Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 50 references

Observations of the X-ray Millihertz Quasiperiodic Oscillations in Hercules X-1

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Her X-1's X-ray variability splits into two millihertz QPO families with different luminosity dependencies.

desk verdict Solid 10 mHz QPO confirmation from HXMT, but the new 5-9 mHz population and its luminosity correlation rest on sub-threshold detections and need a formal statistical test before the two-family claim is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15366 v1 pith:GWUOL5IS submitted 2025-01-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Wen Yang , Wei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords HerculesX-1millihertzquasi-periodicoscillationswaveletanalysisX-raybinarypulsarbeatfrequencymodelmagneticdiskprecessionluminosity–frequencyrelation
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

The paper analyzes about 300 kiloseconds of Insight-HXMT observations of the X-ray binary pulsar Hercules X-1 and reports that its millihertz quasi-periodic oscillations come in two coexisting families. One is a roughly 10 mHz signal already suggested by earlier X-ray and ultraviolet data; the other, newly identified, lies between about 5 and 9 mHz. The central new result is that the 5–9 mHz centroid frequency rises with the 2–110 keV X-ray luminosity while the 10 mHz frequency stays nearly constant. The authors take this as evidence that the two families have different physical origins, attributing the 10 mHz signal to a beat frequency near the magnetospheric boundary and the 5–9 mHz signal to magnetic disk precession.

What carries the argument

The analysis hinges on the continuous wavelet transform with a Morlet mother wavelet, which resolves transient oscillations in both time and frequency and can catch QPOs that a stationary Fourier power spectrum would blur out. Detected peaks are characterized by their global wavelet power relative to a 95% confidence red-noise spectrum (the R factor) and by a quality factor Q; the paper keeps peaks with R > 0.9 and good time intervals longer than 800 seconds. For interpretation, the paper uses the beat-frequency model, which predicts a QPO at the difference between the spin frequency and the Keplerian frequency at the Alfvén radius, and the magnetic disk precession model, whose predicted precession timescale depends on X-ray luminosity and viscosity.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same light curves with the detection threshold set to R ≥ 1 (peak power at or above the 95% confidence level); if no 5–9 mHz peak survives and the frequency–luminosity correlation disappears, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Her X-1 shows two distinct types of X-ray mHz QPOs: a previously hinted ~10 mHz oscillation and a newly identified ~5–9 mHz oscillation that coexists with it. Using wavelet analysis on individual good time intervals, the authors find that the lower-frequency QPO's centroid frequency increases from about 5 mHz to about 9 mHz as the 2–110 keV luminosity grows from roughly 2×$10^{37}$ to 4×$10^{37}$ erg/s, whereas the 10 mHz QPO frequency is independent of luminosity. They further find that the 10 mHz X-ray QPO matches the frequency, rms amplitude, and quality factor of the UV QPOs reported for this source, supporting a common reprocessing origin, while the behavior of the 5–9 mHz QPO points to a separate mechanism, most plausibly precession of the magnetically warped inner disk.

