Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

A comprehensive study of type I (thermonuclear) bursts in the new transient SRGA J144459.2$-$604207

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Type I X-ray bursts from the accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 follow a recurrence-time versus accretion-rate power law with index -0.91±0.02, which the paper interprets as evidence for a neutron star more massive than…

desk verdict A thorough catalog of a new clocked burster with a large HXMT sample, but the −0.91 recurrence–accretion index is less secure than the quoted uncertainty suggests, and the hard X-ray deficit needs background systematics work. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05779 v2 pith:EANVYWDH submitted 2024-12-08 astro-ph.HE

Tao Fu , Zhaosheng Li , Yuanyue Pan , Long Ji , Yupeng Chen , Lucien Kuiper , Duncan K. Galloway , Maurizio Falanga
show 6 more authors
Renxin Xu Xiaobo Li Mingyu Ge L.M. Song Shu Zhang Shuang-Nan Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords typeIX-rayburstsaccretingmillisecondpulsarthermonuclearphotosphericradiusexpansionburstrecurrencetimeneutronstarmassSRGAJ144459.2-604207Insight-HXMT
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 reports 60 thermonuclear (type I) X-ray bursts from the newly discovered accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207, observed with Insight-HXMT during its 2024 outburst. By combining those bursts with IXPE, NinjaSat, and INTEGRAL data, the authors find that the burst recurrence time grows from 1.55 to 8 hours as the local mass accretion rate drops, following $\Delta T_{\rm rec}\sim \dot{m}^{-0.91\pm0.02}$. That exponent matters because a simple "same column of fuel per burst" argument predicts $-1$, and simulations tie flatter power laws to neutron stars more massive than about two solar masses. The same data yield a distance of $10.03\pm0.71$ kpc from 14 photospheric radius expansion bursts and a mean hydrogen fraction at ignition of $\bar{X}=0.342\pm0.033$, with the fuel inferred to be hydrogen-poor ($X_0\lesssim0.4$). A stacked light curve also shows a hard X-ray deficit in the 40-70 keV band, interpreted as rapid corona cooling by the burst.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on the recurrence-time–accretion-rate power law $\Delta T_{\rm rec}\sim \dot{m}^{\beta}$, with $\beta=-0.91\pm0.02$, built from 60 Insight-HXMT bursts plus bursts from IXPE, NinjaSat, and INTEGRAL. The local mass accretion rate $\dot{m}$ is derived from the persistent flux through the standard formula (Equation 6), and observed recurrence intervals are corrected by dividing by $N+1$ whenever gaps suggest missed bursts, an assumption checked in one gap by an IXPE burst. The fuel analysis uses the fluence ratio $\alpha=\Delta T_{\rm rec}F_{\rm per}/f_b$ and the $Q_{\rm nuc}(\bar{X})$ relation to infer ignition composition, while PRE bursts act as standard candles for the distance.

What would settle it

A targeted search of the NICER, NuSTAR, or XMM-Newton burst lists for bursts falling inside the gaps of Table 1 — or a continuous, gap-free X-ray monitoring campaign of about 20 hours — that yields recurrence intervals differing from the $N+1$-corrected values would break the $\Delta T_{\rm rec}\sim \dot{m}^{-0.91\pm0.02}$ fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the burst recurrence time in SRGA J144459.2-604207 scales as $\Delta T_{\rm rec}\sim \dot{m}^{-0.91\pm0.02}$ over recurrence times from 1.55 to 8 hours, a slightly flatter dependence than the canonical $\Delta T_{\rm rec}\sim \dot{m}^{-1}$ clocked-burster relation. The paper also establishes a distance of $10.03\pm0.71$ kpc using the Eddington flux of 14 PRE bursts, a mean burst-to-persistent fluence ratio $\alpha=71\pm7$, and a mean ignition hydrogen fraction $\bar{X}=0.342\pm0.033$; the fuel composition is constrained to $X_0\lesssim0.4$, i.e., hydrogen-deficient. On the basis of published simulations, the sub-unity power-law index is read as evidence that this neutron star may be more massive than $2\,M_\odot$, which would tighten constraints on the equation of state of dense matter.

