Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

The paper argues that the 45-year quiescent X-ray glow of the accreting millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 can be explained by deep crustal heating, not by the companion star's corona.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:56 UTC pith:LDTZQOZB

load-bearing objection Solid spectral decay study with a useful archival upper-limit compilation, but the deep-crustal-heating claim is a consistency check with large uncertainties, not a quantitative match. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15167 v1 pith:LDTZQOZB submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.HE

Spectral study of the outburst decay of the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207

Amar Deo Chandra This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AccretionLow-mass x-ray binary starsMillisecond pulsarsNeutron starsJetsX-ray binary starsX-ray transient sourcesDeep crustal heating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper follows the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 as its 2024 outburst fades into quiescence, and argues that the source's long-term quiet X-ray glow is best understood as heat radiating from the neutron star's crust. Using roughly 45 years of archival upper limits, it shows that deep crustal heating — energy deposited by nuclear reactions during accretion and released later — predicts a quiescent luminosity of about 1.6×10^34 erg/s, overlapping the observed range of 0.4–2.2×10^34 erg/s. The companion star's coronal emission, at about 10^32 erg/s, is too weak to matter. Along the way the paper maps the spectral softening, several reflares, and a near-simultaneous ultrafast outflow and radio detection that suggest a jet was launched during a reflare. If right, the source becomes a clean case study of how accreting neutron stars store and release accretion energy over decades.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the quiescent X-ray emission of SRGA J144459.2-604207, traced through upper limits across five decades, is consistent with the deep crustal heating model: with an estimated time-averaged accretion rate of about 8.4×10^15 g/s, the predicted bolometric thermal luminosity is about 1.6×10^34 erg/s, which falls inside the archival upper-limit range of 0.4–2.2×10^34 erg/s, while the donor star's corona (about 10^32 erg/s) cannot account for it. The paper also reports the 2024 outburst decay: the X-ray spectrum softens as the source fades, the flux drops by roughly a factor of 40 into quiescence, several reflares occur, and one reflare is near

What carries the argument

The deep crustal heating model, in which nuclear reactions in the neutron star's crust store energy during outbursts and release it as thermal X-rays in quiescence, with the identity L_th,bol = ⟨Ṁ⟩ Q_nuc / m_u ≈ 1.9×10^18 ⟨Ṁ⟩ for Q_nuc ≈ 2 MeV per accreted nucleon. The paper feeds this identity with a time-averaged accretion rate ⟨Ṁ⟩ ≈ ⟨Ṁ_obs⟩ × t_out / t_recur, using the 2024 outburst's roughly 30-day duration and a roughly 1.04-year recurrence time inferred from sparse detections in 2022, 2023, and 2024. This energy-budget relation is the mechanism that connects the observed 2024 outburst to the archival 45-year quiescent upper limits.

Load-bearing premise

The match hinges on assuming that the 2024 outburst — about 30 days long with a recurrence time of about 1.04 years — represents the neutron star's average accretion history; the paper's own lifetime-average feeding-rate estimate is eight times lower, which would shrink the predicted glow below the archival limits.

