Examining the evolution of the Supersoft X-ray Source RX J0513.9-6951

A. Santangelo; A. Tavleev; K. Werner; V. F. Suleimanov

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Examining the evolution of the Supersoft X-ray Source RX J0513.9-6951

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

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

Pith's one-line read Fitting X-ray spectra flips the picture of supersoft source RX J0513

desk verdict A careful spectral study with a striking but model-dependent claim; the central anti-correlation needs a state-dependent NH test before it overturns the contraction model. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14273 v2 pith:NKQ3PA72 submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.HE

A. Tavleev , V. F. Suleimanov , K. Werner , A. Santangelo This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords supersoftX-raysourcesRXJ0513.9-6951whitedwarfatmospherescontractionmodelaccretiondiscreprocessingspectroscopyLTELargeMagellanicCloud

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 tries to establish that the optical/X-ray anti-correlation of the supersoft source RX J0513.9-6951 is not caused by the periodic expansion and contraction of the accreting white dwarf. Fitting high-resolution Chandra and XMM-Newton grating spectra with LTE hot white-dwarf model atmospheres, the authors track how $T_{\rm eff}$, radius, and luminosity move between optical states. They find the opposite phase relation from the contraction model: the source is optically bright when the white dwarf is small, cool, and below the steady-burning strip, and optically faint when it is large, luminous, and steadily burning. If correct, this redirects the variability mechanism to reprocessing of soft X-rays by clouds above the accretion disc rather than to disc illumination by an inflated white dwarf. The claim matters because the contraction model is the standard explanation for a whole class of supersoft sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LTE hot white-dwarf model atmosphere grid of Suleimanov et al. (2024), spanning $T_{\rm eff}=100$-$1000$ kK and eight gravity steps relative to the Eddington limit, computed with LMC composition. Fitting the grating spectra with $M=1.1\,M_\odot$ and $N_{\rm H}=5.5\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ fixed produces the $T_{\rm eff}$, radius, and $L$ tracks that are compared with the steady-burning models of Nomoto et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2013). The alternative mechanism is cloud reprocessing: a slab with effective optical depth $\tau_{\rm eff}\approx\pi R_{\rm cl}^2 N_{\rm cl} L$ scatters soft X-rays into the optical band, with efficiency peaking near $\tau_{\rm eff}\sim1$-$10$, and strong illumination rarefies the slab.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same Chandra and XMM-Newton spectra with $N_{\rm H}$ free per observation and with non-LTE or wind-contaminated model atmospheres; if the best-fit photospheric radius and luminosity then no longer anticorrelate with the R-band magnitude, the paper's central claim fails. A second check is simultaneous X-ray and UV spectroscopy: if the cloud slab is the mechanism, its reprocessed far-UV emission or variable absorption edges should appear and track the optical state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a phase reversal: during optical bright states RX J0513 sits below the stable-burning strip with a compact photosphere, while during optical faint states it sits inside the strip with an inflated photosphere and higher bolometric luminosity. The paper states directly that this contradicts the contraction model, which predicts the opposite behaviour, and it proposes instead that a slab of optically thick clouds above the disc reprocesses the soft X-ray/far-UV flux into optical light by multiple scattering. In that picture, a luminous expanded white dwarf evaporates the clouds, lowering $\tau_{\rm eff}$, so the source becomes optically faint exactly when the white dwarf is most luminous and most capable of illuminating its surroundings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spectra are pure LTE hot-white-dwarf photospheres behind a single constant column of $5.5\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ at a fixed mass of $1.1$ solar masses; if the column varies between states or non-LTE or wind emission contaminates the data, the anti-correlation between radius and optical brightness could weaken or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The X-ray/optical anti-correlation in RX J0513 must be governed by the reprocessing state of the cloud slab, not by the size of the white dwarf photosphere illuminating the disc.
When the source is optically bright, its white dwarf is below the steady-burning strip, meaning nuclear burning is not steady during that phase; the tracks imply a mass near $1.1\,M_\odot$.
Blackbody fits are unsuitable for XMM-Newton RGS spectra of supersoft sources, overestimating radius and luminosity by factors of several compared with LTE atmosphere fits.
If the cloud slab becomes geometrically thick during the bright optical state, it can obscure the X-ray source altogether, which would make the optical bright state a true X-ray suppression rather than a spectral redistribution.

