsing AMXP Swift J1749.4-2807 ( @eprint arXiv 2306.11440 )

    Albayati A. C., et al., 2023, Thermonuclear Type-I X-ray Bursts and Burst Oscillations from the Eclipsing AMXP Swift J1749.4-2807 ( @eprint arXiv 2306.11440 )

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Antoniadis J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797L..24A 797, L24

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l24 2014

  5. [5]

    Aoyama A., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16678....1A 16678, 1

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    C., Russell D

    Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Alabarta K., Rout S., Saikia P., Rhodes L., Lewis F., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16646....1B 16646, 1

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    arXiv:2408.02715

    Bhattacharya S., Bhattacharyya S., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.02715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240802715B p. arXiv:2408.02715

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.02715

  8. [8]

    Bhattacharya S., Bhattacharyya S., 2024b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16703....1B 16703, 1

    work page

  9. [9]

    Boirin L., Keek L., M \'e ndez M., Cumming A., in't Zand J. J. M., Cottam J., Paerels F., Lewin W. H. G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465..559B 465, 559

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066204 2007

  10. [10]

    Buisson D. J. K., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16673....1B 16673, 1

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    B., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-022-04551-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.605...41B 605, 41

    Burdge K. B., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-022-04551-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.605...41B 605, 41

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04551-1 2022

  12. [12]

    R., London R

    Cominsky L. R., London R. A., Klein R. I., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...315..162C 315, 162

    work page doi:10.1086/165122 1987

  13. [13]

    P., Stauffer J., Ianna P., Hutchings J

    Crampton D., Cowley A. P., Stauffer J., Ianna P., Hutchings J. B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..599C 306, 599

    work page doi:10.1086/164369 1986

  14. [14]

    Degenaar N., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17562.x , 412, 1409

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17562.x 2011

  15. [15]

    Degenaar N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-017-0448-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SSRv..214...15D 214, 15

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0448-3 2018

  16. [16]

    K., Keek L., 2021, Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts

    Galloway D. K., Keek L., 2021, Thermonuclear X-ray Bursts. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 209--262, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_5 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3_5 2021

  17. [17]

    K., Muno M

    Galloway D. K., Muno M. P., Hartman J. M., Psaltis D., Chakrabarty D., 2008a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/592044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..179..360G 179, 360

    work page doi:10.1086/592044

  18. [18]

    T., Ogilvie G

    Galloway D. K., \"O zel F., Psaltis D., 2008b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13219.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..268G 387, 268

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13219.x 2008

  19. [19]

    K., Lin J., Chakrabarty D., Hartman J

    Galloway D. K., Lin J., Chakrabarty D., Hartman J. M., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/l148 , 711, L148

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/l148 2010

  20. [20]

    N., White N

    Gottwald M., Haberl F., Parmar A. N., White N. E., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..213G 308, 213

    work page doi:10.1086/164491 1986

  21. [21]

    A., Grasdalen G

    Hackwell J. A., Grasdalen G. L., Gehrz R. D., van Paradijs J., Cominsky L., Lewin W. H. G., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...233L.115H 233, L115

    work page doi:10.1086/183088 1979

  22. [22]

    I., Jones E

    Hynes R. I., Jones E. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697L..14H 697, L14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/l14 2009

  23. [23]

    I., Horne K., O'Brien K., Haswell C

    Hynes R. I., Horne K., O'Brien K., Haswell C. A., Robinson E. L., King A. R., Charles P. A., Pearson K. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648.1156H 648, 1156

    work page doi:10.1086/505592 2006

  24. [24]

    J., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16753....1K 16753, 1

    Kashyap U., Aromal P., Chakraborty M., Bhattacharyya S., Maccarone T. J., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16753....1K 16753, 1

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    H., Ingram A., Middleton M., Drake J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3722 , 510, 4736

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., Middleton M., Drake J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3722 , 510, 4736

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3722 2022

  26. [26]

    H., Ingram A., van den Eijnden J., Buisson D

    Knight A. H., Ingram A., van den Eijnden J., Buisson D. J. K., Rhodes L., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad383 , 520, 3416

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad383 2023

  27. [27]

    Kuulkers E., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16655....1K 16655, 1

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Lawrence A., et al., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...271..793L 271, 793

    work page doi:10.1086/161245 1983

  29. [29]

    T., Done C., Smith D

    Leach R., Hessman F. V., King A. R., Stehle R., Mattei J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02450.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.305..225L 305, 225

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02450.x 1999

  30. [30]

    Lewin W. H. G., van Paradijs J., Taam R. E., 1993, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/BF00196124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993SSRv...62..223L 62, 223

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00196124 1993

  31. [31]

    Linares M., Shahbaz T., Casares J., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabde6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...54L 859, 54

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabde6 2018

  32. [32]

    Matsuoka M., et al., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...283..774M 283, 774

    work page doi:10.1086/162362 1984

  33. [33]

    Mihara T., et al., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16654....1M 16654, 1

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    and LeBlanc , F

    O'Brien K., Horne K., Hynes R. I., Chen W., Haswell C. A., Still M. D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05530.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.334..426O 334, 426

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05530.x 2002

  35. [35]

    \"O zel F., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature04858 , 441, 1115

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04858 2006

  36. [36]

    N., White N

    Parmar A. N., White N. E., Giommi P., Gottwald M., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..199P 308, 199

    work page doi:10.1086/164490 1986

  37. [37]

    N., Smale A

    Parmar A. N., Smale A. P., Verbunt F., Corbet R. H. D., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/169557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...366..253P 366, 253

    work page doi:10.1086/169557 1991

  38. [38]

    Paul B., Archana M., Saripalli L., 2012, @doi [Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India] 10.48550/arXiv.1203.1731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012BASI...40...93P 40, 93

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1203.1731 2012

  39. [39]

    Pedersen H., et al., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..325P 263, 325

    work page doi:10.1086/160507 1982

  40. [40]

    J., Breton R

    Polzin E. J., Breton R. P., Stappers B. W., Bhattacharyya B., Janssen G. H., Os owski S., Roberts M. S. E., Sobey C., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2579 , 490, 889

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2579 2019

  41. [41]

    H., Knight A., Srivastav S., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16648....1R 16648, 1

    Rhodes L., Gillanders J. H., Knight A., Srivastav S., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16648....1R 16648, 1

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    W., Filippenko A

    Romani R. W., Filippenko A. V., Silverman J. M., Cenko S. B., Greiner J., Rau A., Elliott J., Pletsch H. J., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l36 , 760, L36

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l36 2012

  43. [43]

    V., Uttley P., Costantini E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..79S 596, A79

    Silva C. V., Uttley P., Costantini E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..79S 596, A79

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628555 2016

  44. [44]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113--156, @doi DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511536281.004

    Strohmayer T., Bildsten L., 2006, New views of thermonuclear bursts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113--156, @doi DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511536281.004

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511536281.004 2006

  45. [45]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.615...45V 615, 45

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.615...45V 615, 45

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05648-3 2023

  46. [46]

    A., Quintana H., Horne K., Marsh T

    Wade R. A., Quintana H., Horne K., Marsh T. R., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985PASP...97.1092W 97, 1092

    work page doi:10.1086/131668 1985

  47. [47]

    T., Becker P

    Wolff M. T., Becker P. A., Ray P. S., Wood K. S., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/444348 , 632, 1099

    work page doi:10.1086/444348 2005

  48. [48]

    T., Ray P

    Wolff M. T., Ray P. S., Wood K. S., Hertz P. L., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/156 , 183, 156

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/156 2009