Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 87 references

Wobbling around the clock: magnetically-driven quasi-periodic oscillations in pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The mHz wobbles seen in three pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources can be produced by magnetically driven precession of the inner accretion disc, with neutron star fields near 10¹²–10¹³ G, needing neither frame dragging nor strong beaming.

desk verdict A transparent, useful application of the MDP model to three PULXs, but the inferred B-field constraints are anchored to a spin-equilibrium assumption the paper itself says is violated at the fitted epochs. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05557 v2 pith:Q7WKKERR submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.HE

M. Veresvarska , M. Imbrogno , R. Amato , G. L. Israel , S. Scaringi , P. Casella , D. de Martino , F. Fürst
show 3 more authors
A. Gúrpide Lasheras C. Knigge M. J. Middleton
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords ultraluminousX-raysourcespulsatingULXsquasi-periodicoscillationsmagneticallydrivenprecessionneutronstaraccretionsuper-Eddingtonbinaries
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 tries to establish that the millihertz quasi-periodic oscillations seen in three pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources—M82 X-2, M51 ULX-7, and NGC 7793 P13—can be produced by magnetically driven precession of the inner accretion flow, rather than by general-relativistic frame dragging. The authors show that, under a spin-equilibrium assumption, a family of model solutions simultaneously reproduces each source's observed neutron star spin period and QPO frequency with surface magnetic fields between roughly $10^{12}$ and $10^{13}$ G and accretion rates near $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-5}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. If correct, this gives a single self-consistent mechanism for pulsating ULX QPOs and their high luminosities, without requiring strong beaming or special viewing geometries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic precession frequency of the inner accretion flow, $\nu_{\mathrm{QPO}} = A\,\nu_p(r)$, with $\nu_p(r) = \frac{1}{2\pi^3}\frac{\mu^2}{r^7\Omega(r)\Sigma(r)}\frac{F(\theta)}{D(r)}$, where $A$ is a disc-structure constant set to 0.65, $F(\theta)$ encodes the tilt between the stellar dipole and disc angular momentum, and $D(r)$ accounts for warp geometry. The load-bearing move is to impose spin equilibrium, $r = r_{\mathrm{M}} = r_{\mathrm{co}}$, so the observed spin period fixes the radius, converting the formula into a relation among surface field $B$, accretion rate $\dot{M}$, viscosity $\alpha$, tilt angle $\theta$, and magnetospheric efficiency $\eta$. Matching that relation to the observed spin and QPO frequencies of the three sources is what produces the claimed field and accretion-rate ranges.

