Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Radiation mechanism of twin kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in neutron star low mass X-ray binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Paired kilohertz X-ray flickers from neutron-star binaries are the same Comptonized emission modulated at the frequencies of two magnetohydrodynamic waves acting at different coronal depths.

desk verdict A coherent two-layer Comptonization model for twin kHz QPOs that fits 28 observations, but the central geometry rests on an unverified wave-penetration depth and the rms is matched by fitted perturbations, not predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13750 v1 pith:D2T7TUFA submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.HE

ChangSheng Shi , GuoBao Zhang , ShuangNan Zhang , XiangDong Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-rays:binariesstars:neutronaccretiondiscskilohertzquasi-periodicoscillationsComptonup-scatteringmagnetohydrodynamicwaves4U1636-53
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

Neutron-star low-mass X-ray binaries often flicker in pairs of kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz QPOs), two simultaneous X-ray variability signals whose origin has been debated for decades. This paper tries to establish one self-consistent radiation mechanism for both members of the pair: the twin kHz QPOs are the same X-rays, up-scattered by hot electrons in a corona around the neutron star, modulated at the frequencies of two magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves launched at the innermost radius of the accretion disc. The lower-frequency wave is assumed to disturb the whole corona, producing the lower kHz QPO, while the higher-frequency wave is damped within an outer layer, producing the upper kHz QPO. Fitting this two-layer Compton up-scattering model to 28 observed twin QPOs in 4U 1636-53 yields coronal temperatures, optical depths, and layer depths for each event, together with a tight exponential rise of X-ray flux with seed-photon temperature and a cooling of coronal electrons as seed photons become hotter. If the mechanism is right, timing and spectral observations of these flickers become a probe of the corona's temperature, depth, and accretion state.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-layer spherical Comptonization corona around a canonical $1.4\,M_\odot$, 10 km neutron star, described by the perturbed Kompaneets equation — the diffusion equation for low-energy photons being repeatedly up-scattered by hot electrons. The corona is split into an inner layer of depth $L_1$ and an outer layer of depth $L_2$; the lower MHD wave modulates the entire corona through fluctuations in the heating rate, while the upper MHD wave modulates only the outer layer and the seed photons entering it from the inner layer. From this, two coupled sets of linear perturbation equations give the fractional photon-density changes whose energy integrals are $\mathrm{RMS}_L$ and $\mathrm{RMS}_U$. Markov-chain Monte Carlo fitting of the steady-state spectra fixes the electron temperature $kT_e$, the seed blackbody temperature $kT_b$, the Thomson optical depth $\tau$, and the two layer depths, while observed rms values select the feedback coefficient $\eta$ and the two heating-rate perturbation amplitudes. That is the bridge between the assumed wave-transport behaviour and the measured spectral-timing quantities.

