Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Line detections in photospheric radius expansion bursts from 4U 1820-303

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ten photospheric radius expansion bursts from the neutron star 4U 1820-303 confirm the 2.97 keV absorption line, but rule out the claimed correlation between line energy and blackbody radius.

desk verdict A careful sample-expansion paper with a genuine null result, but the headline line detections are not yet robust to the continuum/N_H uncertainty the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01488 v1 pith:PGO4TYMA submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.HE

F. Barra , D. Barret , C. Pinto , T. Di Salvo , N. Weinberg , S. Guichandut This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-rayburstsphotosphericradiusexpansionneutronstarsabsorptionlines4U1820-303NICERspectrallineformationaccretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the absorption lines seen in the brightest type I X-ray bursts from the neutron star 4U 1820-303 are real, and whether their energies track the expanding photosphere's radius as an earlier study suggested. Using twelve bursts observed by NICER, ten of them showing photospheric radius expansion, the authors track the spectral evolution on tenth-of-a-second timescales and report several absorption lines with Monte Carlo significances above 99.9%, including the previously reported 2.97 keV line. They find that the line energies do not correlate with the inferred blackbody radius, while line strength does increase in bursts with larger radii. The lines are described as photo- or collisionally ionised, nearly rest-frame emitting gas, with the largest expansion bursts requiring an additional blueshifted absorbing wind. If correct, this gives a spectroscopic handle on the heavy-element ashes and outflows that super-Eddington bursts push into the photosphere.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the accretion-enhanced $f_a$ model, in which the burst spectrum is the sum of a blackbody and the pre-burst persistent emission multiplied by a constant $f_a$; this lets the authors track the inferred blackbody radius on tenth-of-a-second timescales and identify the PRE phase, defined by a radius above 100 km. On top of that continuum, line significance is established by Monte Carlo simulations in which fake spectra drawn from the best-fit covariance matrix are scanned for edges and Gaussian lines, so the $>99.9\%$ confidence claims refer to the chance that photon statistics alone produce the residuals. The line features themselves are characterised by multidimensional grid scans over temperature or ionisation parameter and Doppler velocity, using optically-thin plasma models in a spectral fitting package: collisional ionisation equilibrium for emission, photo-ionised emission, and photo-ionised absorption. The identity that carries the argument is the comparison between line energy and radius: the earlier pair-combined trend is not reproduced, while the line strength tracks radius.

What would settle it

A high-resolution spectrum with resolving power $\gtrsim 1000$ of a PRE burst from 4U 1820-303 would settle whether the proposed Ne X, Fe XXI, Fe XXII (1 keV), Si XIV (2 keV), S XVI (2.6 keV) and Ar XVII (3 keV) features exist as discrete lines, since such a spectrum would resolve them cleanly or show that they are artefacts of CCD-resolution residuals. A cheaper check is to refit the burst spectra with the neutral column density free and an explicit 0.5 keV excess component, and see whether the $>99.9\%$ absorption lines survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the absorption and emission features in the NICER spectra of 4U 1820-303's photospheric radius expansion bursts are statistically significant astrophysical lines, not continuum artifacts, and that their behaviour is different from what an earlier report suggested. In a sample of twelve bursts, ten with PRE, maximum blackbody radii up to about $900$ km are inferred from the accretion-enhanced $f_a$ model, with peak bolometric luminosities between $4$ and $7\times10^{38}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, above the Eddington limit of a helium accretor. Significant ($>99.9\%$) absorption lines are detected, including the 2.97 keV line, but no consistent correlation between line energies and inferred blackbody radius is found; instead, bursts with larger radii show up to four lines and stronger line features. The modelling with optically-thin plasma codes prefers a slightly redshifted, almost rest-frame, photo- or collisionally ionised gas in emission for most bursts, while the burst with the largest PRE is better described by a combination of emitting and absorbing photo-ionised plasma, the absorbing component blueshifted at roughly 20 to 35 percent of the speed of light.

