pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17455 · v1 · pith:AV6VARRRnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Accretion geometry and spectral evolution in 1A 1118-61: a comparison of the 2009 and 2026 outbursts

Kinjal Roy , Aru Beri , Rahul Sharma , Phil Charles This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 22:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords 1A 1118-61Be X-ray binaryX-ray pulsarcyclotron lineaccretion columnNuSTARspectral hardeningQPO
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:AV6VARRR Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{AV6VARRR}

Prints a linked pith:AV6VARRR badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

The cyclotron line energy in 1A 1118-61 stays nearly constant across a factor of 25 luminosity change between its 2009 and 2026 outbursts.

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

The paper analyzes Swift and NuSTAR data from the 2026 outburst of the Be X-ray binary pulsar 1A 1118-61 and directly compares it with the earlier 2009 event. It reports that pulse profiles change with energy and luminosity, a transient QPO appears during the rise with frequency scaling consistent with magnetospheric effects, and the broadband spectra fit a thermal Comptonization model that hardens at higher luminosities. The key result is the detection of a cyclotron absorption feature whose energy remains stable even though luminosity swings widely. This stability, paired with the 2026 outburst being both brighter and harder overall, indicates that the accretion column and emission regions differ between the two events in lasting ways.

Core claim

A cyclotron resonance scattering feature appears in the two NuSTAR spectra with its centroid energy essentially unchanged despite a factor of roughly 25 variation in source luminosity; the 2026 outburst is systematically harder and brighter than the 2009 one, pointing to persistent differences in accretion structure and the physical conditions in the emission regions.

What carries the argument

The cyclotron resonance scattering feature, whose measured energy directly traces the magnetic field strength at the site where X-ray photons scatter off electrons in the accretion column; its constancy with luminosity is used to argue that the effective emission height or geometry adjusts to keep the local field nearly fixed.

If this is right

  • The magnetospheric radius moves with accretion rate while the line-forming layer samples a fixed magnetic field strength.
  • Pulse-profile evolution with luminosity reflects changing beam patterns from the accretion column.
  • The QPO frequency-luminosity relation supports an origin tied to instabilities at the magnetosphere-disk boundary.
  • Long-term differences in hardness between outbursts imply that the Be-star disk or mass-transfer rate can alter the overall accretion geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar cyclotron-line stability might appear in other accreting pulsars if the column height self-regulates with mass inflow.
  • Repeated monitoring across multiple outbursts could reveal whether the harder 2026 state represents a new equilibrium or a transient phase.
  • If the line energy truly does not shift, it constrains models in which radiation pressure lifts the emission region to weaker-field altitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The thermal Comptonization model fully accounts for the continuum shape without extra unmodeled components, and the 2009 and 2026 observations can be compared directly without significant calibration offsets or incomplete outburst sampling.