What would settle it

Using the fitted coronal densities, temperatures, and magnetic-field values in Table B.1, compute the damping length of each of the two MHD waves; the two-layer assignment is falsified if the higher-frequency wave is not absorbed over a shorter distance than the lower-frequency wave. A complementary observational check is to measure the energy-resolved rms and Fourier lag spectra of upper versus lower kHz QPOs in 4U 1636-53: the upper QPO must show the harder, shallower-layer signature if the mechanism is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that twin kHz QPOs are two views of one radiation process: seed photons from the neutron star's surface are Compton up-scattered in a hot corona, and two magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves generated together at the innermost radius of the accretion disc imprint their frequencies on the escaping X-rays. Because higher-frequency waves are damped over shorter distances, the higher-frequency 'upper' wave perturbs only the outermost layer of the corona while the lower-frequency 'lower' wave disturbs the whole corona. The perturbed heating rate, electron temperature, and photon density enter a two-layer Kompaneets equation, and the fractional change in escaping photon number defines the rms of each QPO. Confronted with 28 observed twin QPOs in 4U 1636-53, the model reproduces the spectra and rms values and yields 28 sets of coronal parameters; it also produces a tight exponential relation between flux and seed-photon temperature and a negative correlation between electron temperature and seed-photon temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The model depends on the lower-frequency magnetic wave passing through the entire corona while the higher-frequency wave is damped within a thin outer layer; the paper itself states that the actual penetration depth is unknown, only an upper limit, so if real wave damping puts the two waves at similar or reversed depths, the two-layer decomposition and the upper/lower QPO assignment collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the assignment is right, the upper and lower kHz QPOs must show different energy-dependent rms and time-lag behaviour, because upper-QPO seed photons are harder on average after passing through the inner layer.
  • The spectral fits convert each observed twin QPO into physical parameters: electron temperature, seed-photon temperature, Thomson optical depth, total corona depth, and outer-layer depth, so timing observations become a probe of the corona.
  • Because the seed-photon injection rate rises steeply with seed temperature, the model predicts an exponential flux–$kT_b$ relation, and the paper fits exactly such a relation to the 28 events.
  • The negative correlation between QPO frequencies and electron temperature connects the oscillation frequencies to the accretion state through the innermost disc radius, so twin kHz QPOs can serve as state indicators.
  • The same mechanism, with a single MHD wave, should also account for single kHz QPOs, extending the radiation model beyond paired oscillations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the two-layer geometry implies a measurable energy-dependent lag signature—upper-QPO photons emerge from a shallower, harder region, so the upper QPO should show a different hard-to-soft phase lag than the lower QPO; this can be checked directly with archival timing data.
  • Beyond the paper: the fitted sample shows no clean correlation between frequency ratio and $L/L_2$, even though the model links both to wave damping; computing the damping penetration depths explicitly from the fitted coronal parameters would show whether the missing correlation is due to the approximate layering or to the damping model.
  • Beyond the paper: adding an accretion-disc and reflection component, which the paper leaves to future work, could break the cold-versus-hot seed-photon degeneracy and test whether cold seed photons come from the disc and hot ones from the neutron-star surface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a radiation mechanism for twin kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz QPOs) in neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries. The model assumes that twin magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves, generated at the innermost radius of the accretion disc, propagate into the corona surrounding the neutron star; the lower-frequency wave perturbs the whole corona, producing the lower kHz QPO, while the higher-frequency wave perturbs only the outermost layer, producing the upper kHz QPO. The authors solve the Kompaneets equation for the steady and perturbed photon fields in these two layers, fit eight parameters per observation to the energy spectra and the fractional rms amplitudes of 28 twin kHz QPOs in 4U 1636--53, and report a tight exponential relation between flux and seed-photon temperature as well as a decreasing coronal electron temperature with increasing seed-photon temperature. They conclude that twin kHz QPOs originate from twin MHD-wave disturbances coupled to Compton up-scattering in the corona.