Load-bearing premise

The detections stand on the assumption that the continuum model, with its fixed neutral column density and a well-calibrated NICER response, fully accounts for the bright burst spectrum, so that the residual features fitted as lines are not artefacts of an unmodelled low-energy excess or response error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2.97 keV absorption line and its neighbours can be used as spectroscopic tracers of the material lifted by the burst, connecting burst energetics to the metal content of the photosphere.
  • The failure of the line-energy versus radius correlation removes the main evidence for varying gravitational redshift and blueshift across bursts with different expansion radii.
  • The increase in line number and strength with photospheric radius implies that larger expansions expose more nuclear ash near the photosphere, so line strength can serve as a probe of ignition depth and fuel consumption.
  • Blueshifted absorption near $0.2$ to $0.35c$ in the largest PRE bursts, if confirmed, requires metal line-driving to accelerate winds well beyond the velocities of earlier light-element wind models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is correlating line strength and line number with burst fluence or recurrence time across a larger sample, since deeper ignitions should synthesize more metals and drive larger photospheric radii.
  • The discrepancy between the inferred $0.2$ to $0.35c$ wind and the sub-$0.1c$ light-element wind models predicts a compositional sensitivity: bursts from accretors with different metallicities should show different wind velocities, which could be tested with bursters in other globular clusters.
  • If the fixed neutral column density or the unmodelled 0.5 keV excess is biasing the continuum, the inferred radii and luminosities could shift; simultaneous high-resolution and broad-band observations would disentangle true wind lines from instrumental residuals.
  • Should the 0.5 keV excess turn out to be astrophysical rather than a calibration artefact, it may be a separate emission component from the burst wind, and the reported column-density discrepancy would disappear.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 12 type I X-ray bursts from 4U 1820-303 observed with NICER, of which 10 show photospheric radius expansion. Using two parallel continuum models (an accretion-enhanced f_a model and a blackbody-plus-Comptonisation model) implemented in XSPEC and SPEX, the authors extract 0.7 s burst-peak spectra and search for narrow emission and absorption features. They report several absorption lines, including a 2.97 keV line previously reported by Strohmayer et al. (2019), claim >99.9% significance for some features based on Monte Carlo simulations, and find that the line energy versus inferred blackbody radius correlation is not confirmed. They further model the lines with CIE, PIE (pion), and absorption (xabs) plasma models, concluding that the emitting gas is nearly rest-frame while the absorbing gas is blueshifted at 0.2-0.35 c, and that the line strength increases with photospheric radius.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is the most extensive spectral-line study of PRE bursts to date: it confirms a previously debated 2.97 keV absorption feature in a larger sample and calls into question the reported line-energy/radius correlation. The paper's strengths are the use of two independent spectral fitting packages, the public release of the analysis code (GitHub) and data (HEASARC), and the explicit Monte Carlo treatment for at least the edge-search false-positive rate. The weaknesses are that the headline '>99.9% significance' applies to the edge scan only, not the Gaussian line scan, and that the line-detection continuum relies on fixed neutral columns that the paper itself shows to be uncertain. These issues are load-bearing for the main detection claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.5] The Monte Carlo significance calculation is applied only to the edge scan for bursts 1 and 8, and the quoted <0.1% false-positive probability refers to edges, not to the Gaussian absorption lines highlighted in the abstract. The line-scan significance threshold promised at the end of §2.3 ('We will assess through simulations...') is never presented. Please provide equivalent simulations for the Gaussian line scan, including a look-elsewhere correction over the scanned energy grid, or soften the '>99.9% significance' claim for the 2.97 keV line and other absorption lines.
  2. [§2.3/§3.2] The line-detection continuum fixes the neutral column at 0.21e22 cm^-2 in XSPEC and 1.63e21 cm^-2 in SPEX, yet §2.3 reports that freeing N_H yields ~0.17e22 cm^-2 and calls this 'problematic.' Because the soft-band continuum curvature and the residual shape near 2-3 keV depend on N_H, the simulated false-positive rate in §2.5 quantifies the null hypothesis only at a fixed, possibly incorrect continuum. I request a robustness test: repeat the line scan and Monte Carlo for bursts 1 and 8 with N_H free (or fixed to 0.17e22) and with a systematic term for NICER response residuals; if the 3 keV feature disappears, the detection claim must be downgraded.
  3. [§2.3] The paper itself states that 'Unmodelled emission lines may artificially create dips in the spectra, that may be in turn falsely interpreted as absorption lines.' The analysis models the 1 keV and 2-2.4 keV emission residuals as Gaussians, but I do not see a test of whether the 3 keV absorption feature survives when those Gaussians are included simultaneously with a free N_H. A joint fit with all three features and a varying continuum, followed by a Monte Carlo with that full model, is needed to exclude the paper's own false-dip mechanism for the central 2.97 keV detection.
  4. [§4.3/Abstract] The abstract claims that the previously reported line-energy/radius correlation is not confirmed, but I could not find a quantitative correlation test (e.g., a regression or rank correlation of measured line centroid energies against R_BB). Without such a test, 'not confirmed' is only a qualitative statement. Please provide the measured line energies and their uncertainties for each burst and a formal test of the null hypothesis of no correlation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3] The y-axis label of the Gaussian line-scan figure is garbled ('°25025¢-c-stat') and needs correction.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains the stray text 'Didier Barret — IRAPNICER data analysis', which appears to be a leftover from a template and should be removed.
  3. [§2.4] 'The linesis statistically significant' contains a typo; it should read 'The line is statistically significant.'
  4. [§4.3] The sentence 'In a following paper will examine the correlation...' is missing a subject; it should be 'In a following paper we will examine...'.
  5. [Table 3] Several entries in Table 3 have unclear error formats (e.g., '100±048.6', '16.54±0.74'); please standardize the notation so that all parameters and their uncertainties are unambiguous.
  6. [References] The reference Weinberg, Bildsten & Schatz (2006) appears twice with identical bibliographic data; one entry should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the line detections are fitted against external SPEX plasma models and are compared with, not tuned to, prior theoretical predictions.