What would settle it

Monitor the source with an all-sky X-ray instrument for the next several years. If no new outburst occurs within roughly two years, or if the next outbursts are shorter or fainter than the 2024 one, the time-averaged accretion rate drops below about 4×10^15 g/s and the predicted crustal luminosity falls below about 8×10^33 erg/s, underneath the lowest archival upper limits; the claimed fit would then fail.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The source becomes another accreting millisecond pulsar whose long-term quiescent emission is consistent with deep crustal heating rather than with the companion star's corona.
  • The companion star's corona alone cannot power the quiescent X-ray luminosity, so future quiescent variability is better attributed to neutron-star cooling or residual accretion.
  • During reflares and the 2024 quiescent state the source luminosity exceeded the estimated propeller luminosity, meaning the magnetosphere did not prevent material from reaching the neutron star.
  • The near-simultaneous reflare, ultrafast outflow, and radio emission in February 2024 are consistent with a jet launched during an accretion reflare, similar to behavior seen in another accreting millisecond pulsar.
  • Continuous all-sky monitoring of future outbursts can test the assumed recurrence time and tighten or overturn the predicted quiescent luminosity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves unresolved that the 2024 quiescent luminosity measured directly (roughly 3–8×10^35 erg/s) is an order of magnitude above the archival upper limits; a natural reading is that the 2024 emission included residual accretion or a slow decay component, not pure crustal cooling — a distinction that can be tested by tracking the decay over the next months to see whether it settles near 10
  • Because the crustal-heating prediction scales linearly with recurrence time, a future monitoring campaign that finds the true recurrence time is, e.g., twice as long would cut the predicted luminosity to about 8×10^33 erg/s, below the archival range; the agreement presented here would then be a coincidence rather than a confirmation.
  • The single-epoch placement on the radio–X-ray plane is only weakly constraining, since accreting millisecond pulsars scatter by orders of magnitude in radio luminosity at fixed X-ray luminosity; a dense radio-X-ray campaign across the next outburst decay could reveal whether this source follows the usual correlation or is an outlier.
  • The ~0.9 keV blackbody component found in the 2024 quiescent spectra is hotter than the ~0.1–0.3 keV usually associated with crustal cooling; if it persists, it points to ongoing shallow heating or residual accretion on top of the crustal heat.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectral study of the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 during the decay of its 2024 outburst, using NICER and Swift observations. The outburst-decay and reflare spectra are fitted with an absorbed Comptonized model, and the quiescent spectra are also described with absorbed power-law and blackbody models. The paper then compiles archival X-ray upper limits covering roughly 45 years and argues that the long-term quiescent luminosity can be explained by deep crustal heating, with a predicted bolometric thermal luminosity L_th,bol ~1.6e34 erg/s based on an estimated average mass accretion rate. Additional sections place the source on the radio-X-ray luminosity plane, estimate the propeller luminosity, and discuss the possible association of a reflare with an ultrafast outflow and radio emission.