Significance. If the central hypothesis were independently confirmed, the paper would provide a unified radiative framework connecting MHD-wave dynamics to the observed X-ray variability of kHz QPOs, and it would offer a route to estimate coronal parameters from spectral-timing data. The manuscript has concrete strengths: it engages 28 observational epochs, provides a full table of best-fit parameters, explicitly computes steady and perturbed photon distributions, and candidly discusses missing spectral components and residual mismatches. The reported exponential flux--kTb relation is a falsifiable trend. However, the significance is heavily conditional. The rms amplitudes are not predicted; they are reproduced by selecting per-observation heating rates and a feedback coefficient. The two-layer decomposition itself rests on an uncomputed, and by the authors' own admission unknown, MHD penetration depth. The frequency input is taken from earlier papers rather than derived here. Thus the work is best read as a detailed radiative-response model for imposed twin-frequency disturbances, with the claimed MHD origin left for future work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, steps 3--4, and Table B.1] The agreement between the calculated and observed RMSL and RMSU is obtained by construction. In the procedure, the feedback coefficient eta is scanned over a grid and the heating perturbations Delta-Hdot_L and Delta-Hdot_U are randomly sampled and selected so that the computed RMS values fall within the observed error limits; the characteristic values are then chosen to match the central observed RMS values. Consequently, the good rms agreement in Table B.1 does not provide independent evidence for the two-layer geometry or the MHD-wave interpretation. To make the comparison informative, the model would need to predict the rms amplitudes from independently determined parameters, or to tie Delta-Hdot_L and Delta-Hdot_U to wave amplitudes computed from a transport calculation.
  2. [Section 2 (first paragraph) and Section 3.2] The load-bearing assumption that the lower MHD wave disturbs the whole corona while the upper MHD wave disturbs only the outermost layer is not tested in this manuscript. The paper states explicitly that the fitted outer-layer depth L2 is only the upper limit usable in the steady-state layering and that the real penetration depth 'needs to be explored in future in MHD.' The ordering is justified only by a qualitative reference to Somov (2012) regarding damping of higher-frequency waves; no penetration-depth or damping-length calculation is performed with the coronal parameters in Table B.1. If the two waves penetrate to comparable depths or affect overlapping regions, the separate rms expressions for the lower and upper QPOs, and hence the central conclusion, are not supported.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 5] The observed frequencies fl and fu are input parameters, not predictions of this model. The claim that the frequencies correspond to twin MHD waves generated at the innermost disc radius is imported from the authors' earlier papers (Shi & Li 2009; Shi et al. 2014, 2018) and is not re-derived or independently verified here. Therefore the conclusion that 'twin disturbances from twin MHD waves can be considered as the origin of QPOs' is stronger than what the present analysis establishes. The paper should clearly frame its contribution as a radiation-mechanism model that is conditional on a particular frequency-generation model, and should avoid presenting the MHD origin as a result of this work alone.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Figs. 7--9] The spectral fits used to fix kTe, kTb, tau, and L display systematic residuals at E < 4 keV and around 6.4--7.0 keV, and several reduced chi-square values exceed unity appreciably (for example, the 640.23 Hz row in Table B.1 reports 77/44). The authors attribute these residuals to omitted disc and Fe-line components. Because these residuals appear systematically, the fitted coronal parameters may be biased, and the quantitative correlations in Figs. 2--4 (for instance, the claimed exponential flux--kTb relation and the kTe--kTb anti-correlation) could be affected. The authors acknowledge the missing components, but the impact of these systematic spectral errors on the derived parameter correlations is not quantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The observed rms values for the 28 twin kHz QPOs are taken from the analytical fits of Ribeiro et al. (2017) rather than from direct power-spectral measurements; the paper should state explicitly how the uncertainties in those fits propagate into the subsequent parameter constraints.
  2. [Equation (6)] The symbol sigma_T is used for the Thomson cross-section throughout the paper, but in Equation (6) the same symbol is used for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in the blackbody radiation terms. This notation should be disambiguated.
  3. [Section 3.3.1, Fig. 2(b)] The reduced chi-square values for both the constant and linear fits to the kTe--kTb relation are large (11.78 and 27.17), so the text should state more carefully that the linear function is preferred only relative to the constant function and that neither provides a statistically good description.
  4. [Section 4.3] The references to Lapidus et al. (1986), London et al. (1986), and Liu et al. (2011) do not appear in the reference list; the bibliography should be completed.
  5. [Table B.1] The column header 'X2/d.o.f. f.' is unclear; it should be written as 'chi^2/d.o.f.' and the meaning of the two separate fits should be explained in the table notes.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

RMS agreement is fit-derived and the two-layer geometry is fitted with the real MHD penetration depth deferred; the MHD frequency origin is imported from same-author citations.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, steps 3-4 of the parameter-estimation procedure]
    "Then RMSL and RMSU of one twin kHz QPOs can be used to match the observation and to determine the value of the heating rate for a special η. ... choose 3000 random heating rate in (0, 30), calculate RMSL and RMSU and select the ones within the error limits of RMSL and RMSU."

    The lower and upper rms values are not independent outputs of the model: ΔḢ_l, ΔḢ_u and η are free parameters selected specifically so that the calculated RMSL and RMSU fall inside the observed error bars. The paper then presents this procedure as making it possible to 'reproduce the observed characteristics' of the kHz QPOs. Any agreement with the observed rms amplitudes is therefore built into the fitting search, so that agreement cannot independently validate the two-layer MHD radiation mechanism.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2, first paragraph]
    "In principle, these perturbations can be generated by other mechanism, but the twin MHD waves are an attractive candidate as we have already shown that they generate roughly the correct frequencies (Shi & Li 2009; Shi et al. 2014, 2018)."

    The central origin claim, that twin kHz QPOs are produced by twin MHD waves generated at the innermost disc radius, rests on the same authors' earlier papers for the frequency relation. In the present calculation the observed fl and fu are input parameters, not derived quantities: Section 3.2 states that the frequencies 'should also be input to the equations'. No independent derivation or external check of the MHD frequency relation is given here, so the frequency support for the mechanism is imported from prior self-citations rather than tested in this paper.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3.2, paragraph directly after the four-step fitting procedure]
    "the effective depth of the outmost layer (L2) is the upper limit that the above method on layering the corona in a steady state can be used to calculate RMSU. The real penetration depth of the upper MHD wave is determined by the specific interaction between the waves and the plasma, which needs to be explored in future in MHD."