Load-bearing premise

The new 5–9 mHz QPO family is selected with a wavelet-power threshold of R > 0.9, which is below the 95% confidence level, so some of the reported detections may be noise fluctuations rather than real oscillations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 10 mHz X-ray and UV QPOs share a beat-frequency origin, the magnetospheric boundary condition of Alfvén radius close to corotation must persist during the observed main-on states.
  • If the 5–9 mHz QPO is magnetic disk precession, its frequency should respond to luminosity and viscosity changes in other strongly magnetized pulsars, providing a probe of inner-disk conditions.
  • The luminosity–frequency relation of the 5–9 mHz QPO gives a new observable for tracking accretion changes over the 35-day superorbital cycle.
  • A common origin for the 10 mHz X-ray and UV oscillations would allow simultaneous multiwavelength observations to map the reprocessing geometry of the disk and companion star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed with a stricter detection threshold, the 5–9 mHz frequency–luminosity relation could be calibrated as a luminosity indicator for Her X-1 and applied to other disk-fed pulsars with similar magnetic fields.
  • A direct testable extension would be to search for a 5–9 mHz component in simultaneous UV or optical light curves; if reprocessing dominates, the lower-frequency QPO should appear there only weakly or not at all.
  • One could also check whether the 5–9 mHz QPO appears in archival observations at other 35-day phases; the magnetic precession model predicts it should be strongest when the inner disk is most strongly warped.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. Using Insight-HXMT observations of Her X-1 from 2017 to 2019, the paper reports a ~10 mHz QPO in the power density and wavelet spectra and identifies a new family of ~5-9 mHz QPOs coexisting with the 10 mHz feature. It claims a positive correlation between the 5-9 mHz centroid frequency and the 2-110 keV X-ray luminosity, while the 10 mHz frequency remains constant, and interprets the 10 mHz QPOs as beat-frequency oscillations and the 5 mHz QPOs as magnetic disk precession. The 10 mHz detection is supported by a PDS fitting improvement, but the 5-9 mHz family and the luminosity correlation rest on wavelet peaks selected with R>0.9 and on a visual trend without a statistical test.

Significance. If the two-family interpretation survives scrutiny, this would be a valuable addition to the sparse phenomenology of mHz QPOs in HMXB pulsars: Her X-1 would become a rare case with two coexisting mHz QPO families showing different luminosity dependencies, providing new constraints on beat-frequency and disk-precession models. The paper's strengths are the systematic use of a large public HXMT dataset, the explicit PDS detection statistic for the 10 mHz QPO (chi-square change from 84 to 112), and the wavelet time-frequency maps that display transient frequency evolution. At present the 5-9 mHz identification is not yet secure because the adopted R>0.9 threshold is below the 95% confidence level (R=1 by Eq. 8), and the luminosity relation is asserted without a regression or error propagation. The theoretical interpretation is illustrative rather than testable because key model parameters (alpha for Her X-1 and the allowed Alfven radius range) are taken from other sources or allowed to vary over a wide range.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Eq. (8) / Table 2] The detection threshold is inconsistent with the stated significance criterion. The R factor is defined as the global wavelet peak divided by the global 95% confidence spectrum, so R<1 means the peak is below the 95% confidence level. The paper nevertheless selects peaks with R>0.9, and Table 2 lists 5 mHz peaks with R=0.97±0.07 (ObsID 0207) and R=0.92±0.11 (ObsID 0402). These are not significant detections by the paper's own definition, yet they enter the 5-9 mHz sample and the luminosity plot. The Figure 3 caption, which says the 5 and 10 mHz detections reach the 95% significance levels, is also in tension with R=0.95-0.97 for the same observation. Please re-run the analysis with R≥1 or provide a separate, justified threshold, and show the luminosity relation without the sub-threshold points.