Significance. If the crustal-heating interpretation is correct, the paper adds a new AMXP data point to the sparse set of sources with long quiescent histories and measured outburst properties. The compilation of archival upper limits from Einstein, ROSAT, INTEGRAL, Swift, XMM-Newton, and eROSITA is useful, and the spectral fitting is standard and generally careful. The analysis of the reflare/outflow/radio connection is also of interest. However, the central crustal-heating claim rests on a duty-cycle estimate (t_recur ~1.04 yr) derived from only three sparse archival detections, with no quoted uncertainty and with the paper itself noting that the estimate is likely overestimated. The quantitative match with the upper limits is therefore not yet robust; the paper is honest about the caveats, but the caveats undercut rather than support the specific adopted value. With better propagation of uncertainties and a clearer treatment of the 2024 'quiescent' level versus the long-term limits, the claim could become a credible confirmation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (1)] The central crustal-heating prediction is L_th,bol = 1.6e34 erg/s, obtained from <Mdot> = <Mdot_obs> × t_out/t_recur. The estimate t_recur ≈ 1.04 yr is derived from three archival detections (2022 Jan, 2023 Dec, 2024 Feb) with intervals of ~23 and ~2 months, and no uncertainty is given. Two of the detections are described as 'faint state' rather than confirmed outbursts. If the 2022/2023 detections are part of one prolonged low-level episode, t_recur is ≥2 yr and L_th drops by at least a factor ~2; if one uses the lifetime-averaged mass-transfer rate quoted later in the same section (1.6e-11 M_sun/yr, a factor 8 lower), L_th ≈ 2e33 erg/s, below the tightest archival upper limits. The paper itself notes that the adopted values are likely overestimated, so the 'match' is not a robust central prediction. In addition, the conversion from the mean outburst flux (1.6e-9 erg/cm2/s) to <Mdot_obs
  2. [§3.4 and Table 4] The paper states L_th ≈ 1.6e34 erg/s is 'comparable' to the 0.4–2.2e34 erg/s range of archival upper limits. But the two most sensitive limits (Einstein 1979 and ROSAT 1992) correspond to ~0.26–0.35e34 erg/s for the same distance and assumptions, i.e., a factor ~5 below the predicted value. Since these are upper limits, the model prediction as computed is formally inconsistent with those observations. The comparison should be re-framed: state the factor by which the adopted rates would need to be lowered, propagate the uncertainty in t_recur, and apply a consistent bolometric correction. As written, the agreement is largely an artifact of comparing with the upper end of the upper-limit range.
  3. [§3.2.3 vs §3.4] The NICER 'quiescent' luminosities in 2024 April (3.3–7.5e35 erg/s, Table 3) are one to two orders of magnitude above the archival long-term upper limits (0.4–2.2e34 erg/s) used for the crustal-heating comparison. The paper does not reconcile this discrepancy. Either the 2024 state is still dominated by residual accretion/reflaring and is not representative of true quiescence, or the source's quiescent level has changed; both possibilities have implications for the crustal-heating interpretation. Please add a quantitative discussion and, if the 2024 state is not used in the crustal-heating comparison, state this explicitly and justify the choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The source name is inconsistent: 'SRGA J144459.2-60420' appears in the Section 3.4 title and elsewhere; it should be 'SRGA J144459.2-604207'.
  2. [§3.2.3] The first quiescent epoch is listed as 2024 March 14 (MJD 60383.1), but Obs. ID 6639080116 starts at MJD 60392.05 (2024 March 23). The text and Table 1 appear mismatched. Also, the second Swift observation (MJD 60378.3) is used in Section 3.3 but is not reported in Table 2.
  3. [§3.4] The text says the upper limits span '1979-2023', but Table 4 ends at eROSITA 2020; the 2022/2023 detections are outburst/faint detections, not upper limits. Please clarify the time span.
  4. [Figures 1 and 2] The shading is described in the captions, but Figure 2's yellow regions are single reflare epochs rather than a continuous 'outburst/reflare' interval; consider making the caption consistent with the plotted epochs.
  5. [Table 1] Several NICER exposures are very short (133-578 s). The text mentions that some epochs were background-dominated and excluded, but the quantitative exclusion criterion is not stated. Please specify how many and which epochs were excluded.
  6. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments include 'We are thankful to the reviewer for carefully going through the manuscript...' which is unusual in a submitted draft and should be removed or revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the deep-crustal-heating estimate is a forward calculation with external model constants; the weak t_recur constraint is a data-limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central claim (Sec. 3.4) computes L_th,bol from Eq. 1 using Q_nuc and ⟨Mdot⟩ = ⟨Mdot_obs⟩ x t_out/t_recur. L_th is not fitted to the archival upper limits; it is compared with them, and the comparison is explicitly framed as 'may be explained'/'comparable.' The inputs (peak flux, MAXI average count rate, t_out = 30 d, t_recur ≈ 1.04 yr from archival detections, distance ≈ 10 kpc) come from independent observations, and the crustal-heating constants are cited to external literature (Brown et al. 1998; Degenaar et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2007; Haensel & Zdunik 2008). The paper itself discloses that t_out and t_recur 'are not very well constrained in this source' and that both mass-transfer estimates 'are likely to be overestimated.' That is a robustness caveat, not a definitional reduction. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the author's own prior work. Self-citations to A. D. Chandra (2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026) occur for contextual comparisons and for standard Alfvén/co-rotation radius formulas (Eqs. 3-4), none of which is load-bearing for the crustal-heating claim; those formulas are also standard textbook results. The main weakness (recurrence time inferred from sparse 'faint state' detections) is a data-constraint issue and a correctness-risk concern, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on a small set of external model constants and on a source-specific recurrence/duty cycle inferred from sparse data; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • t_recur (outburst recurrence time) = ~1.04 yr