    The geometric decomposition that assigns the upper QPO to an outermost layer is not derived from MHD wave transport. Instead, L2 is obtained by the MCMC fit to the two-layer steady-state spectral equations (Eqs. 10-14), and the same L2 is then used to compute RMSU. The paper explicitly defers the actual penetration depth to future MHD work, so the upper-QPO emitting region is effectively defined by the spectral fit rather than by the physical wave-propagation model. Consequently, the fitted rms agreement cannot certify the two-layer origin claim.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: it implements a genuine Comptonization calculation, fits 28 observed spectra of 4U 1636-53 with a Monte Carlo/MCMC procedure, and reports model-output correlations (flux-kTb, kTe-kTb, QPO frequency versus kTe) against external data. Those spectral fits and correlations are independent content. However, the main validation that the model 'reproduces' the rms of twin kHz QPOs is circular in the specific sense that ΔḢ_l, ΔḢ_u and η are freely chosen to force RMSL and RMSU inside the observed error bars. The two-layer geometry is also fit-derived: L2 is fitted from the steady-state spectral equations, while the real MHD penetration depth is explicitly deferred to future work. In addition, the frequency content of the QPOs is an input to the calculation, and the claim that twin MHD waves generate the correct frequencies is carried by the same authors' earlier papers rather than derived here. These are load-bearing steps in the paper's central conclusion, so a score of 6 is appropriate. It is not an 8 because the paper does not claim to predict the frequencies or the rms independently from first principles, and because the spectral fits to genuinely external observational data provide substantial non-circular content.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several fitted parameters, a uniform two-layer corona geometry, and an assumed MHD wave penetration hierarchy. No new particle or force is introduced; the key invented element is the two-layer wave-driven radiation geometry.

free parameters (8)
  • kTe (coronal electron temperature) = 2.64 to 3.63 keV across 28 fits
    MCMC fit to each observed spectrum; central to the Comptonization model.
  • kTb (seed photon blackbody temperature) = 0.1966 to 0.2154 keV
    MCMC fit to each spectrum; main driver of flux in Eq. (1).
  • tau (Thomson optical depth of corona) = 8.2 to 10.3
    MCMC fit to each spectrum.
  • L (corona depth) = 2.6 to 12.0 km
    MCMC fit to each spectrum.
  • L2 (outer layer depth) = 2.56 to 11.88 km
    MCMC fit to two-layer steady-state equations; approximate and tied to assumed wave penetration.
  • eta (feedback coefficient) = 0.0 to 1.0 (grid step 0.1)
    Chosen by matching observed RMSL and RMSU error limits in Section 3.2 steps 3 and 4.
  • DeltaHdot_L (lower-wave heating perturbation) = 4.05 to 24.10
    Selected so computed RMSL matches observed lower QPO rms.
  • DeltaHdot_U (upper-wave heating perturbation) = 4.40 to 27.65
    Selected so computed RMSU matches observed upper QPO rms.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Kompaneets equation with Klein-Nishina corrections describes Comptonization in the corona.
    Eq. (2) and Appendix A; standard radiative transfer result.
  • domain assumption The corona is uniform, isotropic, spherical, with constant Te and ne around a canonical 1.4 Msun, 10 km neutron star.
    Stated in Section 2; simplifies geometry.
  • domain assumption The radiation field is in a quasi-steady state and MHD waves produce small linear perturbations.
    Section 2 introduction and Eqs. (7) through (17).
  • ad hoc to paper Twin MHD waves are generated at the innermost disc radius, travel into the corona, and the upper wave penetrates a shorter distance than the lower wave.
    Section 2 first paragraph; load-bearing for the two-layer model and not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Seed photons are cold blackbody photons from the neutron star; accretion disc and direct BB components are negligible in the fitted 2 to 60 keV band.
    Section 3.1 and 4.2; authors acknowledge residuals from omitted disc and Fe lines.
  • ad hoc to paper The lower QPO comes from the whole corona and the upper QPO from the outer layer, allowing separate rms expressions.
    Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2; follows from the assumed wave penetration hierarchy.
  • domain assumption Energy range for Compton cooling integrals is 2 to 60 keV with natural boundary conditions n_gamma = 0.
    Section 2.2.1, Emin = 2 keV, Emax = 60 keV, same as Kumar & Misra (2014) and Karpouzas et al. (2020).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiation mechanism of twin kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in neutron star low mass X-ray binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2T7TUFA

@misc{pith2026241113750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiation mechanism of twin kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations in neutron star low mass X-ray binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2T7TUFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13750}
}
read the original abstract