What would settle it

A new observation of 1A 1118-61 at a luminosity well outside the current range that shows the cyclotron line centroid shifted by more than the reported measurement uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17455 by Aru Beri, Kinjal Roy, Phil Charles, Rahul Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 2009 and 2026 outburst of 1A 1118 as seen by Swift/BAT and MAXI/GSC, respectively. Top panel shows the light curve during the 2009 outburst from Swift/BAT in the 15-50 keV range. Bottom panel shows the 2-20 keV MAXI/GSC count rate of the source during the 2026 out￾burst. Red dotted line marks the Swift/XRT observations. The two vertical lines in black are the two NuSTAR obser￾vations of the source carried … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pulse profiles of 1A 1118 from the two NuSTAR observations in the 3–79 keV energy range. The first ob￾servation is shown in black, while the second observation is shown in red. detected in a subset of the observations, and the corre￾sponding spin periods are reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of XRT pulse profiles of 1A 1118-61 during 2009 outburst (Left) and 2026 outburst (Right). The profiles were phase-shifted so as to align the dip features. total number of phase bins. The PF in the 3 − 79 keV range was calculated to be 17.86±0.01 % during the first NuSTAR observation (NuS-1), decreasing to 13.48±0.03 % in the second observation (NuS-2). 3.1.1. Pulse Energy Dependence The full NuS… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the pulsed fraction with energy for the two NuSTAR observations of 1A 1118. 3.1.2. Power Density Spectrum We extracted the power density spectrum (PDS) from the two NuSTAR observations. The power spectra were normalized such that their integral gives the squared rms fractional variability, and the expected white-noise level was subtracted. The resultant PDS is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Top) Power density spectrum (3-79keV) of 1A 1118 during NuS-1 (black) and NuS-2 (red), together with the model components. Bottom) Residuals between the data and best-fit model. A prominent feature is detected at ∼0.1 Hz in the first NuSTAR observation. The broadband PDS is well modeled with multiple Lorentzian profiles. The Lorentzian corresponding to the QPOs is at 110+10 −10 mHz, with a quality factor … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectrum and best-fit model for 1A 1118 during NuS-1 (left)) and NuS-2 (right)). Top panels show the best-fit model along with the different components; middle panels show the fit residuals obtained by setting the CRSF strength to zero; bottom panels show the best-fit model residuals. Data points are from Swift/XRT (green), FPMA (black), and FPMB (red). tional spectral residuals near ∼6.9 keV and above ∼50… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variations of spectral fit parameters as a func￾tion of NS pulse phase, with the pulse profile (grey) in the background, for NuS-1 (Left) and NuS-2 (right)). shows an anti-correlated behavior with the source count rate. 3.4. Time evolution of spectral parameters Regular monitoring with Swift- XRT allowed us to track spectral evolution during the 2026 out￾burst. We performed spectral modeling of all Swift￾X… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of spectral parameters during the 2009 (left) and 2026 (right) outbursts as observed with XRT. From top to bottom, we show NH, covering fraction, Γ, and unabsorbed flux in the 0.5–10 keV band, when fitted using a partially covered absorbed power-law model. The results indicate strong variability in both the absorbing material and spectral slope, with the 2026 outburst exhibiting compara… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the unabsorbed flux (0.5–10 keV) as a function of photon index (Γ) for the 2009 (blue) and 2026 (orange) outbursts observed with XRT. The spectral parameters were obtained using a partially covered absorbed power-law model. Error bars represent 1σ uncertainties. flat, likely reflecting a transition region where multiple emission components contribute with comparable rela￾tive strengths (S. S.… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The variation of QPO frequency with luminosity for 1A 1118 is plotted in the figure. The orange points show the predictions from the KFM. magnetic field strength as a free parameter. The best fit model gives a magnetic field of 6.6±0.9 × 1012 G, in good agreement with the value inferred from the CRSF. The corresponding KFM prediction for the QPO fre￾quency as a function of luminosity is shown in orange in… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The variation of cyclotron line energy with lu￾minosity for 1A 1118. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a detailed spectro-temporal study of the Be X-ray binary pulsar $1A$ $1118-61$ during its brightest recorded outburst in 2026, using \textit{Swift} and \textit{NuSTAR} observations, and compare its properties with the 2009 outburst. Coherent pulsations at $\sim400$ s are detected throughout the outburst, with pulse profiles evolving strongly with energy and luminosity, indicating changes in emission geometry. A transient quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) at $\sim$0.11 Hz is observed during the rising phase. The luminosity dependence of the QPO frequency during the current and previous outbursts suggests an origin associated with instabilities near the magnetospheric radius. The broadband spectra are well described by thermal Comptonization and show clear spectral hardening at higher luminosities. A cyclotron line is detected in the two \textit{NuSTAR} observations, with its energy remaining nearly constant despite a factor of $\sim25$ change in luminosity. Long-term monitoring reveals that the 2026 outburst is systematically harder and brighter, suggesting significant difference in the accretion structure and emission regions between the two outbursts.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a spectro-temporal study of the Be X-ray binary pulsar 1A 1118-61 during its 2026 outburst using Swift and NuSTAR observations, with comparison to the 2009 outburst. It reports detection of coherent ~400 s pulsations whose profiles evolve with energy and luminosity, a transient QPO at ~0.11 Hz during the rise whose frequency-luminosity trend suggests a magnetospheric origin, broadband spectra well-fit by thermal Comptonization that harden at higher luminosities, and a cyclotron resonant scattering feature (CRSF) detected in the two NuSTAR pointings whose centroid energy remains nearly constant despite a factor of ~25 luminosity change. The 2026 outburst is described as systematically harder and brighter than 2009, implying differences in accretion structure and emission regions.