    Set by detections in 2022 Jan, 2023 Dec, and the 2024 outburst; enters Eq. 1 via ⟨Ṁ⟩ = ⟨Ṁ_obs⟩ t_out/t_recur.
  • t_out (outburst duration) = ~30 d
    2024 outburst duration assumed typical for the long-term duty cycle.
  • average outburst flux scale = ⟨Ṁ_obs⟩ ~1.6e-9 erg s^-1 cm^-2 implied
    Peak bolometric flux scaled by mean/peak MAXI count rate; assumes unchanged spectral shape.
  • kTe (Swift outburst-decay) = 5 keV (fixed)
    Unconstrained in the fit; fixed to the value near that epoch from Li et al. 2025.
  • kTbb (quiescent NICER) = 0.1 keV (fixed)
    Seed-photon temperature fixed because unconstrained; affects flux extrapolation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption L_th = 1.9e18 ⟨Ṁ⟩ with Q_nuc ≈ 2 MeV/nucleon (deep crustal heating)
    Standard model from Brown et al. 1998; used in Eq. 1 to convert average accretion rate to quiescent luminosity.
  • ad hoc to paper t_recur ≈ 1.04 yr and t_out ≈ 30 d are representative of the long-term accretion duty cycle
    Inferred from sparse archival detections (2022 Jan, 2023 Dec) and the 2024 outburst; the paper admits these are not well constrained.
  • domain assumption Distance = 10 kpc
    Distance from PRE bursts (Fu et al. 2025); all luminosities scale as D^2.
  • ad hoc to paper Spectral shape is constant for MAXI count-rate-to-flux and NICER count-rate-to-luminosity conversions
    Stated in §3.4 and §4.3; needed to convert light curves to luminosities.
  • domain assumption Propeller/jet formulas with standard coefficients (k=0.5, ξ=0.5, η=0.1, f_ang=1, k_A=1)
    Standard accretion physics from Campana, Ghosh & Lamb, Ibragimov & Poutanen; magnetic field is a major uncertainty.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21786 in / 17793 out tokens · 128171 ms · 2026-08-01T23:56:14.778219+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the spectra of the accreting X-ray millisecond pulsar SRGA J144459.2-604207 during the 2024 outburst using the Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) and Swift observations. The spectra during the outburst decay, reflares, and quiescent state are explored using the absorbed Comptonized model. We find that the spectra during the quiescent state can also be explained using the absorbed power-law and absorbed blackbody model. The spectral evolution of the source is explored as the outburst decays into quiescence. We study the long-term quiescent X-ray activity of the source spanning roughly 45 years and find that the long-term quiescent luminosity may be explained using the deep crustal heating model. We also find that the coronal activity of the companion star alone cannot power the quiescent X-ray luminosity of the source. We place the source on the radio-X-ray luminosity plane and compare its position with other sources. We estimate the propeller luminosity of the source and find that it is smaller than the estimated luminosity during reflares and the quiescent state during the 2024 outburst. Several reflares are detected during the outburst decay, one of which is near-simultaneous with the detection of an ultrafast outflow and radio emission. We explore plausible mechanisms that may power outflow, radio emission and associated jet formation in this accreting binary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15167 by Amar Deo Chandra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: MAXI one-day averaged light curve of SRGA J144459.2-604207 in the 2-20 keV energy band2 spanning the duration MJD 60330 (2024 January 21) until MJD 60450 (2024 May 20). The dashed and dotted vertical lines indicate the epochs of Swift and NICER observations, respectively. The shaded yellow and gray regions denote the epochs during outburst/reflare and quiescence, respectively. have been averaged for a give… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: NICER background-subtracted averaged light curve of SRGA J144459.2-604207 in the 0.5-8 keV energy band. The shaded yellow and gray regions denote the epochs during reflare and quiescence, respectively. from ∼11 counts s−1 (MJD 60383.1) to ∼1 counts s−1 (around MJD 60400) and remained at this level until around MJD 60412. The NICER count rate jumped to ∼17.5 counts s−1 around MJD 60416.8, suggesting reflari… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Swift/XRT spectra (during outburst decay) for 2024 March 2 (MJD 60371.4) fitted with the absorbed Comptonized model. The residuals between the data and the model are shown in the lower panel. Right: NICER spectra (during reflare) for 2024 March 14 (MJD 60383.1) fitted using the absorbed Comptonized model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NICER spectra (during quiescent state) fitted with the absorbed Comptonized model for 2024 April 24 (MJD 60424.4) and 2024 April 25 (MJD 60425) are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. The residuals between the data and the model are shown in the lower panel in each plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot showing the best-fitted parameters of the Swift (filled squares) and NICER spectra (filled circles) using the absorbed Comptonized model. The hydrogen column density, Γ, the electron temperature, the blackbody temperature and the unabsorbed flux in the 0.5-10 keV energy band are shown in the panels from top to bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: X-ray (1-10 keV) luminosity versus radio (5 GHz) luminosity for LMXBs (containing black hole (BH) and neutron star (NS)), transitional millisecond pulsars (tMSPs), white dwarfs (WDs), and AMXPs. SRGA J144459.2-604207 is marked by an orange star in the Radio-X-ray luminosity plane. The gray circles represent BHs from the literature (E. Gallo et al. 2003; S. Corbel et al. 2003; A. Merloni et al. 2003; E. Gal… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot showing estimated X-ray luminosity (0.5-100 keV) of SRGA J144459.2-604207 spanning the duration 2024 March 2 (MJD 60371.4) until 2024 May 3 (MJD 60433.9). The horizontal dashed and dotted lines show the estimated limiting luminosity for the propeller effect to set in for B=1.3×108 G and B=3.8×107 G, respectively. The vertical dotted lines show the epochs when reflares were observed in the MAXI one-day… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1996, in ASP Conf

