pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17786 · v1 · pith:PDKRFOFXnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The First Insights into an Ultraluminous X-ray Pulsar with XRISM: Phase-Resolved High-Resolution Spectroscopy of the Fe K-shell Band of M82 X-2

Shogo B. Kobayashi , Peter Kosec , Kazuki Ampuku , Erin Boettcher , Renata Cumbee , Adam Foster , Yutaka Fujita , Kotaro Fukushima
show 13 more authors
Skylar Grayson Gabriel Grell Edmund Hodges-Kluck Ann Hornschemeier Richard Kelley Caroline Kilbourne Mike Loewenstein Ikuyuki Mitsuishi Dustin Nguyen Evan Scannapieco Takeshi Tsuru Noriko Yamasaki Mihoko Yukita
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 09:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords M82 X-2ultraluminous X-ray pulsarXRISM ResolveFe K-alphaphase-resolved spectroscopyaccretion flowiron line widthX-ray pulsations
0
0 comments X

The pith

If the candidate pulsation is real, broader Fe Kα line in M82 X-2 pulse peak indicates accretion flow origin

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

XRISM observed the M82 galaxy including the ultraluminous X-ray pulsar X-2 for over 200 ks. A search found a candidate pulsation period close to the known 1.387 s value at 3.15 sigma significance from Monte Carlo tests. Phase-resolved spectra using this period show the Fe Kα line wider in the pulse peak phase than in other phases by more than 3 sigma. The measured width implies a velocity dispersion of roughly 1700 km per second, too fast to arise in the companion star atmosphere. The pulse rise time further limits the line-emitting region to less than 63000 km, consistent with an origin inside the accretion flow.

Core claim

Using the candidate pulsation period, the phase-resolved Resolve spectra indicate that the Fe Kα emission line width is larger in the pulse peak phase (36+60-13 eV) than in the remaining phase at over 3 sigma significance. This implies at least a fraction of the Fe Kα emission is associated with the ULXP system and originates in the accretion flow, since the corresponding velocity dispersion of (1.7+2.8-0.6) x 10^3 km s^{-1} exceeds what the companion star atmosphere can produce and the pulsation rise time constrains the region to be smaller than 6.3 x 10^4 km.

What carries the argument

Phase-resolved high-resolution spectroscopy that bins the Resolve spectra according to the candidate pulsation period and compares the Fe Kα line width between pulse peak and off-peak phases.

Load-bearing premise

The candidate signal detected at 3.15 sigma significance is the true pulsation period allowing reliable phase binning.