full rationale

The central results are empirical spectral fits. The continuum models (f_a/nthcomp+bb in XSPEC, bb+comt in SPEX) are fitted to the burst spectra, and the line features are measured as residual improvements in C-stat against that continuum, with significance assessed via Monte Carlo simulations. The line identification and plasma parameters come from external atomic-data models (cie, pion, xabs) within SPEX, not from the paper's own conclusions. The inferred wind velocities are explicitly compared with, and found to disagree with, the theoretical predictions of Yu & Weinberg (2018) and Guichandut et al. (2021), one of which includes a co-author; this shows the modelling is not benchmarked to force agreement with prior work. The blackbody radii used in the line-versus-radius comparison come from a continuum fit whose parameters are independent of the line amplitudes, so the absence of a correlation is not built in by construction. The fixed-N_H concern raised in Sect. 2.3 is a continuum-systematic robustness issue rather than circularity: the Monte Carlo significance test conditions on that continuum, so it does not validate the continuum choice, but the detection claim is not equivalent to the fit input by definition. Self-citations (e.g., Barra et al. 2024, Pinto et al.) are methodological or comparative and are not load-bearing for the main detection claim.

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

The central detection claims rest on standard X-ray spectral modeling assumptions: the choice of continuum model, the absorbing column density, the NICER calibration, and the atomic data in SPEX. The paper acknowledges the column density discrepancy but does not resolve it. The number of free parameters is large relative to the modest Delta C-stat improvements in the plasma fits.