Load-bearing premise

The central calculation assumes that every gap in the data hides a whole number of missed bursts, so dividing the observed interval by $N+1$ recovers the true recurrence time; only one gap has been confirmed by an independent IXPE burst.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the recurrence relation holds, SRGA J144459.2-604207 joins the short list of "clocked" bursters and extends that list to a source whose exponent is measurably below $-1$.
  • A neutron star mass above roughly $2\,M_\odot$ would rule out softer equations of state and sharpen the maximum-mass constraint from burst timing.
  • The hydrogen-poor fuel ($X_0\lesssim0.4$) implies that the accreted layer is processed or the donor is helium-rich, informing models of burst fuel composition in accreting millisecond pulsars.
  • The 40-70 keV hard X-ray deficit at $4\sigma$, lagging the burst by about $0.8$ s, supports corona models that can cool and recover within seconds, favoring magnetic reconnection over disk evaporation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would not yet treat the $2\,M_\odot$ conclusion as secure: the same $-0.91$ index could in principle arise from a systematic drift in burst fuel composition or from the $N+1$ gap corrections, and a dedicated re-analysis varying those corrections would test it.
  • The $N+1$ correction method could be stress-tested with the independent NICER, NuSTAR, and XMM-Newton burst lists; if those instruments saw bursts inside the same gaps, the slope would be confirmed independently.
  • If the trend is real, the recurrence-time–accretion-rate slope may serve as a distance-independent probe of neutron star mass for other clocked bursters, complementing PRE distances.
  • A future 20-hour continuous monitoring campaign with a high-duty-cycle X-ray instrument could directly count every burst and bypass the missed-burst assumption altogether.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Insight-HXMT observations of the newly discovered accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2–604207, reporting 60 type I X-ray bursts, time-resolved spectroscopy of 58 of them, a stacked hard X-ray deficit in 40–70 keV, a distance of 10.03±0.71 kpc from 14 photospheric radius expansion bursts, a mean hydrogen fraction at ignition of 0.342±0.033, and a recurrence-time relation ΔT_rec ∼ ṁ^{−0.91±0.02} interpreted as evidence for a neutron star mass above 2 M⊙.