What would settle it

A future observation that either fails to recover the same period at higher significance or shows no line-width difference when spectra are binned on an independent period measurement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17786 by Adam Foster, Ann Hornschemeier, Caroline Kilbourne, Dustin Nguyen, Edmund Hodges-Kluck, Erin Boettcher, Evan Scannapieco, Gabriel Grell, Ikuyuki Mitsuishi, Kazuki Ampuku, Kotaro Fukushima, Mihoko Yukita, Mike Loewenstein, Noriko Yamasaki, Peter Kosec, Renata Cumbee, Richard Kelley, Shogo B. Kobayashi, Skylar Grayson, Takeshi Tsuru, Yutaka Fujita.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Periodogram at the best-estimate orbital param￾eter and period derivative. Black and red lines represent the result using 2 − 12 keV and 2 − 10 keV, respectively. The sub-panel is the same plot magnified around the peak. effective band of Resolve, namely 2 − 12 keV, yielded a peak at Prot = 1.387270 s with Z 2 1 = 40.06 (shown in black). The width of the peak is ∼ 7 × 10−6 s (see the sub-plot of [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: X-ray pulse profiles folded over the best parame￾ters shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: the phase-resolved spectra extracted from each 0.1-rotational-phase bin. For clarity, the spectra are scaled vertically by a factor 3.33n , where n = 0, 1, 2, · · · 9 is the number of bins separated from phase 0.0−0.1. The color of the spectra indicates the rotational phase from which it is extracted. The correspondence between the phase and color is shown in the color bar on the right. The solid lin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase evolution of the best-fit parameters derived from a spectral fitting of the phase-resolved spectra. The gray solid lines are the pulse profiles of the 6.3 − 6.5 keV band, which is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a): Wide band Resolve spectra extracted from the pulse phase wherein the iron Kα line is at its maximum (red) and the rest (black). Black and red solid lines represent the model related to the X-2 (including other point sources within the FOV) emission, namely the cutoff power-law and the Gaussian. The gray and light blue solid lines represent the persistent emission from the surrounding diffuse plasma. T… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Significance contours of the width vs normaliza￾tion of the Fe Kα line. The on-pulse and the off-pulse results are shown in blue and red, respectively. The dots indicate the best-fit values. Toward the outside, each line corresponds to the significance of 68%, 90%, and 99.7%. energy bins in the 6.5 − 6.65 keV band shows positive excesses, forcing the model to enlarge the width. Since the energies are consi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Significance contours of the width vs normaliza￾tion of the Fe I Kα lines for the model that includes the additional broadened (varying) Fe I Kα line on top of the narrow (constant) one. The results for varying Fe I Kα and a constant one are shown in blue and red, respectively. The dots indicate the best-fit value. Toward the outside, each line corresponds to the significance of 68%, 90%, and 99.7%. width … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Long-term variability of the pulse period of M82 X-2. The dotted and dashed lines are eye guides indicating the respective spin-down rates. The residual in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relations of log(ξ) over the distance vs particle plane. The functions for log(ξ) = 1 (the condition to emit Fe I Kα line) and log(ξ) = 2.2 (the condition to emit Fe XXI and Fe XXII Kα lines) are shown in red and blue, respectively. The vertical lines indicate the distances toward the respective structures from the central neutron star. The gray-hatched area indicates the distance beyond which the Fe … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic drawing of a possible accretion ge￾ometry of M82 X-2. 2019). Therefore, we consider it feasible that X-2 has a similar misorientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Z 2 n heat map obtained in analysis done in 3.1. The color bar represents the Z 2 n value. The red dashed lines are significance contours indicating 1σ confidence level. Carpano, S., Haberl, F., Maitra, C., & Vasilopoulos, G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 476, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly030 Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

During the performance verification phase, XRISM observed the M82 galaxy for a net exposure of 207.7 ks, with the ultraluminous X-ray pulsar (ULXP) X-2 included in the field of view. A pulsation search identified a candidate signal with a period close to the previously known value, 1.38727 s, at a significance of $3.15\sigma$ based on Monte Carlo simulations. Using this candidate period, phase-resolved spectral analysis with the high spectral resolution of Resolve was performed. The spectra suggest that, if the candidate pulsation is real, the Fe K$\alpha$ emission line in the pulse peak phase has a larger width ($36^{+60}_{-13}$ eV) than that in the remaining phase at a significance exceeding $3\sigma$. This suggests that at least a fraction of the Fe K$\alpha$ emission is associated with the ULXP system. The observed width corresponds to a velocity dispersion of $(1.7^{+2.8}_{-0.6})\times10^3$ km s$^{-1}$, which is too large to be explained by motions in the companion star atmosphere. The rise time of the pulsation constrains the line-emitting region to be smaller than $6.3\times10^4$ km, suggesting an origin in the accretion flow. This work demonstrates the capability of XRISM Resolve for pulsation-resolved high-resolution spectroscopy of ULX pulsars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports XRISM Resolve observations of M82 X-2 over a 207.7 ks exposure. A Monte Carlo search yields a candidate pulsation period of 1.38727 s at 3.15σ significance. Phase-resolved spectroscopy folded on this candidate period indicates that the Fe Kα line is broader in the pulse-peak phase (36^{+60}_{-13} eV) than in the remaining phases at >3σ significance, interpreted as evidence that at least part of the Fe Kα emission originates in the ULXP accretion flow, with supporting velocity-dispersion and light-travel-time constraints.