Reading between the lines

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

If $N_{\rm H}$ actually varies between optical states, the fixed-column fits could distort the radius/luminosity tracks; a direct test is to fit the same spectra with per-observation $N_{\rm H}$ and check whether the anti-correlation survives.
The cloud-slab model predicts observable far-UV reprocessed emission or variable absorption edges whose timing tracks the optical state; time-resolved UV spectroscopy of RX J0513 could confirm or rule out that picture.
If the photosphere really is below the steady-burning strip in the bright optical state, the cycle may be driven by envelope relaxation or periodic mass-transfer modulation rather than by an externally imposed accretion-rate cycle; the observed tracks could be compared with time-dependent envelope-burning models.
The same fitting strategy could be applied to all Magellanic Cloud supersoft sources with archived gratings to see whether the contradiction with the contraction model is a general property.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new thing here is the systematic LTE-atmosphere fit to all 14 archival high-resolution spectra of RX J0513.9-6951, and the resulting anti-correlation between photospheric radius/bolometric luminosity and optical brightness — opposite to the contraction model. The Chandra trend is visually and statistically strong (Pearson r close to 0.99), and the authors are honest about their assumptions. That is a real observational result worth taking seriously.

But the stress-test concern lands. The paper fixes NH = 5.5e20 cm^-2 for every spectrum, even though its own free-NH fits span (1-3.5)e20 for XMM and (3.7-5.4)e20 for Chandra, and it explicitly says the fitted parameters depend crucially on NH. If NH varies with state, a single constant column can map spectral shape changes into Teff/R/L variations. The only robustness test is another constant NH (6.2e20), not a state-dependent one. The fact that blackbody fits to the XMM data give the opposite radius trend makes this more than a minor caveat: the contradiction with the contraction model is not established until this degeneracy is shown not to drive the anti-correlation.

The mass determination is also somewhat circular — M = 1.1 Msun is selected by matching the same burning tracks that define the stable-burning strip — though the paper is transparent about that. And the absence of any goodness-of-fit statistic is frustrating; the reader is asked to trust that the models are acceptable. The cloud-reprocessing explanation is explicitly qualitative, which is fine for a disproof of the contraction model, but it does not yet carry predictive weight.

Where the paper earns credit: the analysis is transparent, the data are unique and well-characterized, and the empirical pattern is clear even if its interpretation is model-dependent. This is exactly the kind of paper that should go to peer review — a good referee will ask for state-dependent NH fits, proper goodness-of-fit reporting, and a test of whether the anti-correlation survives with NH free. That is doable and would settle the main question. I would not desk-reject this, and I would recommend engaging with it seriously, but I would not accept the central claim as it stands.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes eight XMM-Newton RGS and six Chandra LETG grating spectra of the supersoft source RX J0513.9-6951 using an LTE hot white dwarf atmosphere grid, with the hydrogen column density fixed at NH = 5.5e20 cm^-2 and the white dwarf mass fixed at 1.1 Msun. For each observation the authors derive the effective temperature, photospheric radius, and bolometric luminosity, and compare them with the optical brightness of the source. They find that the optical low states correspond to larger photospheric radii and higher bolometric luminosities, and that the source lies within or above the stable burning strip when optically faint and below it when optically bright. They interpret this as contradicting the standard contraction model and propose a qualitative cloud-reprocessing model in which stronger WD illumination rarefies a cloud slab above the accretion disc and thereby reduces the optical reprocessing efficiency.