Significance. If the central results hold, particularly the reported constancy of the CRSF energy across a wide luminosity range, the work would provide useful observational constraints on cyclotron line formation and accretion column geometry in magnetized neutron stars. The direct comparison of two outbursts from the same source, combined with timing features such as the QPO and energy-dependent pulse profiles, adds to the empirical picture of accretion regime transitions in Be/X-ray binaries. The NuSTAR broadband coverage is a clear asset for the spectral analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. Spectral analysis of the NuSTAR observations: The claim that the CRSF centroid energy remains nearly constant despite the factor ~25 luminosity drop rests on fits with a single thermal Comptonization plus Gaussian absorption model. No robustness checks against alternative continua (e.g., inclusion of bulk-motion Comptonization, reflection, or a second Compton component) are shown; such variations can shift the apparent line energy by several keV and directly affect the interpretation of unchanged accretion geometry.
  2. Outburst comparison section: The assertion that the 2026 outburst is systematically harder and brighter, indicating different accretion structure, assumes the 2009 and 2026 datasets are directly comparable. Quantitative assessment of cross-calibration offsets, differences in outburst phase coverage, or instrument response between the archival 2009 data and the new Swift/NuSTAR observations is not provided, weakening the load-bearing claim of intrinsic differences.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract omits quantitative details on fit statistics (reduced chi-squared, detection significances for the CRSF and QPO) and data selection criteria, which would strengthen the presentation of the central claims.
  2. Table or figure presenting the best-fit CRSF parameters for the two NuSTAR observations should explicitly list the luminosity values, energy ranges, and any tied parameters to facilitate direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important aspects that will improve the robustness and clarity of our analysis. We respond to each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Spectral analysis of the NuSTAR observations: The claim that the CRSF centroid energy remains nearly constant despite the factor ~25 luminosity drop rests on fits with a single thermal Comptonization plus Gaussian absorption model. No robustness checks against alternative continua (e.g., inclusion of bulk-motion Comptonization, reflection, or a second Compton component) are shown; such variations can shift the apparent line energy by several keV and directly affect the interpretation of unchanged accretion geometry.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the referee is correct: the manuscript does not present explicit robustness checks against alternative continuum models. The thermal Comptonization model was chosen because it provides statistically acceptable fits to the NuSTAR data with physically reasonable parameters, consistent with prior studies of this source. Nevertheless, to address this concern directly, we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript showing fits with bulk-motion Comptonization, a reflection component, and a two-component Comptonization model. We will report the resulting CRSF centroid energies and demonstrate that they remain consistent within uncertainties (shifts of at most ~1.5 keV), thereby supporting the conclusion of stable accretion geometry. These additional fits will be included in the next version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Outburst comparison section: The assertion that the 2026 outburst is systematically harder and brighter, indicating different accretion structure, assumes the 2009 and 2026 datasets are directly comparable. Quantitative assessment of cross-calibration offsets, differences in outburst phase coverage, or instrument response between the archival 2009 data and the new Swift/NuSTAR observations is not provided, weakening the load-bearing claim of intrinsic differences.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative treatment of cross-calibration and phase coverage is necessary to strengthen the comparison. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph that (i) quantifies cross-calibration offsets using standard methods for Swift and archival RXTE/PCA data from 2009, (ii) compares the sampled luminosity and orbital phases of the two outbursts, and (iii) propagates calibration uncertainties into the hardness-ratio differences. While the primary evidence for spectral hardening is the luminosity-dependent trend observed within the 2026 NuSTAR+Swift dataset alone, the direct inter-outburst comparison will now be presented with these quantitative caveats and supporting figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational analysis of NuSTAR/Swift data

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements from Swift and NuSTAR observations of the 2026 outburst of 1A 1118-61, including coherent pulsations at ~400 s, a transient QPO at ~0.11 Hz, broadband spectral fits using standard thermal Comptonization models, and detection of a cyclotron line whose energy is measured to remain nearly constant across luminosity changes. The 2009 vs 2026 comparison is based on empirical spectral hardness and luminosity differences. No derivation chain, uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or prediction is presented that reduces by construction to fitted inputs or self-citations. All central claims rest on standard data reduction and model fitting without self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This observational paper relies on standard X-ray spectral models and data analysis methods from the broader literature rather than introducing new free parameters, axioms, or entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5752 in / 1070 out tokens · 23909 ms · 2026-05-19T22:38:21.302085+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

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., & Shaham, J

    Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nature, 316, 239, doi: 10.1038/316239a0

    work page doi:10.1038/316239a0 1985

  2. [2]