Significance. If the candidate period is confirmed, the work would represent the first phase-resolved high-resolution spectroscopy of an ultraluminous X-ray pulsar with XRISM, providing direct constraints on the location and kinematics of Fe Kα emission in these systems and showcasing Resolve's timing-spectroscopy capabilities. The conditional phrasing in the abstract is appropriate, but the result's impact hinges on the robustness of the 3.15σ detection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and timing analysis] Abstract and timing section: The headline result (Fe Kα width difference at >3σ) and all subsequent physical arguments (velocity dispersion of (1.7^{+2.8}_{-0.6})×10^3 km s^{-1} and light-travel-time upper limit of 6.3×10^4 km) are obtained only after folding the spectra on the 3.15σ Monte Carlo candidate period. No independent confirmation such as a coherent timing solution across the full 207.7 ks exposure or cross-check with archival data is reported, making the period the load-bearing assumption for the phase binning and the claimed physical association.
  2. [Phase-resolved spectral analysis] Spectral analysis section: The reported line-width difference carries large asymmetric uncertainties (36^{+60}_{-13} eV); the >3σ significance statement for the difference should include the full error propagation and a baseline comparison (e.g., against a null hypothesis of no phase dependence) to substantiate the claim that the difference is not an artifact of the marginal phasing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the width difference significance without noting that it inherits the period uncertainty; a brief qualifier would improve clarity.
  2. [Discussion] Notation for the asymmetric uncertainties on the velocity dispersion should be consistent with the line-width presentation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below with clarifications on the analysis choices and statistical approach, and we indicate the revisions incorporated to improve the robustness and presentation of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and timing analysis] Abstract and timing section: The headline result (Fe Kα width difference at >3σ) and all subsequent physical arguments (velocity dispersion of (1.7^{+2.8}_{-0.6})×10^3 km s^{-1} and light-travel-time upper limit of 6.3×10^4 km) are obtained only after folding the spectra on the 3.15σ Monte Carlo candidate period. No independent confirmation such as a coherent timing solution across the full 207.7 ks exposure or cross-check with archival data is reported, making the period the load-bearing assumption for the phase binning and the claimed physical association.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the 3.15σ candidate period, derived from Monte Carlo simulations, is the foundation for the phase-resolved analysis and that no fully coherent timing solution over the entire 207.7 ks exposure or direct archival cross-check is presented. The exposure length and source count rate limit the feasibility of such a solution, and the candidate period is consistent with the previously known value for M82 X-2. We have revised the timing section to provide additional details on the Monte Carlo search procedure, explicitly discuss these limitations, and strengthen the conditional phrasing throughout the abstract and main text to make clear that all physical conclusions are predicated on the candidate signal being real. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Phase-resolved spectral analysis] Spectral analysis section: The reported line-width difference carries large asymmetric uncertainties (36^{+60}_{-13} eV); the >3σ significance statement for the difference should include the full error propagation and a baseline comparison (e.g., against a null hypothesis of no phase dependence) to substantiate the claim that the difference is not an artifact of the marginal phasing.

    Authors: We agree that the asymmetric uncertainties on the line width require explicit statistical validation. In the revised manuscript we have added a full error propagation for the significance of the width difference and performed a direct comparison against a null-hypothesis model in which the line width is independent of phase. This baseline test confirms that the observed difference exceeds 3σ. The spectral analysis section and relevant figure captions have been updated to include these checks and to clarify the statistical procedure. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Independent confirmation of the candidate 3.15σ pulsation period via a coherent timing solution or archival cross-check is not feasible with the available dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; period search and spectral fitting remain independent