Significance. If the anti-correlation between photospheric radius/bolometric luminosity and optical brightness is real, the result challenges a widely used explanation for RX J0513's optical/X-ray cycles and motivates new treatments of reprocessing in supersoft sources. The analysis uses a publicly available grid of model atmospheres, Bayesian nested-sampling fits, and positions on two independent theoretical planes (Teff-log g and Teff-L), which are strengths. However, the central trend rests on a fixed hydrogen column density and on a WD mass that is selected using the same theoretical burning tracks, and no goodness-of-fit statistics are reported. These issues must be addressed before the contradiction with the contraction model can be considered established.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.1, Tables 3-4, Fig. 7] The claim that R and L anti-correlate with optical brightness is derived exclusively with NH fixed at 5.5e20 cm^-2. Section 4.1 reports that free-NH fits give NH between 1e20 and 3.5e20 cm^-2 for XMM and between 3.7e20 and 5.4e20 cm^-2 for Chandra, and states that the fitting parameters depend crucially on NH. A robustness test at a different constant NH = 6.2e20 does not address the possibility that NH varies between optical states; if it does, spectral shape differences may be absorbed into NH and the inferred Teff/log g/R evolution could weaken or reverse. The authors should either fit NH per observation with a prior informed by the UV measurement or explicitly demonstrate that the correlations in Fig. 7 survive a state-dependent NH.
[Section 3] The manuscript deliberately does not report any goodness-of-fit statistic: after adding systematic errors so that reduced chi2 approaches unity, the authors state in Sect. 3 that no statistics value or goodness-of-fit criterion is provided. This makes it impossible to judge whether the LTE atmosphere model is an acceptable description of the 14 spectra, whether the parameter differences between states are significant, or whether the blackbody model is indeed rejected for the XMM data. The central evolutionary trends in Figs. 6 and 7 are only as strong as the fits that produce them; at minimum the final cstat or chi2 per degree of freedom for each spectrum and a residual plot or posterior predictive check should be included.
[Section 4.2] The WD mass is determined by comparing the same fitted log g, Teff, and L values with the Nomoto et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2013) burning tracks, and then M = 1.1 Msun is fixed to produce the radii and luminosities used in the correlation analysis. This selection is not fully independent of the conclusion, because a different mass shifts the inferred radius and luminosity and changes the location relative to the burning strip (as acknowledged for M > 1.3 Msun in Sect. 4.3). The authors should demonstrate that the R versus optical and L versus optical correlations are insensitive to the adopted mass within the quoted 1.0-1.15 Msun range, or treat M as a nuisance parameter in a joint fit.
[Section 4.3, Fig. 6] The contradiction with the contraction model is model-dependent: the XMM blackbody fits show the opposite radial evolution (increasing radius over time) and yield much larger radii and luminosities, and the paper dismisses these fits as unsuitable without a quantitative model comparison. Because non-LTE effects, winds, or disc emission could also alter the inferred Teff and log g, the authors need to justify that the LTE photospheric interpretation is the appropriate one for this source, or at least show that plausible spectral contamination does not remove the anti-correlation. As written, the contradiction is a property of one adopted spectral model family rather than a direct observational measurement.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The notation 'log 1' appears throughout the text (e.g., the abstract, Eq. (1), and Tables 3-4) and should read 'log g' or be explicitly defined; as printed it is confusing and appears to be a typesetting artifact.
[Section 4.3] In the paragraph discussing the Chandra observations, 'RXJ513' should be 'RXJ0513'.
[Section 3] The text states that the grid was computed for three chemical compositions but only specifies the LMC composition; one sentence identifying the other two compositions would improve reproducibility.
[Fig. 7] The Pearson correlation coefficients are reported without uncertainties or significance levels; given the small number of points (5 Chandra, 8 XMM), a p-value or bootstrap confidence interval would be more informative.
[Abstract vs. Section 4.2] The abstract quotes a mass range of 1.05-1.15 Msun while Sect. 4.2 states 1.0-1.15 Msun; these should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the WD mass is calibrated on the same Nomoto/Wolf burning tracks later used to locate the source relative to the stable-burning strip, but the central R/L–optical anti-correlation is an independent spectral-fit result.