Context: The connection between quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) and magnetic fields has been investigated across various celestial bodies. Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) waves have been employed to explain the simultaneous upper and lower kilohertz (kHz) QPOs. Nevertheless, the intricate and undefined formation pathways of twin kHz QPOs present a compelling avenue for exploration. This area of study holds great interest as it provides an opportunity to derive crucial parameters related to compact stars. Aims:We strives to develop a self-consistent model elucidating the radiation mechanism of twin kHz QPOs, subsequently comparing it with observations. Methods: A sample of 28 twin kHz QPOs observed from the X-ray binary 4U 1636--53 are used to compare with the results of the MCMC calculations according to our model of the radiation mechanism of twin kHz QPOs, which is related to twin MHD waves. Results: We obtain twenty-eight groups of parameters of 4U 1636--53 and a tight exponential fit between the flux and the temperature of seed photons to Compton up-scattering and find that the electron temperature in the corona around the neutron star decreases with the increasing temperature of the seed photons. Conclusions: The origin of twin kHz QPOs can be attributed to dual disturbances arising from twin MHD waves generated at the innermost radius of an accretion disc. The seed photons can be transported through a high temperature corona and Compton up-scattered. The variability of the photons with the frequencies of twin MHD waves can lead to the observed twin kHz QPOs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The sketch of the process on generating twin MHD waves at the innermost radius of the accretion disc in a LMXB, transporting the waves along the magnetic field lines, radiating X-ray photons from the surface of the corona. There are the same temperature and density in the whole corona in the steady radiation. The magnetic field lines are marked by the black dotted curves. Here we suppose that the canonical NS in a L… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relation between the temperature of the seed photons on the NS and several variables ( a: the flux of 4U 1636–53 with different twin kHz QPOs; b: the temperature of the electrons in the corona; c: the rms of twin kHz QPOs; d: rms ratio of lower QPOs to upper QPOs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relation between the temperature of the electrons in the corona and the variables ( a: frequencies of QPOs; b: the frequency ratio of the lower QPOs to that of the upper QPOs; c: rms ratio of lower QPOs to upper QPOs). the lower frequency waves becomes higher than that for the upper frequency waves. The possible reason is that the lower waves lose energy more easily than the upper waves and it needs to be explor… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relations between the ratio of the changing rate of heating rate (δHL / δ HU) and the ratio of QPO frequencies, feedback coefficients when the central values of RMSL and RMSU are considered. another (e.g. kTb and kTe, f and L, L and τ), which lead to the complexity…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The relations between the flux (4 ∼ 23 keV) and the temperature of seed photons. The observed flux is marked by "plus", the model calculated flux is marked by "cross", and the flux marked by "star" is obtained using the same parameters, which are the central values…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The sketch of the accretion and radiation process accompanied with kHz QPOs for the low or high accretion rate. Here M˙ is the accretion rate of the disc and T is the temperature of the corona. large discrepancies from zero for the residuals of the fitted spectra aroun…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fits and their residuals for the spectra in the 28 observations with the observation number in the upper right part of these panels in 4U 1636-53. The data described by the dots from the fits of kTe, kTb, τ, L and the data described by the crosses from the fits of …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratios of the observational central values of flux per keV to the results in the model from the fits of the spectra in the 28 observations with the observation number in the upper right part of these panels in 4U 1636-53. The data described by the dots from the fit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The component of χ 2 i from the fits of the spectra in the 28 observations with the observation number in the upper right part of these panels in 4U 1636-53. The data described by the plus sign from the fits of kTe, kTb, τ, L and the data described by circles from the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Bulik, T., Bursa, M., & Klu´ zniak, W

    Abramowicz, M. A., Bulik, T., Bursa, M., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2003, A&A, 404, L21

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    2008, ApJ , 685, 436

    Altamirano, D., van der Klis, M., Méndez, M., et al. 2008, ApJ , 685, 436

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Barret, D., Olive, J.-F., & Miller, M. C. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 85 5

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    1996, Ap J, 469, L13

    Berger, M., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1996, Ap J, 469, L13

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    2007, A&A Rev., 15, 1

    Done, C., Gierli ´nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rev., 15, 1

    2007

  6. [6]

    2003, A&A, 410, 21 7

    Gilfanov, M., Revnivtsev, M., & Molkov, S. 2003, A&A, 410, 21 7

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    & Done, C

    Ingram, A. & Done, C. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2323

    2011

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Karpouzas, K., Méndez, M., Ribeiro, E. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS , 492, 1399

    work page 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Kompaneets, A. S. 1957, Soviet Journal of Experimental and T heoretical Physics, 4, 730