free parameters (6)
  • Accretion enhancement factor f_a = varies per burst, up to ~8
    Scales the persistent emission during the burst in the f_a model (Worpel et al. 2013); directly affects the inferred blackbody radii and luminosities.
  • Equivalent blackbody radius R_BB = up to ~900 km in 0.7 s peak spectra
    Normalization of the bbodyrad component in XSPEC; used as the independent variable in the line energy-radius correlation test.
  • Plasma column density nH (pion/xabs/cie) = e.g. nH,PION = 0.05 +/- 0.01 (10^24 cm^-2) for burst 8
    Free parameter in the plasma model fits; drives the line strengths in the pion, xabs, and cie models.
  • Ionisation parameter log xi = e.g. log xi_PION = 3.39 for burst 8
    Free parameter in the pion/xabs grids; sets the ionisation balance of the plasma.
  • Line-of-sight velocity vLOS = e.g. vXABS ~ -0.3c for burst 8
    Grid-scanned Doppler shift; determines whether the fitted lines are blueshifted or redshifted.
  • Turbulent broadening v_RMS = fixed to 1000 km/s
    Fixed by hand following Strohmayer et al. (2019); affects line widths in the plasma models.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The burst continuum is adequately described by a blackbody plus an enhanced persistent emission (f_a model) or a blackbody plus comptonisation (bb+comt).
    Used throughout Sects. 2 and 3; if the continuum is misspecified, the residual lines could be artifacts.
  • domain assumption The source distance is 8.0 kpc (Baumgardt & Vasiliev 2021), used to convert fluxes to luminosities and radii.
    Standard distance assumption; uncertainty maps directly into the radius and luminosity scale used for the correlation test.
  • domain assumption NICER response is well calibrated at high count rates, and residual features at 0.5-0.6 and 2.0-2.4 keV are not instrument artifacts.
    The authors argue the residuals are absent in persistent spectra bearing the same number of counts (Sect. 2.3), but the response was known to have residuals at the time of Strohmayer et al. (2019).
  • standard math Atomic data and ionisation balance in SPEX (pion, xabs, cie) are accurate for the fitted plasma conditions.
    Line identification and Doppler shift measurements depend entirely on these codes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Line detections in photospheric radius expansion bursts from 4U 1820-303." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGO4TYMA

@misc{pith2026250101488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Line detections in photospheric radius expansion bursts from 4U 1820-303},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGO4TYMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01488}
}
abstract

Context: NICER (Neutron star Interior Composition ExploreR) is the instrument of choice for the spectral analysis of type I X-ray bursts, as it provides high throughput at X-ray CCD resolution, down to 0.3 keV. Aims: This study investigates whether the energies of absorption lines detected in photospheric radius expansion (PRE) bursts correlate with the inferred blackbody radius. Previous reports suggested such a correlation, attributed to a combination of weaker gravitational redshift and higher blueshifts in bursts with larger radii. Methods: The analysis reexamines four previously studied PRE bursts and examines eight additional bursts from 4U 1820-303, evidencing PRE. Spectral evolution is tracked on the shortest possible timescales (tenth of a second) adopting two parallel continuum descriptions to characterise the photospheric expansion and line evolution. Applying the accretion-enhanced model, maximum blackbody radii of up to $\sim$ 900 km are inferred, with peak bolometric luminosities exceeding the Eddington limit of an Helium accretor. Absorption lines are assessed for significance using Monte Carlo simulations, and spectral lines are characterised using the state-of-art plasma codes available within {\sc{spex}} with a phenomenological continuum. A thorough parameter search explores Doppler shifts to avoid local minima. Results: Several significant (> 99.9%) absorption lines, including the previously reported 2.97 keV line, are detected. While no consistent correlation between line energies and blackbody radii is confirmed, bursts with larger radii exhibit up to four lines and the line strength is higher. The modelling suggests that the observed lines mostly originate from slightly redshifted (almost rest-frame) photo-/collisionally ionised gas in emission. For the burst with the largest PRE, a combination of photo-ionised plasma in both emission and absorption is preferred.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The best fit parameters of the burst recorded in the OBSID 2050300110. From top to bottom: The 0.1-20 keV bolometric X-ray luminosity in units of 1038 erg s−1 assuming a 8 kpc distance, the 0.3-10 keV count rate (counts/s), the inferred blackbody radius (km), the blackbody temperature (keV), and the f𝑎 parameter. The green area defines the time period during which the inferred blackbody radius is larger than 100 km.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The unfolded spectra of the first burst recorded in OBSID 1050300109 and the one recorded in OBSID 2050300110. The best fit model is the sum of an absorbed nthcomp (in red) and blackbody (in dark green) components, with the column density set to 0.21 ×1022 cm−2 . The ∼ 1 keV line as well as the ∼ 1.7 and ∼ 3 keV reported by Strohmayer et al. (2019) are present also in our analysis. 2.4. Scanning for edges and lines … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gaussian line scan for all bursts (0.7s exposure). Bursts are sorted from top to bottom. The radii values provided for each burst represent the average values during periods when the blackbody radius exceeds 100 km. describe more features simultaneously with plasma models. A more detailed attempt with models of optically-thin plasmas is shown later on in Sect. 3. 2.5. Significance of the absorption features detected… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit spectral modelling of the burst 8 spectrum with different model adopted. From the upper left panel, the model adopted are : bb + comt, (bb + comt)* xabs, bb + comt + cie and bb + comt + pion. The best-fit results are reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: NICER spectra of the 12 bursts (0.7s exposure time). Right panel: Spectral energy distribution (SED) of the 12 bursts from the optical to the hard X-rays energy band (0.0001-100 keV). each model and burst, with the corresponding results discussed below, are…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral modelling of the burst 8 spectrum with the hot * (pion + xabs * (bb + comt)) model adopted. The fit results are reported in the main text. From the spectral modelling of the emission lines with both cie/pion model, a rest frame plasma solution, within the unce…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ionisation balance (left) and thermal-stability curves (right) computed for each burst. The regions in which there are thermal instabilities are identified by the segments with negative slopes (right panel). Thicker segments show the ranges of the best-fitting solution…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1996