other [Sect. 4.2 'WD mass estimation' and Sect. 4.3/Conclusions based on Figs. 1-2.]
"We fitted all the spectra using nine fixed WD mass values from 0.95 to 1.35 M⊙ in steps of 0.05 M⊙ and then compared the obtained results with theoretical predictions. Namely, we put the obtained fit values on the theoretical Teff − log g and Teff − L dependencies, computed for different WD masses with hydrogen-rich envelopes with thermonuclear burning by Nomoto et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2013). ... Eventually, we consider M = 1.1 M⊙ as the correct WD mass. ..."

The mass M = 1.1 M⊙ is not an independent external constraint; it is chosen because the fitted (Teff, log g, L) points lie on the Nomoto et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2013) burning tracks. The later claim that the source 'lies below the stable-burning strip' in bright optical states and 'follows model tracks' is evaluated on those same theoretical curves. The location relative to the strip is therefore partially imposed by the mass calibration rather than being an independent test of the burning model. The anti-correlation between fitted radius/luminosity and optical magnitude, however, is derived from the fixed-mass spectral fits plus external photometry, so it is not circular and can support the paper's main result independently.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim is that fitted WD radius and bolometric luminosity anti-correlate with optical brightness, contradicting the contraction model. That claim comes from 14 independent spectral fits (M = 1.1 M⊙, NH = 5.5e20 cm^-2) compared with external R-band photometry; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main circularity concern is limited to the mass-estimation step: the adopted mass is selected by matching the fits to the Nomoto/Wolf burning tracks, and the same tracks are then used to decide whether the source is inside or outside the stable-burning strip. Because the conclusion about crossing the strip follows in part from the mass calibration, that specific evolutionary interpretation is not fully independent. The XMM/Chandra R-L anti-correlation itself remains robust to the mass choice across the considered 1.0-1.15 M⊙ range, and the paper does not present any fitted quantity as an independent prediction. Hence no strong circularity, only mild self-referential mass calibration. The NH-fixing issue is a physical/model degeneracy, not a circularity, and is better classified as systematic uncertainty.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result is an interpretation of fitted atmosphere parameters, so the ledger is dominated by domain assumptions: LTE atmospheres, fixed absorption, fixed distance, and theoretical burning tracks. The only genuinely ad hoc entity is the cloud system invoked for the alternative model, which the paper itself labels hypothetical.

free parameters (4)

Effective temperature Teff per spectrum = 545-625 kK
Fitted to each grating spectrum with the LTE model grid; drives the position on the Teff-log g and Teff-L planes.
Photospheric radius R per spectrum = 5562-10324 km
Used as a normalization-like free parameter in the fits; the claimed anti-correlation with optical brightness depends directly on these radius values.
White dwarf mass M = 1.1 Msun (fixed)
Not measurable from spectral fitting alone; chosen by comparing nine fixed-mass fits to the Nomoto et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2013) burning tracks.
Hydrogen column density NH = 5.5e20 cm^-2 (fixed)
Adopted from Gansicke et al. (1998); free fits gave 1e20 to 5.4e20 cm^-2 depending on instrument, and the paper states that derived parameters depend crucially on NH.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The soft X-ray spectra are produced by plane-parallel LTE hot WD atmospheres with negligible non-LTE and contaminating emission.
Invoked in Sect. 3; the authors argue non-LTE is more accurate but that other uncertainties dominate.
domain assumption The distance to the LMC is 50 kpc.
Used in Tables 3 and 4 to convert fitted normalization into radius and bolometric luminosity.
domain assumption The theoretical Teff-log g and Teff-L burning tracks of Nomoto et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2013) correctly describe WDs with thermonuclear burning.
Used in Sect. 4.2 to select the WD mass and in Sect. 5 to define the stable-burning strip.
domain assumption Interstellar absorption is described by tbabs with a single, time-independent column density.
Adopted in Sect. 3 and fixed in Sect. 4.1; variable absorption is not modeled and could mimic radius evolution.
standard math The cold WD mass-radius relation of Nauenberg (1972) provides the lower radius limit in the prior.
Used in Sect. 3 to restrict the allowed radius range in the fits.