  2. [Section 3.2 / Figure 5] The claimed positive correlation is not supported by a statistical test. Figure 5 shows no error bars, no fitted line, and no correlation coefficient; Table 2 does provide uncertainties on frequency and luminosity, so a weighted regression (or at least a Spearman rank test) should be reported. With only six 5 mHz points, two of which are below the 95% confidence threshold, the visual trend may be driven by a small number of points. Please report the correlation coefficient with its p-value, both with and without the R<1 detections, and include error bars in the figure.
  3. [Section 4 / Table 2] The 5 and 10 mHz features in ObsIDs 0207 and 0801 have frequencies in a 2:1 ratio (0.0046/0.0095 and 0.0055/0.0106). The paper dismisses a harmonic relation because the two features have approximately equal global wavelet power and different luminosity behavior, but a subharmonic can have comparable power and the luminosity argument is exactly what is under test. A quantitative test (e.g., phase coherence between the two features, or amplitude ratios in individual time segments) is needed before claiming two independent physical mechanisms.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Section 4 / Figure 5] The constancy of the 10 mHz frequency depends on excluding ObsID 0507 from the correlation. That observation's ME QPO evolves from ~15-18 mHz to ~10 mHz and has an unusually large FWHM (4.5 mHz), so there is a physical rationale for treating it separately, but the manuscript does not state an a-priori criterion. Because the conclusion that the 10 mHz frequency is luminosity-independent is based on the remaining points, the paper should show the result with and without ObsID 0507 and discuss whether its frequency evolution reflects a different accretion state rather than a luminosity dependence.
  5. [Section 4 / Eq. (9)] The magnetic disk precession prediction is not a clean test. Eq. (9) is evaluated with α=0.023 taken from Roy et al. (2019) for 4U 0115+63, without propagating the uncertainty in α or demonstrating that this value applies to Her X-1. The beat-frequency discussion likewise allows the Alfven radius to vary from 3.5×10^7 to 4.1×10^8 cm while merely requiring it to be close to the corotation radius. With these choices the predicted 5-9 mHz range is essentially flexible, so the agreement with the observed frequencies provides weak model discrimination. Please constrain α from the Her X-1 disk (or show the sensitivity) and specify a quantitative corotation proximity condition.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1] The text refers to 'P01030800701' and 'P01030801504' while Table 2 uses the last four digits (e.g., 0207, 1504); please make the observation naming consistent.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Eq. (1)] Please clarify whether S and B are count rates in the same energy band and whether the light curves used for the rms calculation are background-subtracted; the formula includes B in the numerator although background subtraction is described earlier.
  3. [Section 3.2 / Eq. (3)] The Morlet wavelet central frequency ω0 is not stated; the scale-to-frequency conversion and the frequency resolution depend on this choice (usually ω0=6), so please report it.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Figure 3] The red-noise parameter α=0.054 is quoted in the caption but the estimation of the AR(1) parameter is not described; please state how α is obtained for each light curve.
  5. [Section 4 / Eq. (9)] The left-hand side is denoted t_prec but the text calls it the QPO precessional frequency; please clarify that it is the period and that ν_qpo = 1/t_prec.
  6. [Table 2] Empty cells for non-detections would be clearer as em dashes or 'not detected'.
  7. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments contain 'the the NSFC'; please remove the duplicated article.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical detections are data-driven and the theoretical interpretations use external models and parameters.