    Arnaud, K. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes (San Francisco, CA: ASP), Vol. 17

    1996

  2. [2]

    1995, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, Vol

    Blackburn, J. 1995, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, Vol. 77, 367

    1995

  3. [3]

    T., Miller-Jones, J

    Bogdanov, S., Deller, A. T., Miller-Jones, J. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 54

    2018

  4. [4]

    F., Bildsten, L., & Rutledge, R

    Brown, E. F., Bildsten, L., & Rutledge, R. E. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 504, L95

    1998

  5. [5]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 5600

    Buisson, D., Altamirano, D., Armas Padilla, M., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 5600

    2021

  6. [6]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, L21

    Cackett, E., Altamirano, D., Patruno, A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, L21

    2009

  7. [7]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 517, L21

    Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., & Tzioumis, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 517, L21

    2022

  8. [8]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 505, L58

    Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 505, L58

    2021

  9. [9]

    Chandra, A. D. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16471, 1

    2024

  10. [10]

    Chandra, A. D. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e037

    2025

  11. [11]

    Chandra, A. D. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 49, 100429

    2026

  12. [12]

    D., Roy, J., & Agrawal, P

    Chandra, A. D., Roy, J., & Agrawal, P. C. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 045003

    2023

  13. [13]

    D., Roy, J., Agrawal, P

    Chandra, A. D., Roy, J., Agrawal, P. C., & Choudhury, M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 2664

    2020

  14. [14]

    D., Roy, J., Agrawal, P

    Chandra, A. D., Roy, J., Agrawal, P. C., & Choudhury, M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 4429

    2021

  15. [15]

    J., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 69

    2013

  16. [16]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, 394

    Coburn, W., Heindl, W., Rothschild, R., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, 394

    2002

  17. [17]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 2500

    Corbel, S., Coriat, M., Brocksopp, C., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 2500