Significance. The paper benefits from a large, homogeneous burst sample from a single instrument with a consistent analysis pipeline, explicit handling of GTI-filtering losses, and a clear statement of the main assumption underlying recurrence-time corrections. The inferred recurrence-time versus accretion-rate slope, if robust, would provide a rare observational constraint on neutron star mass and equation of state, and the paper connects it to published simulations. The distance and fuel-composition estimates use standard, transparent methods. The data set and cross-instrument comparisons (IXPE, NinjaSat, INTEGRAL, ART-XC) add value. The main uncertainty is whether the headline slope is robust against the systematics identified below; those systematics are concrete and testable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Figure 9, Table 1] The fitted power-law index is sensitive to bursts #58–60, whose measured recurrence times are longer than the preceding bursts despite higher inferred accretion rates: Table 1 lists ṁ = 1.43±0.11 × 10^4 g cm^{-2} s^{-1} and ΔT_rec = 3.47–3.65 hr for #58–60 versus ṁ = 0.89×10^4 g cm^{-2} s^{-1} and ΔT_rec = 3.29 hr for #56–57. These three points therefore oppose the fitted anti-correlation. The Figure 8 caption explicitly states that the pre-burst persistent flux is inaccurate for the last three bursts and omits their α values; the ṁ values used in Figure 9 are interpolated from the same persistent flux. Including these points flattens the fitted slope, while the quoted ±0.02 uncertainty reflects only the ṁ uncertainties and not this systematic. Please refit the relation excluding #58–60, and also with plausible alternative estimates of their pre-burst flux, and report the resulting index and significance.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The corrected recurrence times are obtained by dividing observed gaps by N+1 under the assumption that missed bursts are integer and the underlying burst train is perfectly regular. Only one gap (#40–#41) is independently confirmed by an IXPE burst; the corrections for #13, #22, #23, #26, #27, and #29 are inferred from the regularity assumption. If any of these N values is wrong, the corresponding ΔT_rec shifts by a factor of order 2, which can bias the fitted slope in Figure 9 by more than the quoted statistical uncertainty. Please quantify the sensitivity of the power-law index to alternative N choices for each corrected gap, or provide independent confirmation of the missing bursts from other instruments.
  3. [Section 4.1, Figure 6] The reported hard X-ray deficit is 120%±30% of the persistent source flux in 40–70 keV, derived from a decrement of about 6 cts/s against a background of about 121 cts/s and a source contribution of about 5 cts/s. The stated 4σ significance and 30% uncertainty appear to be based only on counting statistics. Background variability over the stacked interval (e.g., due to Earth occultation, South Atlantic Anomaly passages, or long-term particle background changes) is not characterized, and the systematic uncertainty in the deficit fraction is not discussed. Please provide a background-stability estimate for the stacked 40–70 keV light curve and include a systematic term in the quoted deficit.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.3] The word 'verifiy' should be 'verify'.
  2. [Section 1] The name 'Poynting-Robterson' should be 'Poynting-Robertson'.
  3. [Section 4.1] The word 'Compntonization' should be 'Comptonization'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The instrument name is spelled 'Insight-HMXT' in one place; it should be 'Insight-HXMT'.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The hydrogen fraction is written as X in the abstract and as X̄ in the text; please use a consistent notation throughout.
  6. [Table 1] Consider providing Table 1 as a machine-readable file in addition to the printed table, to support reproducibility of the recurrence-time and accretion-rate analysis.
  7. [Figure 7 caption] The caption describes 'three pairs of bursts' but does not specify which pairs are shown in the figure and whether the pairs are independent or overlapping; please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ΔT–ṁ index is a direct fit to measured burst times and persistent fluxes, and the derived α, X, and distance come from standard external formulas rather than from the paper's own target claims.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical measurements or inversions of standard physical relations, not identities that reduce to their inputs. The α ratio is defined directly from observables in Eq. (1), α = ΔT_rec F_per / f_b, and the mean hydrogen fraction is inverted from α using the nuclear Q_nuc(X) formula of Goodwin et al. (2019) and its rearrangement in Eq. (4); neither formula contains the paper's fitted ΔT–ṁ index, so X is not forced by the target claim. The distance in Eq. (5) is computed from the measured mean PRE peak flux and the Eddington relation, and because it enters Eq. (6) only as a constant scale factor, it cannot set the slope of the ṁ–ΔT relation. The relation ΔT_rec ∼ ṁ^{-0.91±0.02} (Section 4.3, Figure 9) is a direct power-law fit to the HXMT, IXPE, INTEGRAL, and NinjaSat points, with ṁ computed from persistent flux via Eq. (6) and ΔT_rec measured from burst onset times. The N+1 correction for missed bursts (Section 3.1, Table 1) is an explicitly stated regularity assumption, verified for one gap by an IXPE burst; it is a modeling assumption whose failure would bias the slope, but it is not a circular reduction of the fitted relation. The paper itself flags the inaccurate pre-burst persistent flux for the last three bursts in the Figure 8 caption, omitting their α values; this is a systematic data-quality concern for a correctness review rather than a circularity. Self-citations such as Galloway et al. (2022) for Eq. (4) and Li et al. (2018) for the expected ΔT ∼ ṁ^{-1} provide standard, parameter-free results whose assumptions do not include the present target claim, so they constitute independent support and do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rely on standard neutron star burst physics, canonical NS parameters, and several modeling assumptions. The most load-bearing and least secure is the integer-multiple correction of missed bursts, which directly sets recurrence times in the power-law fit. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Hydrogen column density NH = 1.87 x 10^22 cm^-2 (fixed after fitting)
    Fitted to the broadband persistent spectra in Section 3.2, then fixed for burst spectral fits; the mean value is used throughout.
  • Cross-calibration constants for ME and HE
    Multiplicative constants freed relative to LE in the persistent spectral fits; values are not reported individually.
  • nthcomp spectral parameters (Gamma, kTe, kTbb, normalization) = varies per observation; see Figure 3
    Fitted to the persistent spectra to compute the bolometric flux used in alpha and mdot. They are standard spectral model parameters, not ad hoc additions.
  • Normalization of the mdot-Delta T power-law fit = not quoted
    The fitted power-law relation mdot ~ Delta T^-1.09 has a normalization that is not reported; only the index is quoted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Canonical neutron star parameters: M=1.4 M_sun, R=11.2 km, 1+z=1.259
    Used in Eqs. (2), (5), and (6) to convert fluxes to distances, accretion rates, and alpha; standard values, not independently measured for this source.
  • domain assumption Anisotropy factors xi_b = xi_p = 1
    Assumed in Eqs. (2) and (5); the paper notes this in Section 4.2 and it affects the hydrogen fraction and distance estimates.
  • domain assumption PRE peak flux is the Eddington limit for a hydrogen-free atmosphere
    Used in Eq. (5) to derive the distance; assumes hydrogen is blown off during PRE, following Galloway et al. (2006) and Bult et al. (2019).
  • domain assumption Qnuc formula from Goodwin et al. (2019)
    Eq. (3) is used to translate alpha into the mean hydrogen fraction at ignition.
  • domain assumption Persistent emission invariant during bursts (or only normalization changes)
    Used in time-resolved burst spectral fits (Section 3.3); authors note it may not hold and tried a variable persistent flux model.
  • ad hoc to paper Missed bursts are integer and regular, so observed gaps divided by N+1
    Used to derive true recurrence times in Section 3.1 and Table 1; this correction directly affects the mdot-Delta T relation.
  • domain assumption CNO metallicity roughly solar (Z=0.02) for the fuel-composition inference
    Used with the concord suite in Section 4.2; the authors argue the X0<=0.4 bound is robust unless metallicity is substantially super-solar.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comprehensive study of type I (thermonuclear) bursts in the new transient SRGA J144459.2$-$604207." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EANVYWDH