  2. [2]

    Ballantyne, D. R. & Strohmayer, T. E. 2004, ApJ, 602, L105

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 682, A94

    Barra, F., Pinto, C., Middleton, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A94

    2024

  4. [4]

    & Vasiliev, E

    Baumgardt, H. & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957

    2021

  5. [5]

    F., Grindlay, J

    Bloser, P. F., Grindlay, J. E., Kaaret, P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 542, 1000

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    C., & Lamb, F

    Boutloukos, S., Miller, M. C., & Lamb, F. K. 2010, ApJ, 720, L15

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    S., et al

    Costantini, E., Pinto, C., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A32

    2012

  8. [8]

    2003, ApJ, 595, 1077 Degenaar,N.,Ballantyne,D.R.,Belloni,T.,etal.2018,SpaceSci.Rev.,214,15 Del Santo, M., Pinto, C., Marino, A., et al

    Cumming, A. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1077 Degenaar,N.,Ballantyne,D.R.,Belloni,T.,etal.2018,SpaceSci.Rev.,214,15 Del Santo, M., Pinto, C., Marino, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, L15 2 https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 3 https://github.com/ciropinto1982

    work page 2003

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    K., Goodwin, A

    Galloway, D. K., Goodwin, A. J., & Keek, L. 2017, PASA, 34, e019

    2017

  2. [10]

    K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al

    Galloway, D. K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 32 Galloway,D.K.&Keek,L.2021,inAstrophysicsandSpaceScienceLibrary,Vol. 461, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. T. M. Belloni, M. Méndez, & C. Zhang, 209–262

    2020

  3. [11]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okajima, T

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okajima, T. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 844313

    2012

  4. [12]

    1976, ApJ, 205, L127 Guichandut,S.,Cumming,A.,Falanga,M.,Li,Z.,&Zamfir,M.2021,ApJ,914, 49 Güver, T., Wroblewski, P., Camarota, L., & Özel, F

    Grindlay, J., Gursky, H., Schnopper, H., et al. 1976, ApJ, 205, L127 Guichandut,S.,Cumming,A.,Falanga,M.,Li,Z.,&Zamfir,M.2021,ApJ,914, 49 Güver, T., Wroblewski, P., Camarota, L., & Özel, F. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1807

    1976

  5. [13]

    E., Priedhorsky, W

    Haberl, F., Stella, L., White, N. E., Priedhorsky, W. C., & Gottwald, M. 1987, ApJ, 314, 266

    1987

  6. [14]

    P., Vaughan, S., Osborne, J

    Hurkett, C. P., Vaughan, S., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 587 in’t Zand, J. J. M., Homan, J., Keek, L., & Palmer, D. M. 2012, A&A, 547, A47 in’t Zand, J. J. M. & Weinberg, N. N. 2010, A&A, 520, A81

    2008

  7. [15]

    H., Giles, A

    Jahoda, K., Swank, J. H., Giles, A. B., et al. 1996, in Society of Photo-Optical InstrumentationEngineers(SPIE)ConferenceSeries,Vol.2808,EUV,X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & M. A. Gummin, 59–70