full rationale

The central empirical claims—detection of ~10 mHz and ~5–9 mHz QPOs, the luminosity dependence of the 5–9 mHz centroid frequency, and the constancy of the 10 mHz frequency—are derived directly from Insight-HXMT light curves via standard power-density-spectrum fitting and continuous wavelet analysis against an AR(1) red-noise background (Torrence & Compo 1998). The 5–9 mHz population is not constructed from the luminosity values; both quantities are measured from the same observations, but the correlation is an empirical relationship, not a fitted parameter. The theoretical section applies the beat-frequency model to the 10 mHz QPO as a consistency check: the radius required by the BFM is compared with the Alfvén radius estimated from the known cyclotron magnetic field, and the precession model for the 5 mHz QPO uses equation (27) of Shirakawa & Lai (2002) with α = 0.023 taken from Roy et al. (2019), an external source, rather than being fitted to the Her X-1 data. The only self-citations (Wang et al. 2021; Zhu & Wang 2024; Chen et al. 2022) concern data-reduction procedures and wavelet application, and are not load-bearing for the physical conclusions. The R > 0.9 selection threshold and the use of an external viscosity parameter are statistical and modeling caveats, but they are not cases where a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical detection rests on standard timing and spectral analysis with public data and standard software. The main free parameters are the ad hoc R > 0.9 selection threshold, the AR(1) red-noise parameter, and the viscosity alpha borrowed from a different source for the precession model. Domain assumptions include the distance, neutron star mass and radius, and magnetic field strength, all taken from prior literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Viscosity parameter alpha for Her X-1 disk = 0.023 (adopted from Roy et al. 2019 model fits to 4U 0115+63)
    Used in Section 4 with the magnetic disk precession formula (Eq. 9) to predict 6-9 mHz QPO frequencies that match the observed 5-9 mHz trend. No independent constraint on alpha for Her X-1 is given, so the model is matched to data with this borrowed parameter.
  • QPO selection threshold R > 0.9 = 0.9
    Chosen in Section 3.2 to select wavelet peaks for the QPO catalog. This threshold admits peaks below the 95% confidence level (R < 1), including R = 0.92, 0.94, 0.95, 0.97 in Table 2, so the catalog and the luminosity correlation depend on this hand-chosen cutoff.
  • AR(1) red-noise parameter for wavelet significance = e.g., 0.054 for ObsID 0207
    Fit to each light curve in Section 3.2 to construct the red-noise background against which wavelet peaks are tested. The significance contours and the resulting R factors depend on this estimated parameter.
  • X-ray spectral fit parameters (TBabs * cutoffpl) = not tabulated in the paper
    Column density, photon index, cutoff energy, and normalization are fitted per observation to derive the 2-110 keV luminosities in Table 2. These luminosities define the x-axis of the frequency-luminosity correlation that supports the main empirical claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Her X-1 is at a distance of 6.6 kpc
    Adopted in Section 3.2 to convert observed count rates into 2-110 keV luminosities. The distance uncertainty propagates directly into the luminosity values used in the correlation claim.
  • domain assumption Neutron star mass is 1.4 solar masses and radius is 1e6 cm
    Adopted in Section 4 to compute the Alfven radius and corotation radius for the beat-frequency model interpretation.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field strength is about 2.9e12 G
    Taken from the cyclotron line measurement of Xiao et al. (2019), cited in Section 4, and used to estimate the Alfven radius in the beat-frequency interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper The Alfven radius must be close to the corotation radius for the 10 mHz beat-frequency interpretation
    Introduced in Section 4 as a condition that makes the beat-frequency model applicable to the stable 10 mHz QPO. The proximity is asserted, not measured, and is needed for the model to match the observed frequency.
  • standard math Wavelet significance is calibrated against an AR(1) red-noise model with a chi-square distribution
    Follows Torrence & Compo (1998), used in Section 3.2 to estimate the 95% confidence contours for wavelet peaks.
  • domain assumption The 10 mHz X-ray and UV QPOs share a common origin through reprocessing
    Assumed in Section 4 based on Chakrabarty (1998) and used to connect the X-ray 10 mHz signal with the UV 8 mHz signal reported by Boroson et al. (2000).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observations of the X-ray Millihertz Quasiperiodic Oscillations in Hercules X-1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWUOL5IS

@misc{pith2026250115366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observations of the X-ray Millihertz Quasiperiodic Oscillations in Hercules X-1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWUOL5IS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15366}
}
abstract