@misc{pith2026241205779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comprehensive study of type I (thermonuclear) bursts in the new transient SRGA J144459.2$-$604207},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EANVYWDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05779}
}
abstract

We report an analysis of Insight-HXMT observations of the newly discovered accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2$-$604207. During the outburst, detected in 2024 February by SRG/ART-XC, the broadband persistent spectrum was well fitted by an absorbed Comptonization model. We detected 60 type I X-ray bursts in the Insight-HXMT medium energy (ME) data, and 37 were also detected with the low-energy (LE) telescope. By superimposing the Insight-HXMT/LE/ME/HE light curves of 37 bursts with similar profiles and intensities, we measured a deficit of X-rays in the $40-70$ keV energy band. By analyzing the time-resolved X-ray burst spectra, we determine the mean ratio of persistent to burst flux of $\alpha=71\pm7$. We estimate the average hydrogen mass fraction in the fuel at ignition, as $\bar{X} =0.342\pm0.033$, and constrain the burst fuel composition as $X_0\leq0.4$. We found that 14 out of 60 X-ray bursts exhibited photospheric expansion, and thus we estimated the distance to the source as $10.0\pm0.71$ kpc. Combined with IXPE observations, the burst recurrence time increased from 1.55 to 8 hr as the local mass accretion rate decreased, which can be described as $\Delta T_{\rm rec}\sim \dot{m}^{-0.91\pm0.02}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05779 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves from Obs. id. ID P061437300103. In the left panels, the light curves are produced via the stan￾dard processing from LE and ME, respectively. In the right panels, the light curves are generated without GTI filtering, and bursts #4 and #5 are detected both by LE (top right panel) and ME (bottom right panel). The gray lines repre￾sent the onset time of two bursts. We also processed the IXPE data of SRGA J1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curve of the 60 X-ray bursts from SRGA J144459.2–604207 observed with Insight-HXMT. The red and blue lines represent the light curves of the LE (2–10 keV) and ME (10–35 keV) bursts, respectively. The persistent LE and ME count rates are subtracted independently. Light curves were relative to the burst onset time. The fitted parameters throughout the outburst are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of persistent spectrum with Insight-HXMT data with the bolometric flux calculated in 0.5–250 keV. The black points represent the parameters of model constant×TBabs×nthcomp with the fixed centroid. The onset time of all type I bursts is marked as a triangle in the top panel. To fit the burst spectra, we used an absorbed black￾body model, TBabs×bbodyrad. We regarded the pre￾burst spectra as background, which… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-resolved spectroscopy using the variable persistent flux model (red dot) and the blackbody model (black dot) for joint LE and ME spectra of burst #10. The panels are, from top to bottom, the bolometric burst flux Fbb; blackbody temperature Tbb; blackbody radius Rb…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-resolved spectroscopy using the TBabs×bbodyrad for PRE bursts #2, #5, #7, #8, #13, #18, #19, #22, #28, #42, #51, #52, #53, and #55. For each panel, from top to bottom, we exhibit the burst bolometric flux, Fbb; blackbody temperature, kTbb, blackbody radii, Rbb, wh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: From top to bottom panels, we show the LE, ME, and HE light curves during bursts in 2–10 keV, 10–35 keV, and 40–70 keV, respectively. The bin size is 1 s for LE and ME, and 3 s for HE. minimum value at 0.81 ± 0.58 s, which indicates the hard X-ray deficit lagged behind…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inferred probability density function of the H-fraction X0 for the burst fuel, based on three pairs of bursts with different recurrence times. The shortest pair of bursts provides the most stringent constraints on X0, strongly suggesting the burst fuel is H-deficient. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relation between the recurrence time and local mass accretion rate. The red dashed line represents the best￾fitted power law ˙m ∼ ∆T −0.91±0.02 rec . the onset of the burst with the equation yign = 4πfbd 2 (1 + z) 4πR2 NSQnuc , (7) which are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quenching and recovery of persistent X-ray emission during a superburst in 4U 1820$-$30