    1996

  8. [16]

    Kaastra, J. S. 2017, A&A, 605, A51

    2017

  9. [17]

    Kaastra, J. S. & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151

    2016

  10. [18]

    S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spec- troscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe, 411–414

    1996

  11. [19]

    S., Raassen, A

    Kaastra, J. S., Raassen, A. J. J., de Plaa, J., & Gu, L. 2023, SPEX X-ray spectral fitting package

    2023

  12. [20]

    2018, ApJ, 856, L37

    Keek, L., Arzoumanian, Z., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, L37

    2018

  13. [21]

    J., et al

    Kosec, P., Pinto, C., Walton, D. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3978

    2018

  14. [22]

    H., McKee, C

    Krolik, J. H., McKee, C. F., & Tarter, C. B. 1981, ApJ, 249, 422 Kuśmierek, K., Madej, J., & Kuulkers, E. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3344

    1981

  15. [23]

    Kuulkers, E., in’t Zand, J. J. M., van Kerkwijk, M. H., et al. 2002, A&A, 382, 503

    2002

  16. [24]

    & Palme, H

    Lodders, K. & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    2009

  17. [25]

    L., Canizares, C

    Marshall, H. L., Canizares, C. R., & Schulz, N. S. 2002, ApJ, 564, 941

    2002

  18. [26]

    U., Beardmore, A

    Ness, J. U., Beardmore, A. P., Bezak, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A169 Özel, F., Psaltis, D., Güver, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 28

    2022

  19. [27]

    & Proszynski, M

    Paczynski, B. & Proszynski, M. 1986, ApJ, 302, 519

    1986

  20. [28]

    C., Kaastra, J

    Pinto, C., Costantini, E., Fabian, A. C., Kaastra, J. S., & in’t Zand, J. J. M. 2014, A&A, 563, A115

    2014

  21. [29]

    J., & Fabian, A

    Pinto, C., Middleton, M. J., & Fabian, A. C. 2016, Nature, 533, 64

    2016

  22. [30]

    U., Verbunt, F., et al

    Pinto, C., Ness, J. U., Verbunt, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A134

    2012

  23. [31]

    R., & Fragile, P

    Speicher, J., Ballantyne, D. R., & Fragile, P. C. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1736

    2022

  24. [32]

    Stella, L., Priedhorsky, W., & White, N. E. 1987, ApJ, 312, L17

    1987

  25. [33]

    E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al

    Strohmayer, T. E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, L27

    2019

  26. [34]

    Strohmayer, T. E. & Brown, E. F. 2002, ApJ, 566, 1045 Suleimanov,V.F.,Kajava,J.J.E.,Molkov,S.V.,etal.2017,MNRAS,472,3905

    2002

  27. [35]

    B., Tucker, W

    Tarter, C. B., Tucker, W. H., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, ApJ, 156, 943

    1969

  28. [36]

    D., Lewin, W

    Vacca, W. D., Lewin, W. H. G., & van Paradijs, J. 1986, MNRAS, 220, 339 van den Eijnden, J., Degenaar, N., Pinto, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2027 Article number, page 12 of 18 F. Barra et al.: Line detections in photospheric radius expansion bursts from 4U 1820-303 van Paradijs...

    1986

  29. [37]

    N., Bildsten, L., & Schatz, H

    Weinberg, N. N., Bildsten, L., & Schatz, H. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1018

    2006

  30. [38]

    N., Bildsten, L., & Schatz, H

    Weinberg, N. N., Bildsten, L., & Schatz, H. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 1018

    2006

  31. [39]

    K., & Price, D

    Worpel, H., Galloway, D. K., & Price, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 772, 94

    2013

  32. [40]

    & Weinberg, N

    Yu, H. & Weinberg, N. N. 2018, ApJ, 863, 53

    2018

  33. [41]

    2024, A&A, 683, A93

    Yu, W., Li, Z., Lu, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A93

    2024

  34. [42]

    A., Johnson, W

    Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., & Magdziarz, P. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 193 Życki, P. T., Done, C., & Smith, D. A. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 561 Article number, page 13 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: CIE grids 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.00.10.20.3 Velocity [c] 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3...

    1996

Pith tools

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