invented entities (1)

Optically thick clouds or blobs above the accretion disc
purpose: Reprocess far-UV and soft X-ray flux into the optical band via multiple scattering, explaining the optical bright state when the WD is compact and low luminosity.
The paper states that the nature of these hypothetical clouds is not known and provides no direct detection or independent falsifiable prediction; thermal instability is suggested as a formation mechanism but not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Examining the evolution of the Supersoft X-ray Source RX J0513.9-6951." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKQ3PA72

@misc{pith2026241114273,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Examining the evolution of the Supersoft X-ray Source RX J0513.9-6951},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKQ3PA72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14273}
}

abstract

Supersoft X-ray sources (SSS) are thought to be accreting white dwarfs (WDs) in close binary systems, with thermonuclear burning on their surfaces. The SSS RX J0513.9-6951 in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) exhibits cyclic variations between optical low and high states, which are anti-correlated with its X-ray flux. This behaviour is believed to result from the periodic expansion and contraction of the WD due to variations in the accretion rate in the system. We analyse eight high-resolution XMM and six grating Chandra spectra of RX J0513.9-6951 with our grid of model atmosphere spectra of hot WDs computed under the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium. Our aim is to test a contraction model of the source variability by tracking the evolution of the WD properties. The used grid of hot WD model atmospheres spans a wide range of effective temperatures ($T_{\rm eff}=100-1000\,\rm kK$ in steps of $25\,\rm kK$) and eight values of surface gravity $\log g$. The LMC chemical composition was assumed. The obtained fitting parameters ($T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, and bolometric luminosity $L$) evolve on the $T_{\rm eff}- \log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}- L$ planes. This evolution follows the model tracks of WDs with masses of $1.05-1.15\,M_{\odot}$ and thermonuclear burning on the surface. The analysis has showed that the optical brightness of the system is lower when the WD is larger, more luminous, and more effectively illuminates the accretion disc. These results contradict the contraction model, which predicts the opposite behaviour of the source. We use a model, that assumes that the far UV/soft X-ray flux is reprocessed into the optical band due to multiple scattering in the cloud system above the accretion disc. More significant illumination can lead to rarefying of the cloud slab, thereby reducing the reprocessing efficiency and making the source fainter in the optical band.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14273 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Positions of the source in the Teff −L plane according to different XMM-Newton (upper panel) and Chandra (lower panel) observations. The WD mass was fixed, and different colours indicate different masses from 0.95 to 1.35 M⊙. The fits with M = 1.1 M⊙ are additionally indicated by the increased marker size. Model dependencies were taken from Wolf et al. (2013). Only the model curves with steady-state thermonuclear … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Chandra spectra of RXJ0513 with the best-fit LTE models (in red). The absorbed blackbody models are also shown (in blue). The obtained model parameters are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Optical monitoring of RX J0513.9 − 6951, differential magnitudes in the R-filter, obtained by McGowan et al. (2005) and Burwitz et al. (2008). The times of the observed optical low states are shaded in grey. The dates of X-ray Chandra and XMM-Newton observations are sh…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Evolution of temperature, radius, and luminosity of the WD in RXJ0513 over time during the XMM-Newton (left panels) and Chandra (right panels) observations. Results are shown for both the model atmosphere fit and the blackbody fit. The WD mass is fixed, M = 1.1 M⊙. 199…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Temperature, radius, and bolometric luminosity of the WD in RXJ0513 versus the optical brightness of the source for the XMM-Newton (left panels) and Chandra (right panels) spectra. The numbers denote the spectrum number (see Sect. 2). The linear approximation as well a…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Qualitative picture of the proposed high and low optical states. Shown are the WD, the accretion disc, and blobs or clouds above the disc. Upper panel – high optical state; the low luminous WD is compact, and its X-ray emission is effectively reprocessed into optical l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