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NICER and MAXI data show the 2021 superburst in 4U 1820-30 suppressed the persistent X-ray emission, which recovered over about 1.8 hours as the inner disk refilled; a drifting absorption line suggests the disk moved ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    R., & Strohmayer, T

    Ballantyne, D. R., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2004, ApJL, 602, L105, doi: 10.1086/382703

    doi:10.1086/382703 2004

  3. [3]

    K., G¨ uver, T., et al

    Bult, P., Jaisawal, G. K., G¨ uver, T., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ae1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ae1 2019

  4. [4]

    Chandra, A. D. 2024, ATel, 16471, 1

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2013, ApJL, 777, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L9

    Chen, Y.-P., Zhang, S., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L9

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l9 2013

  6. [6]

    2012, ApJL, 752, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L34

    Chen, Y.-P., Zhang, S., Zhang, S.-N., Li, J., & Wang, J.-M. 2012, ApJL, 752, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L34

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/l34 2012

  7. [7]

    P., Zhang, S., Qu, J

    Chen, Y. P., Zhang, S., Qu, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJL, 864, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadc0e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadc0e 2018

  8. [8]

    P., Zhang, S., Zhang, S

    Chen, Y. P., Zhang, S., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 24, 23, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2019.09.001

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2019.09.001 2019

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    2022, ApJL, 936, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2c

    Chen, Y.-P., Zhang, S., Ji, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2c

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    B., Nishimura, N., et al

    Dohi, A., Iwakiri, W. B., Nishimura, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a67

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    1992, Accretion power in astrophysics., Vol

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 1992, Accretion power in astrophysics., Vol. 21 (Cambridge university press)

    1992

  4. [12]

    K., & Cumming, A

    Galloway, D. K., & Cumming, A. 2006, ApJ, 652, 559, doi: 10.1086/507598

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Cumming, A., Kuulkers, E., et al

    Galloway, D. K., Cumming, A., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 466, doi: 10.1086/380445

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Johnston, Z., Goodwin, A., & He, C.-C

    Galloway, D. K., Johnston, Z., Goodwin, A., & He, C.-C. 2022, ApJS, 263, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac98c9

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, in Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions, ed. T. M