full rationale

The paper conducts a standalone Monte Carlo timing search to detect a candidate 1.38727 s period at 3.15σ, then applies that period solely for phase binning prior to direct spectral fitting of the Fe Kα line width in Resolve data. The reported width difference (36+60−13 eV at >3σ) and derived velocity dispersion arise from standard Gaussian line modeling of the phase-resolved spectra and do not reduce by construction to any fitted input, self-citation, or ansatz. The analysis is explicitly conditional on the candidate period being real, but this is an external assumption rather than a definitional loop or renamed fit. No load-bearing step equates the final claim to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the marginal pulsation candidate is real and that the observed line-width difference reflects physical velocity dispersion in the accretion flow rather than noise or background.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The candidate signal at 3.15σ is the pulsar's spin period
    This period is used to define pulse phases for the spectral extraction and comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5900 in / 1367 out tokens · 51136 ms · 2026-05-20T09:39:23.615791+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    A pulsation search identified a candidate signal with a period close to the previously known value, 1.38727 s, at a significance of 3.15σ based on Monte Carlo simulations. Using this candidate period, phase-resolved spectral analysis... Fe Kα emission line in the pulse peak phase has a larger width (36+60−13 eV)

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The observed width corresponds to a velocity dispersion of (1.7+2.8−0.6)×10^3 km s^{-1}... rise time of the pulsation constrains the line-emitting region to be smaller than 6.3×10^4 km

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026, Nature, 651, 909, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10231-1

    Audard, M., Awaki, H., Ballhausen, R., et al. 2026, Nature, 651, 909, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10231-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10231-1 2026

  2. [2]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abda4a

    Bachetti, M., Pilia, M., Huppenkothen, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abda4a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda4a 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature13791

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13791 2014

  4. [4]

    J., Brightman, M., et al

    Bachetti, M., Maccarone, T. J., Brightman, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d00 2020

  5. [5]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67

    Bachetti, M., Heida, M., Maccarone, T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67 2022

  6. [6]

    M., & Sunyaev, R

    Basko, M. M., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1975, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 311 —. 1976, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 175, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/175.2.395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/175.2.395 1975

  7. [7]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e37

    Brightman, M., Kosec, P., F¨ urst, F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e37 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Xu, Y., et al

    Brightman, M., Walton, D. J., Xu, Y., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab629a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab629a 2020

  9. [9]

    F., et al

    Buccheri, R., Bennett, K., Bignami, G. F., et al. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 128, 245

    work page 1983

  10. [10]

    Filippova, E. V. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2239 18 1.38726 1.38727 1.38728 (s) rotP0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 9 −10×) -1 (s s P 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1.38726 1.38727 1.38728 (s) rotP2.48 2.5 2.52 2.54 2.56 2.58 (day) orb P 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2239 2022

  11. [11]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 476, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly030

    Carpano, S., Haberl, F., Maitra, C., & Vasilopoulos, G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 476, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly030

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly030 2018

  12. [12]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  13. [13]

    Connors, R. M. T., Garc´ ıa, J. A., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab35df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab35df 2019

  14. [14]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 183, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67 2009

  15. [15]

    O., Moens, N., et al

    Debnath, D., Sundqvist, J. O., Moens, N., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348206

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348206 2024

  16. [16]

    1989, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 27, 87, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.000511

    Fabbiano, G. 1989, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 27, 87, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.000511

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.000511 1989

  17. [17]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 784, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/1/L12

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., Amanullah, R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 784, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/1/L12

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/784/1/l12 2014

  18. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  19. [19]

    Hayashi, T., Boissay-Malaquin, R., Tamura, K., et al. 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  21. [21]

    L., Awaki, H., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042023, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042023

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.4.042023 2025

  22. [22]

    Iwasawa, K., Norman, C., Gilli, R., Gandhi, P., & Per´ ez-Torres, M. A. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245548

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245548 2023

  23. [23]