A., Alves, D., et al

Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 280, L49

work page 1996
[2]

1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005

Arnaud, K., Dorman, B., & Gordon, C. 1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005

1999
[3]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

1996
[4]

2019, PASP, 131, 108005

Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005

2019
[5]

2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

2021
[6]

2014, A&A, 564, A125

Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

2014
[7]

2008, A&A, 481, 193

Burwitz, V ., Reinsch, K., Greiner, J., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 193

work page 2008
[8]

2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1294

Burwitz, V ., Reinsch, K., Greiner, J., et al. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1294

work page 2007

Show all 51 references

[9]

1979, ApJ, 228, 939 CIAO Development Team

Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939 CIAO Development Team. 2013, CIAO: Chandra Interactive Analysis of Obser- vations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1311.006

1979
[10]

P., Schmidtke, P

Cowley, A. P., Schmidtke, P. C., Hutchings, J. B., Crampton, D., & McGrath, T. K. 1993, ApJ, 418, L63

1993
[11]

B., Cowley, A

Crampton, D., Hutchings, J. B., Cowley, A. P., et al. 1996, ApJ, 456, 320 den Herder, J. W., Brinkman, A. C., Kahn, S. M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L7

1996
[12]

P., Landi, E., Mason, H

Dere, K. P., Landi, E., Mason, H. E., Monsignori Fossi, B. C., & Young, P. R. 1997, A&AS, 125, 149

1997
[13]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127: A&A submitted

Doroshenko, V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127: A&A submitted

2024 arXiv
[14]

C., Allen, G

Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 6270, So- ciety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V Gänsick...

2006
[15]

2000, New A, 5, 137

Greiner, J. 2000, New A, 5, 137

2000
[16]

1991, A&A, 246, L17

Greiner, J., Hasinger, G., & Kahabka, P. 1991, A&A, 246, L17

1991
[17]

Hartmann, H. W. & Heise, J. 1996, in Supersoft X-Ray Sources, ed. J. Greiner, V ol. 472, 25

1996
[18]

1994, A&A, 288, L45

Heise, J., van Teeseling, A., & Kahabka, P. 1994, A&A, 288, L45

1994
[19]

P., Mitschang, A., Dewey, D., et al

Huenemoerder, D. P., Mitschang, A., Dewey, D., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 129

2011
[20]

A., Suleimanov, V

Ibragimov, A. A., Suleimanov, V . F., Vikhlinin, A., & Sakhibullin, N. A. 2003, Astronomy Reports, 47, 186

2003
[21]

A., Raymond, J

Jimenez-Garate, M. A., Raymond, J. C., & Liedahl, D. A. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1297

2002
[22]

2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 2836

Kahabka, P. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 2836

2006
[23]

& van den Heuvel, E

Kahabka, P. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 69

1997
[24]

Kurucz, R. L. 1970, SAO Special Report, 309

1970
[25]

A., Audard, M., et al

Lanz, T., Telis, G. A., Audard, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 517

2005
[26]

S., Helfand, D

Long, K. S., Helfand, D. J., & Grabelsky, D. A. 1981, ApJ, 248, 925

1981
[27]

& Haberl, F

Maitra, C. & Haberl, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A26

2022
[28]

E., Charles, P

McGowan, K. E., Charles, P. A., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 462

2005
[29]

1972, ApJ, 175, 417

Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417

1972
[30]

2007, ApJ, 663, 1269

Nomoto, K., Saio, H., Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1269

2007
[31]