With a systematic timing investigation of the persistent X-ray binary pulsar Her X-1 based on a large number of Insight-HXMT observations between 2017 to 2019, we confirm the presence of X-ray millihertz quasi-periodic oscillations (mHz QPOs) at $\sim 0.01$ Hz. By applying wavelet analysis in our data analysis procedures, we firstly identified $\sim 0.005-0.009$ Hz QPOs coexisting with the $\sim 0.01$ Hz QPOs. Wavelet analysis suggests that these QPO features show transient behaviors, frequencies of mHz QPOs evolved in short time scales. There exists a positive relation between QPO centroid frequency (from $\sim 0.005-0.009$ Hz) and the X-ray luminosity, while the 10 mHz QPO frequencies keep nearly constant for different luminosities, which suggests different physical mechanisms for two types of mHz QPOs. The 10 mHz QPOs in both X-ray and UV bands would have the same origin related to the beat frequency where the Alfv$\acute{e}$n radius is close to the corotation radius, and the 5 mHz QPOs may originate from magnetic disk precession.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15366 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The power density spectra for the two representative observations using the Insight-HXMT/ME data (10-30 keV). The solid lines show the best fit with a multi-Lorentzian function (dotted lines). Observation ID, the frequency and width of QPO are shown for each panel. 10-30 keV for ME data. The data with energy above 30 keV were excluded due to the photon count rate being less than 10 counts/s. The PDSs were averaged a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The wavelet result of the first GTI of Observation ID P01013080207 in ME(10-30 keV). The local wavelet spectra are presented in the top panels, with the corresponding count rates(CR) of every 30 s over the same time intervals shown in the bottom panels. Regions with greater than 95% confidence level are circled with black lines in the contour plot, and the cone of influence area is marked with gray hashed lines. Col… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The global wavelet power spectrum for Her X-1 is shown for Observation ID P01013080207 during the first GTI. The solid black line is the power spectrum of the signal, which is compared to the power spectra of red noise random processes (broken lines). The detections of ∼ 5 mHz and ∼ 10 mHz QPO with the 1.86 ks observations reach the expected levels of red noise at the 95% significance levels relative to red noise wi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The wavelet results, count rates (CR) and hardness ratio (10-30 keV/1-10 keV) with 30-s bins for the Obs ID P010130800507 in two energy bands: 1-10 keV (LE, left) and 10-30 keV (ME, right), respectively. The mHz QPO at LE bands has the constant frequency near 10 mHz du…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The QPO frequencies observed in the ME (10-30 keV) versus the 2-110 keV X-ray luminosity of Her X-1. To illustrate the different dependencies on luminosity, ∼ 5 mHz QPOs in the ME (10-30 keV) are shown as blue dots in the top panel, and ∼ 10 mHz QPOs are shown as orang…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Addison, P. S. 2017, The illustrated wavelet transform handbook: introductory theory and applications in science, engineering, medicine and finance (CRC press)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    A., & Shaham, J

    Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1985, Nature, 316, 239 9

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Angelini, L., Stella, L., & Parmar, A. 1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 346, Nov. 15, 1989, p. 906-911., 346, 906 Boroson,B.,O’Brien,K.,Horne,K.,etal.2000,TheAstrophysical Journal, 545, 399

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    C., Hickox, R

    Brumback, M. C., Hickox, R. C., Fürst, F. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 186

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 2

    Bu, Q.-c., Chen, L., Li, Z.-s., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 2

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    2020, SCIENCE CHINA

    Cao, X., Jiang, W., Meng, B., et al. 2020, SCIENCE CHINA

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 492, 342

    Chakrabarty, D. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 492, 342

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4875

    Chen, X., Wang, W., You, B., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4875

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

    Chen, Y., Cui, W., Li, W., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

    2020

  2. [10]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 1023

    Devasia, J., James, M., Paul, B., & Indulekha, K. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 1023

    2011

  3. [11]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 6045

    Ding, Y., Wang, W., Zhang, P., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 6045

    2021

  4. [12]

    1996, Astrophysical Journal v

    Finger, M., Wilson, R., & Harmon, B. 1996, Astrophysical Journal v. 459, p. 288, 459, 288

    1996

  5. [13]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 1478

    Ghosh, A., Gallo, L., & Gonzalez, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 1478

    2023

  6. [14]

    1979, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol

    Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. 1979, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 234, Nov. 15, 1979, p. 296-316., 234, 296

    1979

  7. [15]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    Heyl, J., Doroshenko, V., González-Caniulef, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    2024

  8. [16]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, 463

    Inam, S., Baykal, A., Swank, J., & Stark, M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, 463

    2004

  9. [17]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 285

    James, M., Paul, B., Devasia, J., & Indulekha, K. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 285

    2010

  10. [18]

    2002, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0206181

    Ramsay, G. 2002, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0206181

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 1409

    Kaur, R., Paul, B., Raichur, H., & Sagar, R. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 1409