    R., Palmeri, P., Bautista, M

    Kallman, T. R., Palmeri, P., Bautista, M. A., Mendoza, C., & Krolik, J. H. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 155, 675, doi: 10.1086/424039

    work page doi:10.1086/424039 2004

  24. [24]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/18

    Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/18 2012

  25. [25]

    L., Ishisaki, Y., Costantini, E., et al

    Kelley, R. L., Ishisaki, Y., Costantini, E., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042026, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042026

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.4.042026 2025

  26. [26]

    B., Nakazawa, K., & Makishima, K

    Kobayashi, S. B., Nakazawa, K., & Makishima, K. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2139

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2139 2019

  27. [27]

    C., & Walton, D

    Kosec, P., Pinto, C., Fabian, A. C., & Walton, D. J. 2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2695 19

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2695

  28. [28]

    J., et al

    Kosec, P., Pinto, C., Walton, D. J., et al. 2018b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 3978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1626

  29. [29]

    S., et al

    Kosec, P., Pinto, C., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 3569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2856

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2856 2021

  30. [30]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17c7

    Liu, J. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad17c7 2024

  31. [31]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 535, 632, doi: 10.1086/308868

    Makishima, K., Kubota, A., Mizuno, T., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 535, 632, doi: 10.1086/308868

    work page doi:10.1086/308868 2000

  32. [32]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Tetarenko, A. J., Sivakoff, G. R., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 374, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0 2019

  33. [33]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 923, doi: 10.1086/500184

    Ohsuga, K. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 923, doi: 10.1086/500184

    work page doi:10.1086/500184 2006

  34. [34]

    J., & Fabian, A

    Pinto, C., Middleton, M. J., & Fabian, A. C. 2016, Nature, 533, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature17417

    work page doi:10.1038/nature17417 2016

  35. [35]

    J., et al

    Pinto, C., Soria, R., Walton, D. J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5058, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1648 2021

  36. [36]

    S., Kilbourne, C

    Porter, F. S., Kilbourne, C. A., Chiao, M., et al. 2024, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 13093, 450, doi: 10.1117/12.3018882

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3018882 2024

  37. [37]

    S., Marsh, T

    Poutanen, J., Lipunova, G., Fabrika, S., Butkevich, A. G., & Abolmasov, P. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 377, 1187, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x 2007

  38. [38]

    A., Suleimanov, V

    Poutanen, J., Mushtukov, A. A., Suleimanov, V. F., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/115 2013

  39. [39]

    K., Barlow, M

    Prinja, R. K., Barlow, M. J., & Howarth, I. D. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 361, 607, doi: 10.1086/169224

    work page doi:10.1086/169224 1990

  40. [40]

    C., & Owocki, S

    Runacres, M. C., & Owocki, S. P. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 381, 1015, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011526

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011526 2002

  41. [41]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 337

    work page 1973

  42. [42]

    Standish, Jr., E. M. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 233, 252

    work page 1990

  43. [43]

    B., Tucker, W

    Tarter, C. B., Tucker, W. H., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, 943, doi: 10.1086/150026

    work page doi:10.1086/150026 1969

  44. [44]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, psaf023, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023

    Tashiro, M., Kelley, R., Watanabe, S., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, psaf023, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf023 2025

  45. [45]

    2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042007, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042007 Tr¨ umper, J

    Terada, Y., Shidatsu, M., Sawada, M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042007, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042007 Tr¨ umper, J. E., Dennerl, K., Kylafis, N. D., Ertan,¨U., &

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.4.042007 2025

  46. [46]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/49

    Zezas, A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/49 2013

  47. [47]

    J., Miller, J

    Walton, D. J., Miller, J. M., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 773, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L9

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/l9 2013

  48. [48]

    J., Middleton, M

    Walton, D. J., Middleton, M. J., Pinto, C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 826, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L26

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/l26 2016

  49. [49]

    X., Xu, Y

    Xiao, Y. X., Xu, Y. J., Ge, M. Y., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad24f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad24f8 2024