What would settle it

Monitor the mHz QPO of M51 ULX-7 or NGC 7793 P13 through a real change in accretion state: the MDP model predicts the QPO frequency should move with accretion rate, with the direction set by the disc thickness prescription, so a QPO that stays fixed while luminosity changes substantially would refute it. A second route is an independent measurement of the neutron star's field, such as a cyclotron line, that places $B$ well below the $10^{12}$–$10^{13}$ G range the model requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the magnetically driven precession model—the magnetic torque of a tilted neutron star dipole warping and precessing the inner disc—can account for the mHz QPOs of all three known pulsating ULXs with QPO detections. Anchoring the precessing ring at the magnetospheric radius and assuming spin equilibrium ($r_{\mathrm{M}} = r_{\mathrm{co}}$), the recovered parameter families give accretion rates $\sim 10^{-7}$–$10^{-5}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and dipole fields of a few times $10^{12}$ to a few times $10^{13}$ G, in line with earlier field estimates for these sources. The authors argue this is a viable alternative to Lense-Thirring precession and that M82 X-2's luminosity is consistent with the inferred accretion rate even without beaming; they also note the model's predictive power is limited by degeneracies among $\alpha$, $\theta$, $\eta$, and $\dot{M}$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference rests on assuming each neutron star is in spin equilibrium, so the magnetospheric radius equals the co-rotation radius; the paper itself notes this is likely wrong for M51 ULX-7 and NGC 7793 P13, which are spinning up, and for M82 X-2 at the time its QPOs were detected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the MDP model is correct, the mHz QPOs of M82 X-2, M51 ULX-7, and NGC 7793 P13 are magnetic in origin, so no general-relativistic frame-dragging torque is needed to explain them.
  • The recovered solutions put all three surface dipole fields near $10^{12}$–$10^{13}$ G and accretion rates near $10^{-7}$–$10^{-5}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, consistent with earlier independent estimates for these systems.
  • For M82 X-2, the inferred accretion rate explains the observed X-ray luminosity with no beaming, supporting the view that these systems are genuinely super-Eddington rather than strongly beamed sources.
  • The model also provides a natural explanation for M51 ULX-7's alternating pulse and QPO visibility: a tilted precessing inner flow can hide the accretion column at large $\theta$ and reveal it when the tilt is small.
  • Under the same fiducial parameters, candidate pulsating ULXs such as 2CXOJ140314.3+541816 and 4XMMJ111816.0-324910 are predicted to have spin periods from roughly 0.5 ms to 8 s and fields above $3\times10^9$ G, giving pulsation searches a concrete target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: long monitoring campaigns that catch a PULX QPO during a state transition could discriminate between the thin-disc and thick-disc height prescriptions, since they predict opposite signs for the QPO-frequency–accretion-rate correlation.
  • If the MDP picture holds, some mHz QPOs in non-pulsating ULXs may be magnetic rather than relativistic in origin, meaning those sources could hide neutron stars rather than intermediate-mass black holes; the authors discuss candidate systems but do not claim this.
  • Independent field diagnostics—cyclotron resonance scattering features or torque-based estimates of $B$—could break the $B$–$\eta$ degeneracy and turn the model from a consistency check into a practical magnetic-field estimator.
  • Relaxing the spin-equilibrium assumption by letting $r_{\mathrm{M}}/r_{\mathrm{co}}$ be a free parameter would turn the model into a joint probe of spin evolution and field strength, at the cost of the clean anchoring that currently makes the parameter space tractable.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the magnetically-driven precession (MDP) model of Lai (1999) to three pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources (M82 X-2, M51 ULX-7, NGC 7793 P13) that show both coherent spin pulsations and mHz quasi-periodic oscillations. The authors run Monte Carlo simulations over a parameter grid in surface magnetic field, accretion rate, viscosity parameter, magnetospheric radius coefficient, and magnetic tilt angle, imposing spin equilibrium r_M = r_co, and retain realizations matching the observed spin and QPO frequencies within their errors. They report families of solutions with accretion rates of roughly 1e-7 to 1e-5 solar masses per year and surface magnetic fields above 1e12 G, and argue that the model offers a self-consistent framework for PULX QPOs without invoking Lense-Thirring precession or strong beaming. The paper candidly discusses parameter degeneracies and the spin-equilibrium assumption, including its known breakdown at the QPO epochs.