    2013

  18. [18]

    2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 400, 1007

    Markoff, S. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 400, 1007

    2003

  19. [19]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 636, 971

    Corbel, S., Tomsick, J., & Kaaret, P. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 636, 971

    2006

  20. [20]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16477, 1

    Cowie, F., Gillanders, J., Rhodes, L., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16477, 1

    2024

  21. [21]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 148

    Degenaar, N., Patruno, A., & Wijnands, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 148

    2012

  22. [22]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 13

    Deller, A., Moldon, J., Miller-Jones, J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 13

    2015

  23. [23]

    C., Linsky, J

    Dempsey, R. C., Linsky, J. L., Fleming, T. A., & Schmitt, J. 1993, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (ISSN 0067-0049), vol. 86, no. 2, p. 599-609., 86, 599 Din¸ cer, T., Bailyn, C. D., Miller-Jones, J. C., Buxton, M., & MacDonald, R. K. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 4

    1993

  24. [24]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, L17

    Dohi, A., Nishimura, N., Hirai, R., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, L17

    2025

  25. [25]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 61

    Dunn, R., Fender, R., K¨ ording, E., Belloni, T., & Cabanac, C. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 61

    2010

  26. [26]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1177

    Evans, P., Beardmore, A., Page, K., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1177

    2009

  27. [27]

    R., & Raine, D

    Frank, J., King, A. R., & Raine, D. 2002, Accretion power in astrophysics (Cambridge university press)

    2002

  28. [28]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 161

    Fu, T., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 161

    2025

  29. [29]

    P., Miller-Jones, J., et al

    Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., Miller-Jones, J., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 1351

    2006

  30. [30]

    P., & Pooley, G

    Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., & Pooley, G. G. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 60

    2003

  31. [31]

    P., & Fender, R

    Gallo, E., Miller, B. P., & Fender, R. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 590

    2012

  32. [32]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 290

    Gallo, E., Miller-Jones, J., Russell, D., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 290

    2014

  33. [33]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2806

    Gasealahwe, K., Monageng, I., Fender, R., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2806

    2023

  34. [34]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005

    2004

  35. [35]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to gamma ray, Vol. 9905, SPIE, 420–435

    2016

  36. [36]

    1978, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor, vol

    Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. 1978, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. L83-L87., 223, L83

    1978

  37. [37]

    F., Schatz, H., M¨ oller, P., & Kratz, K.-L

    Gupta, S., Brown, E. F., Schatz, H., M¨ oller, P., & Kratz, K.-L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 1188

    2007

  38. [38]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1871

    Gusinskaia, N., Deller, A., Hessels, J., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1871

    2017

  39. [39]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1091

    Gusinskaia, N., Russell, T., Hessels, J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1091

    2020

  40. [40]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 480, 459 15

    Haensel, P., & Zdunik, J. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 480, 459 15

    2008

  41. [41]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357 HI4PI Collaboration, Bekhti, N. B., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A116

    2020

  42. [42]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 235

    Hill, A., Szostek, A., Corbel, S., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 235

    2011

  43. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  44. [44]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 492

    Ibragimov, A., & Poutanen, J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 492

    2009

  45. [45]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16510, 1 Jim´ enez-Ibarra, F., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Armas Padilla, M., et al

    Illiano, G., Coti Zelati, F., Marino, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16510, 1 Jim´ enez-Ibarra, F., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Armas Padilla, M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2078

    2024

  46. [46]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 587, A151

    Kaastra, J., & Bleeker, J. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 587, A151

    2016

  47. [47]

    A., Buxton, M., et al

    Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Buxton, M., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 508 K¨ onig, O., Saxton, R. D., Kretschmar, P., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Computing, 38, 100529

    2005

  48. [48]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.00793

    Li, Z., Kuiper, L., Pan, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.00793