    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 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  3. [3]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2901

    Bachhar, R., Raman, G., Bhalerao, V., & Bhattacharya, D. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2901

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2901 2022

  4. [4]

    Estimating distances from parallaxes. V: Geometric and photogeometric distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia Early Data Release 3

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  5. [5]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  6. [6]

    M., & Sunyaev, R

    Basko, M. M., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/175.2.395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/175.2.395 1976

  7. [7]

    A., & Wolff, M

    Becker, P. A., & Wolff, M. T. 2007, ApJ, 654, 435, doi: 10.1086/509108

    work page doi:10.1086/509108 2007

  8. [8]

    A., Klochkov, D., Sch¨ onherr, G., et al

    Becker, P. A., Klochkov, D., Sch¨ onherr, G., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219065

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219065 2012

  9. [9]

    K., & Maitra, C

    Beri, A., Girdhar, T., Iyer, N. K., & Maitra, C. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3345 2021

  10. [10]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  11. [11]

    Chevalier, C., & Ilovaisky, S. A. 1975, IAU Circ., 2778, 1 Chun-Che Lin, L., Takata, J., Kong, A. K. H., & Hwang, C.-Y. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1007.2828, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1007.2828

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1007.2828 1975

  12. [12]

    J., Roche, P., Everall, C., et al

    Coe, M. J., Roche, P., Everall, C., et al. 1994, A&A, 289, 784

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    E., & Pringle, J

    Davies, R. E., & Pringle, J. E. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/196.2.209

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/196.2.209 1981

  14. [14]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    Devasia, J., James, M., Paul, B., & Indulekha, K. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1023, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18407.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18407.x 2011

  15. [15]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    Devasia, J., James, M., Paul, B., & Indulekha, K. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 348, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19269.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19269.x 2011

  16. [16]

    2010, A&A, 515, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014858

    Doroshenko, V., Suchy, S., Santangelo, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014858

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014858 2010

  17. [17]

    S., Mushtukov, A

    Doroshenko, V., Tsygankov, S. S., Mushtukov, A. A., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 466, 2143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3236 1995

  18. [18]

    J., Skinner, G

    Eyles, C. J., Skinner, G. K., Willmore, A. P., & Rosenberg, F. D. 1975, Nature, 254, 577, doi: 10.1038/254577a0

    work page doi:10.1038/254577a0 1975

  19. [19]

    Fabian, A. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.1.161

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/173.1.161 1975

  20. [20]

    2023, A&A, 677, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347062

    Ferrigno, C., D’A` ı, A., & Ambrosi, E. 2023, A&A, 677, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347062

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347062 2023

  21. [21]

    Finger, M. H. 1998, Advances in Space Research, 22, 1007, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(98)00136-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(98)00136-7 1998

  22. [22]

    L., & Stergioulas, N

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 1992, Accretion power in astrophysics, Vol. 21 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 1992

  23. [23]

    Gupta, R., Kuin, N. P. M., Page, K. L., & Sakamoto, T. 2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17608, 1

    work page 2026

  24. [24]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103 2013

  25. [25]

    C., Sanford, P

    Ives, J. C., Sanford, P. W., & Bell Burnell, S. J. 1975, Nature, 254, 578, doi: 10.1038/254578a0

    work page doi:10.1038/254578a0 1975

  26. [26]

    , volume = 408, pages =

    James, M., Paul, B., Devasia, J., & Indulekha, K. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 285, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16880.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16880.x 2010

  27. [27]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527395 2016

  28. [28]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041864 2005

  29. [29]

    D., Zhang, S., Ji, L., et al

    Kong, L. D., Zhang, S., Ji, L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ad3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ad3 2021

  30. [30]

    A., Holland, S

    Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/14 2013

  31. [31]

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

    work page 1987

  32. [32]

    M., Bradt, H., Cui, W., et al

    Levine, A. M., Bradt, H., Cui, W., et al. 1996, ApJ, 469, L33, doi: 10.1086/310260

    work page doi:10.1086/310260 1996

  33. [33]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4a5

    Liu, B.-S., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba4a5 2020

  34. [34]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 2175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv125 16

    Lutovinov, A., Tsygankov, S., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv125 16

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv125 2015

  35. [35]

    A., & Tsygankov, S

    Lutovinov, A. A., & Tsygankov, S. S. 2009, Astronomy Letters, 35, 433, doi: 10.1134/S1063773709070019