    1957

  2. [10]

    & Misra, R

    Kumar, N. & Misra, R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2818

    2014

  3. [11]

    Lee, H. C. & Miller, G. S. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 479

    1998

  4. [12]

    C., Misra, R., & Taam, R

    Lee, H. C., Misra, R., & Taam, R. E. 2001, ApJ, 549, L229

    2001

  5. [13]

    A., & Homan, J

    Lin, D., Remillard, R. A., & Homan, J. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1073

    2007

  6. [14]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 1165 Méndez, M

    Lyu, M., Méndez, M., Sanna, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1165 Méndez, M. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1925 Méndez, M., van der Klis, M., & Ford, E. C. 2001, ApJ, 561, 1016 Méndez, M., van der Klis, M., Ford, E. C., Wijnands, R., & van Paradijs, J. 1999, ApJ, 511, L49

    2014

  7. [15]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., & Psaltis, D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 791

    1998

  8. [16]

    & Bhattacharyya, S

    Mukherjee, A. & Bhattacharyya, S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 55

    2012

  9. [17]

    Nakariakov, V . M. & Melnikov, V . F. 2009, Space Sci. Rev., 149, 119

    2009

  10. [18]

    M., Tsiklauri, D., Kelly, A., Arber, T

    Nakariakov, V . M., Tsiklauri, D., Kelly, A., Arber, T. D., & A schwanden, M. J. 2004, A&A, 414, L25

    2004

  11. [19]

    & Titarchuk, L

    Osherovich, V . & Titarchuk, L. 1999, ApJ, 522, L113

    1999

  12. [20]

    & Lamb, F

    Psaltis, D. & Lamb, F. K. 1997, ApJ, 488, 881

    1997

  13. [21]

    M., Méndez, M., Zhang, G., & Sanna, A

    Ribeiro, E. M., Méndez, M., Zhang, G., & Sanna, A. 2017, MNRAS , 471, 1208

    2017

  14. [22]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1144

    Sanna, A., Hiemstra, B., Méndez, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1144

    2013

  15. [23]

    2010, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astrono my, 53, 247

    Shi, C. 2010, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astrono my, 53, 247

    2010

  16. [24]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 2961

    Shi, C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2961

    2021

  17. [25]

    & Li, X.-D

    Shi, C. & Li, X.-D. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 264

    2009

  18. [26]

    & Li, X.-D

    Shi, C.-S. & Li, X.-D. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1227

    2010

  19. [27]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 16

    Shi, C.-S., Zhang, S.-N., & Li, X.-D. 2014, ApJ, 791, 16

    2014

  20. [28]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5049

    Shi, C.-S., Zhang, S.-N., & Li, X.-D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5049

    2018

  21. [29]

    Somov, B. V . 2012, Plasma Astrophysics, Part I: Fundamentals and Practice, V ol. 391

    2012

  22. [30]

    & Vietri, M

    Stella, L. & Vietri, M. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 17

    1999

  23. [31]

    & Shaposhnikov, N

    Titarchuk, L. & Shaposhnikov, N. 2005, ApJ, 626, 298 van der Klis, M. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W . H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, V ol. 39, 39–112 van Straaten, S., van der Klis, M., di Salvo, T., & Belloni, T. 2002, ApJ, 568, 912

    2005

  24. [32]

    2006, in Trends in Pulsar Research, ed

    Wijnands, R. 2006, in Trends in Pulsar Research, ed. J. A. Low ry, 53 Y u, W., Zhang, S. N., Harmon, B. A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, L153

    2006

  25. [33]

    A., Gierli ´nski, M., Rao, A

    Zdziarski, A. A., Gierli ´nski, M., Rao, A. R., V adawale, S. V ., & Mikołajewska, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 825

    2005

  26. [34]

    M., & Gelfand, J

    Zhang, G., Méndez, M., Sanna, A., Ribeiro, E. M., & Gelfand, J . D. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 5003

    2017

  27. [35]

    E., & Titarchuk, L

    Zhang, W., Lapidus, I., White, N. E., & Titarchuk, L. 1996, Ap J, 469, L17

    1996

  28. [36]

    V ., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V ., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al.2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 66 Article number, page 14 of 16 Chang-Sheng Shi et al.: On the radiation mechanism of twin kH z QPOs in NS-LMXBs Appendix A: The formula of Compton scattering The parameter ( ε) in Kompa...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.