    2021

  8. [16]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 209–262, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 5

    doi

  9. [17]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, ApJS, 179, 360, doi: 10.1086/592044

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Psaltis, D., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Psaltis, D., Muno, M. P., & Chakrabarty, D. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1033, doi: 10.1086/499579

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Heger, A., & Galloway, D

    Goodwin, A. J., Heger, A., & Galloway, D. K. 2019, ApJ, 870, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeed2

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 116.11 13

    Guichandut, S., & Cumming, A. 2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 116.11 13

    2023

  13. [21]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 44, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.008

    Guo, C.-C., Liao, J.-Y., Zhang, S., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 44, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.008

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ATel, 16510, 1

    Illiano, G., Coti Zelati, F., Marino, A., et al. 2024, ATel, 16510, 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c29

    Ji, L., Ge, M., Chen, Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c29

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2773, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt625

    Ji, L., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2773, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt625

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Kuulkers, E., & Strohmayer, T

    Keek, L., Ballantyne, D. R., Kuulkers, E., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2014, ApJL, 797, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L23

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    R., in’t Zand, J

    Kuulkers, E., den Hartog, P. R., in’t Zand, J. J. M., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 663, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021781

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    Lewin, W. H. G., & van der Klis, M. 2006, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, Vol. 39 (Cambridge University Press)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., & Taam, R. E. 1993, SSRv, 62, 223, doi: 10.1007/BF00196124

    1993 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, A&A, 620, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833857

    Li, Z., De Falco, V., Falanga, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833857

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, ATel, 16548, 1

    Li, Z., Kuiper, L., Falanga, M., et al. 2024, ATel, 16548, 1

    2024

  23. [31]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 24, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.010

    Liao, J.-Y., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 24, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.010

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, Science China

    Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, X., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  25. [33]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

    doi

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d86

    Lu, Y., Li, Z., Yu, W., Pan, Y., & Falanga, M. 2024, ApJ, 969, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d86

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, A&A, 670, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244984

    Lu, Y., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244984

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    V., Lutovinov, A

    Molkov, S. V., Lutovinov, A. A., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450581

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, ATel, 16483, 1

    Negoro, H., Mihara, T., Serino, M., et al. 2024, ATel, 16483, 1

    2024

  30. [38]

    S., Sanna, A., et al

    Ng, M., Ray, P. S., Sanna, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4edb

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00608

    Papitto, A., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00608

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2024, ATel, 16507, 1

    Chenevez, J., & Del Santo, M. 2024, ATel, 16507, 1

    2024

  33. [41]

    2024, ATel, 16493, 1

    Sguera, V., & Sidoli, L. 2024, ATel, 16493, 1

    2024

  34. [42]

    R., & Fragile, P

    Speicher, J., Ballantyne, D. R., & Fragile, P. C. 2024, ApJ, 976, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad863d

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, NinjaSat Monitoring of Type-I X-ray Bursts from the Clocked Burster SRGA J144459.2−604207

    Takeda, T., Tamagawa, T., Enoto, T., et al. 2024, NinjaSat Monitoring of Type-I X-ray Bursts from the Clocked Burster SRGA J144459.2−604207. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10992

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J., Chen, Y

    Wang, P. J., Chen, Y. P., Ji, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348352

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    K., & Price, D

    Worpel, H., Galloway, D. K., & Price, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 772, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/94 —. 2015, ApJ, 801, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/60

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 683, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348195

    Yu, W., Li, Z., Lu, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348195

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Zhang, S. N. 2007, Highlights of Astronomy, 14, 41, doi: 10.1017/S1743921307009842

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    N., Cui, W., Chen, W., et al

    Zhang, S. N., Cui, W., Chen, W., et al. 2000, Science, 287, 1239, doi: 10.1126/science.287.5456.1239

    2000

  41. [49]

    2020, Science China

    Zhang, S.-N., Li, T., Lu, F., et al. 2020, Science China

    2020

  42. [50]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    doi

  43. [51]

    2022, A&A, 660, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142801

    Zhao, G., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142801

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.