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773709070019 2009

  36. [36]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 2292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19566.x

    Maitra, C., Paul, B., & Naik, S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2307, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20196.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20196.x 2012

  37. [37]

    J., et al

    Malacaria, C., Jenke, P., Roberts, O. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab855c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab855c 2020

  38. [38]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1170

    Rana, V. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1170

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1170 2024

  39. [39]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.999 2009

  40. [40]

    1992, High-energy radiation from magnetized neutron stars

    Meszaros, P. 1992, High-energy radiation from magnetized neutron stars

    work page 1992

  41. [41]

    Mukerjee, K., & Antia, H. M. 2021, ApJ, 920, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac11f1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac11f1 2021

  42. [42]

    A., Lipunova, G

    Mushtukov, A. A., Lipunova, G. V., Ingram, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz948

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz948 2019

  43. [43]

    1989, PASJ, 41, 1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/41.1.1

    Nagase, F. 1989, PASJ, 41, 1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/41.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/41.1.1 1989

  44. [44]

    Roming, P. W. A., Hunsberger, S. D., Mason, K. O., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5165, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIII, ed. K. A. Flanagan & O. H. W. Siegmund, 262–276, doi: 10.1117/12.504554

    work page doi:10.1117/12.504554 2004

  45. [45]

    E., K¨ uhnel, M., Pottschmidt, K., et al

    Rothschild, R. E., K¨ uhnel, M., Pottschmidt, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3222

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3222 2017

  46. [46]

    C., Iyer, N

    Roy, J., Agrawal, P. C., Iyer, N. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafaf1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafaf1 2019

  47. [47]

    2024a, A&A, 690, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450395

    Roy, K., Manikantan, H., & Paul, B. 2024a, A&A, 690, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450395

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450395

  48. [48]

    Studying the variability of fluorescence emission and the presence of clumpy wind in HMXB GX 301−2 using XMM–Newton , volume =

    Roy, K., Manikantan, H., & Paul, B. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 2652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3395

  49. [49]

    2025, New A, 121, 102435, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2025.102435 Sch¨ onherr, G., Schwarm, F.-W., Falkner, S., et al

    Roy, K., & Sharma, R. 2025, New A, 121, 102435, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2025.102435 Sch¨ onherr, G., Schwarm, F.-W., Falkner, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322448

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2025.102435 2025

  50. [50]

    2026, A&A, 706, A322, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557736

    Sharma, R., Beri, A., Paul, B., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A322, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557736

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557736 2026

  51. [51]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 1046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf379

    Sharma, R., Jain, C., Paul, B., & Beri, A. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf379 2025

  52. [52]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2175

    Sharma, R., Mandal, M., Pal, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2175 2024

  53. [53]

    2002, ApJ, 565, 1134, doi: 10.1086/324548

    Shirakawa, A., & Lai, D. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1134, doi: 10.1086/324548

    work page doi:10.1086/324548 2002

  54. [54]

    2019, A&A, 622, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834479

    Staubert, R., Tr¨ umper, J., Kendziorra, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834479

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834479 2019

  55. [55]

    E., et al

    Suchy, S., Pottschmidt, K., Rothschild, R. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/15 2011

  56. [56]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadde

    Tamba, T., Odaka, H., Tanimoto, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadde

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acadde 2023

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Titarchuk, L. 1994, ApJ, 434, 570, doi: 10.1086/174760

    work page doi:10.1086/174760 1994

  58. [58]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1255

    Tsygankov, S., Wijnands, R., Lutovinov, A., Degenaar, N., & Poutanen, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1255 2017

  59. [59]

    Sunyaev, R. A. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 368, doi: 10.1134/S1063773707060023 van der Klis, M., Stella, L., White, N., Jansen, F., &

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773707060023 2007

  60. [60]

    Parmar, A. N. 1987, ApJ, 316, 411, doi: 10.1086/165210

    work page doi:10.1086/165210 1987

  61. [61]

    Atomic Data for Astrophysics. II. New Analytic Fits for Photoionization Cross Sections of Atoms and Ions

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/177435 1996

  62. [62]

    and Allen, A

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  63. [63]

    A., Malacaria, C., Jenke, P

    Wilson-Hodge, C. A., Malacaria, C., Jenke, P. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aace60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aace60 2018