W., Motch, C., Bianchi, L., et al

Pakull, M. W., Motch, C., Bianchi, L., et al. 1993, A&A, 278, L39

1993
[32]

H., Ness, J

Petz, A., Hauschildt, P. H., Ness, J. U., & Starrfield, S. 2005, A&A, 431, 321 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200

2005
[33]

Rappaport, S., Di Stefano, R., & Smith, J. D. 1994, ApJ, 426, 692

1994
[34]

2010, ApJ, 717, 363

Rauch, T., Orio, M., Gonzales-Riestra, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 363

2010
[35]

Reinsch, K., van Teeseling, A., Beuermann, K., & Abbott, T. M. C. 1996, A&A, 309, L11

1996
[36]

R., & Beuermann, K

Reinsch, K., van Teeseling, A., King, A. R., & Beuermann, K. 2000, A&A, 354, L37

2000
[37]

1993, A&A, 270, L9

Schaeidt, S., Hasinger, G., & Truemper, J. 1993, A&A, 270, L9

1993
[38]

1997, A&A, 318, 73

Schandl, S., Meyer-Hofmeister, E., & Meyer, F. 1997, A&A, 318, 73

1997
[39]

Seward, F. D. & Mitchell, M. 1981, ApJ, 243, 736

1981
[40]

A., Livio, M., Charles, P

Southwell, K. A., Livio, M., Charles, P. A., O’Donoghue, D., & Sutherland, W. J. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1065

1996
[41]

J., Rauch, T., & Werner, K

Suleimanov, V ., Madej, J., Drake, J. J., Rauch, T., & Werner, K. 2006, A&A, 455, 679

2006
[42]

1999, A&A, 350, 63

Suleimanov, V ., Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1999, A&A, 350, 63

1999
[43]

2003, A&A, 401, 1009

Suleimanov, V ., Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 2003, A&A, 401, 1009

2003
[44]

Suleimanov, V . F. & Ibragimov, A. A. 2003, Astronomy Reports, 47, 197

2003
[45]

F., Mauche, C

Suleimanov, V . F., Mauche, C. W., Zhuchkov, R. Y ., & Werner, K. 2015, Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings, 2, 143

2015
[46]

F., Tavleev, A

Suleimanov, V . F., Tavleev, A. S., Doroshenko, V ., & Werner, K. 2024, A&A, 688, A39

2024
[47]

A., Ghosh, K

Swartz, D. A., Ghosh, K. K., Suleimanov, V ., Tennant, A. F., & Wu, K. 2002, ApJ, 574, 382

2002
[48]

F., et al

Tavleev, A., Ducci, L., Suleimanov, V . F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A335 Trümper, J., Hasinger, G., Aschenbach, B., et al. 1991, Nature, 349, 579 van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Bhattacharya, D., Nomoto, K., & Rappaport, S. A. 1992, A&A, 262, 97 van Rossum, D. R. 2012, ApJ, 756, 43

2024
[49]

2000, ApJ, 542, 914

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

2000
[50]

M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., & Paxton, B

Wolf, W. M., Bildsten, L., Brooks, J., & Paxton, B. 2013, ApJ, 777, 136

2013
[51]

2022, A&A, 666, A81 Article number, page 10 of 10

Zhao, W., Meng, X., Cui, Y ., & Liu, Z.-W. 2022, A&A, 666, A81 Article number, page 10 of 10

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A., Alves, D., et al

Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 280, L49

work page 1996

[2] [2]

1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005

Arnaud, K., Dorman, B., & Gordon, C. 1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005

1999

[3] [3]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

1996

[4] [4]

2019, PASP, 131, 108005

Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005

2019

[5] [5]

2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

2021

[6] [6]

2014, A&A, 564, A125

Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

2014

[7] [7]

2008, A&A, 481, 193

Burwitz, V ., Reinsch, K., Greiner, J., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 193

work page 2008

[8] [8]

2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1294

Burwitz, V ., Reinsch, K., Greiner, J., et al. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1294

work page 2007