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08239

    Malacaria, C., Papitto, A., Campana, S., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    2016, Nature, 537, 374

    Marsh, T., G¨ ansicke, B., H¨ ummerich, S., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 374

    2016

  51. [51]

    Massi, M., & Bernad´ o, M. K. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 477, 1

    2008

  52. [52]

    2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999

    2009

  53. [53]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16464, 1

    Mereminskiy, I., Semena, A., Molkov, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16464, 1

    2024

  54. [54]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 345, 1057

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & Di Matteo, T. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 345, 1057

    2003

  55. [55]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2407

    Migliari, S., Miller-Jones, J., & Russell, D. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2407

    2011

  56. [56]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16469, 1

    Mihara, T., Negoro, H., Nakajima, M., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16469, 1

    2024

  57. [57]

    2010, The astronomer’s telegram, 2377, 1

    Miller-Jones, J., Heinke, C., Sivakoff, G., et al. 2010, The astronomer’s telegram, 2377, 1

    2010

  58. [58]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 739, L18

    Miller-Jones, J., Jonker, P., Maccarone, T., Nelemans, G., & Calvelo, D. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 739, L18

    2011

  59. [59]

    C., Strader, J., Heinke, C

    Miller-Jones, J. C., Strader, J., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 3918

    2015

  60. [60]

    V., Lutovinov, A

    Molkov, S. V., Lutovinov, A. A., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A353

    2024

  61. [61]

    E., Casella, P., & Fender, R

    Motta, S. E., Casella, P., & Fender, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5159

    2018

  62. [62]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 3994 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)

    Mukherjee, D., Bult, P., van der Klis, M., & Bhattacharya, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 3994 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl, 1408

    2015

  63. [63]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16483, 1

    Negoro, H., Mihara, T., Serino, M., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16483, 1

    2024

  64. [64]

    2013, Nature, 501, 517

    Papitto, A., Ferrigno, C., Bozzo, E., et al. 2013, Nature, 501, 517

    2013

  65. [65]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A37

    Papitto, A., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A37

    2025

  66. [66]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 100

    Patruno, A., Maitra, D., Curran, P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 100

    2016

  67. [67]

    Patruno, A., & Watts, A. L. 2020, in Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions (Springer), 143–208

    2020

  68. [68]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 92

    Plotkin, R., Bright, J., Miller-Jones, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 92

    2017

  69. [69]

    M., Gallo, E., & Jonker, P

    Plotkin, R. M., Gallo, E., & Jonker, P. G. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 59

    2013

  70. [70]

    G., Miller-Jones, J

    Ratti, E., Jonker, P. G., Miller-Jones, J. C., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2656 Rib´ o, M., Munar-Adrover, P., Paredes, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 835, L33

    2012

  71. [71]

    K., Baglio, M

    Rout, S. K., Baglio, M. C., Hughes, A. K., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 988, 153

    2025

  72. [72]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 628

    Rushton, A., Shaw, A., Fender, R., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 628

    2016

  73. [73]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L16

    Russell, T., Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L16

    2018

  74. [74]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16511, 1

    Russell, T., Carotenuto, F., Eijnden, J., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16511, 1

    2024

  75. [75]

    D., & Sanna, A

    Salvo, T. D., & Sanna, A. 2021, in Millisecond Pulsars (Springer), 87–124

    2021

  76. [76]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16493, 1

    Sguera, V., & Sidoli, L. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16493, 1

    2024

  77. [77]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16476, 1

    Sokolovsky, K., Korotkiy, S., & Zalles, R. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16476, 1

    2024

  78. [78]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., Maccarone, T. J., Miller-Jones, J. C., & Seth, A. C. 2012, Nature, 490, 71

    2012

  79. [79]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, L24

    Takeda, T., Tamagawa, T., Enoto, T., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, L24

    2025

  80. [80]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. 2006, Compact stellar X-ray sources, 39, 623

    2006

Showing first 80 references.