    2007

  12. [20]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 524, 1030

    Lai, D. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 524, 1030

    1999

  13. [21]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 446

    Leahy, D. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 446

    2003

  14. [22]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 74

    Leahy, D., & Igna, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 74

    2011

  15. [23]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 131

    Leahy, D., Postma, J., & Chen, Y. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 131

    2020

  16. [24]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 146

    Leahy, D., & Wang, Y. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 146

    2020

  17. [25]

    2020, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

    Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, X., et al. 2020, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 1

    2020

  18. [26]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 5579

    Liu, Q., Wang, W., Chen, X., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 5579

    2022

  19. [27]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 541

    Lyu, M., Méndez, M., Zhang, G., & Keek, L. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 541

    2015

  20. [28]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 530

    Manikantan, H., Paul, B., Sharma, R., Pradhan, P., & Rana, V. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 530

    2024

  21. [29]

    1981, Astrophysical Journal, 244, 1001

    Middleditch, J., Mason, K., Nelson, J., & White, N. 1981, Astrophysical Journal, 244, 1001

    1981

  22. [30]

    Moon, D.-S., & Eikenberry, S. S. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 552, L135 O’Brien, K., Horne, K., Boroson, B., et al. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 326, 1067

    2001

  23. [31]

    2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.4446

    Paul, B., & Naik, S. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.4446

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    1998, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9805366

    Paul, B., & Rao, A. 1998, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9805366

    1998 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Petterson, J. A. 1975, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 201, Oct. 15, 1975, pt. 2, p. L61-L64., 201, L61

    1975

  26. [34]

    2004, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0410536

    Psaltis, D. 2004, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0410536

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5578

    Raman, G., Paul, B., & Bhattacharya, D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5578

    2021

  28. [36]

    1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 43

    Reynolds, A., Quaintrell, H., Still, M., et al. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 43

    1997

  29. [37]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 33

    Roy, J., Agrawal, P., Iyer, N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 33

    2019

  30. [38]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 510, 974

    Scott, D., & Leahy, D. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 510, 974

    1999

  31. [39]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, 1134

    Shirakawa, A., & Lai, D. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, 1134

    2002

  32. [40]

    1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol

    Staubert, R., Bezler, M., & Kendziorra, E. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 117, no. 2, Jan. 1983, p. 215-219., 117, 215

    1983

  33. [41]

    2009, arXiv preprint arXiv:0904.2307

    Staubert, R., Klochkov, D., & Wilms, J. 2009, arXiv preprint arXiv:0904.2307

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    1994, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Takeshima, T., Dotani, T., Mitsuda, K., & Nagase, F. 1994, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 436, no. 2, p. 871-874, 436, 871

    1994

  35. [43]

    a., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., et al

    Tananbaum, H. a., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., et al. 1972, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 174, p. L143, 174, L143

    1972

  36. [44]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological society, 79, 61 Trümper, J., Pietsch, W., Reppin, C., et al. 1978, Astrophysical

    1998

  37. [45]

    219, Feb

    Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor, vol. 219, Feb. 1, 1978, p. L105-L110. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 219, L105 Van der Klis, M., Stella, L., White, N., Jansen, F., & Parmar, A. 1987, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 316, May 1, 1987, p. 411-426., 316, 411

    1978

  38. [46]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, 522

    Vrtilek, S., Quaintrell, H., Boroson, B., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, 522

    2001

  39. [47]

    2021, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 30, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2021.01.002

    Wang, W., Tang, Y., Tuo, Y., et al. 2021, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 30, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2021.01.002

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 23, 29

    Xiao, G., Ji, L., Staubert, R., et al. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 23, 29

    2019

  41. [49]

    2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol

    Zhang, S., Lu, F., Zhang, S., & Li, T. 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 9144, SPIE, 588–595 10

    2014

  42. [50]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 106

    Zhu, H., & Wang, W. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 106

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.