Significance. If the central result holds, the MDP model provides a new interpretation of mHz QPOs in pulsating ULXs and a potential method to estimate neutron-star magnetic fields from spin and QPO frequencies. The paper has clear strengths: it is explicit about its assumptions and limitations, uses public observational data, and makes falsifiable predictions, notably the expected correlation between QPO frequency and accretion rate (with a sign that depends on the disc-height prescription) and the spin-period ranges predicted for candidate PULXs. However, the claimed recovery of B > 1e12 G and the simultaneous spin/QPO match rely heavily on the spin-equilibrium equality and on a thin-disc treatment that is not obviously valid for super-Eddington sources. Because these assumptions are load-bearing and known to be violated at the relevant epochs for the three sources, the significance is conditional on a quantitative sensitivity analysis that the manuscript does not currently provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (3)-(4), and Section 4.1] The spin-equilibrium assumption r = r_M = r_co is the only place where the observed spin period enters the MDP frequency calculation: r in Eq. (1) is replaced by r_co from Eq. (3), and Eq. (4) then relates B and Mdot at that radius. The manuscript explicitly concedes in Section 4.1 that M82 X-2 was out of spin equilibrium when its QPOs were detected (Liu 2024) and that M51 ULX-7 and NGC 7793 P13 are currently spinning up, which implies r_M < r_co. Since the precession frequency scales steeply with radius (as roughly r^{-11/2} before the surface-density term), a 20-50% inward shift of the inner radius will change the required B/Mdot combination by factors of several. I request a quantitative sensitivity analysis, for example by repeating the Monte Carlo with r_in = ξ r_co for a range ξ ∈ [0.5, 1.5] and reporting how the inferred B lower limits change, or by otherwise demonstrating that the inferred B values are robust to the violation of spin equilibrium.
  2. [Section 2 (thin-disc prescription) and Section 4.1] The model is derived for a geometrically thin, sub-Eddington disc (Equation 5.41 of Frank et al. 2002) and requires r_M > r_sph, yet all three sources are super-Eddington during the QPO epochs, with observed luminosities ≳ 10^39 erg/s. The argument in Section 4.1 that r_M > r_sph for M51 ULX-7 and NGC 7793 P13 uses the spin-equilibrium radii, so it inherits the uncertainty of that assumption; for NGC 7793 P13, an inward shift of r_M by roughly 30% would place r_M below the quoted r_sph of about 330 R_g, violating the model's self-consistency condition. The Lipunova (1999) thick-disc height prescription is mentioned but not implemented, and the authors note it would reverse the sign of the Mdot dependence of the QPO frequency. Please test whether the recovered B and Mdot ranges survive a thick-disc treatment, or at least state the allowed r_M/r_sph region over which the current results apply.
  3. [Section 3 and Table 2] The reported B lower limits are projections from a six-dimensional parameter family (B, Mdot, α, η, θ, with A fixed at 0.65), and the paper acknowledges the degeneracies. However, under the spin-equilibrium assumption, Eq. (4) with r_M = r_co gives a deterministic relation B ∝ Mdot^{1/2} for fixed r_co and η, so the accepted solutions lie near a low-dimensional surface and the B range is strongly influenced by the assumed Mdot and η priors. I ask the authors to present marginalized distributions of B for the accepted solutions (for example, one-dimensional histograms after integrating over α, η, θ, Mdot) and to state what fraction of the accepted parameter volume has B < 1e12 G. This is needed to substantiate the abstract's claim of recovered B ≳ 1e12 G as a robust output rather than a prior projection.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'we recover family of solutions' should read 'we recover a family of solutions'.
  2. [Section 1] The model is referred to as 'MPD model' once in the introduction and as 'MDP model' everywhere else; please standardize the abbreviation.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'the mass available for accretion onto the NS is ∼150M⊙yr−1' contains a typo: it should presumably read '1.5×10^{-7} M⊙ yr^{-1}'; as written it is unphysical.
  4. [Table 2] The notation for the accretion-rate columns (e.g., '− ⁄𝑀★' and '47(2)') is unexplained; please define all columns and the meaning of the parenthetical errors in the caption or a table footnote.
  5. [Eq. (2)] The definition of D(r) using 'max(...)' is ambiguous in print; please format it as a \(\max\{..., ...\}\) with explicit arguments.
  6. [Section 4.3] In the paragraph on 2CXOJ140314.3+541816, the range '0.5 ms ≲ P_spin ≲ 8 s' mixes units; if the lower bound is meant to be 0.5 s, please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MDP relation is external, the B-field estimates are transparently inferred from a filtered parameter family, and the spin-equilibrium caveat is an accuracy limitation rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

Equation (1) is a preexisting magnetically-driven precession formula from Lai (1999) and Shirakawa & Lai (2002), external to this paper, so the target QPO relation is not defined in terms of the observed spin/QPO values. The B and Mdot values in Table 2 are obtained by Monte Carlo sampling of the stated parameter ranges and retaining realizations matching both observables; this is transparent inversion yielding a family of solutions, and the paper labels the results as inferred rather than as independent predictions. The spin-equilibrium assumption r_M = r_co is a physical modeling assumption, not an equation identity imposed by the data; its possible failure for the QPO epochs is a robustness limitation noted in Sec. 4.1, not a circular reduction. The candidate-source spin and B-field forecasts in Sec. 4.3 target objects not used in the fits, so they are falsifiable predictions. Self-citations (Veresvarska et al. 2024; Imbrogno et al. 2024) supply model context and observational data, not an imported uniqueness theorem. No exhibited reduction of one derived equation to its own inputs by construction; therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the MDP model equations from prior literature, the thin-disc surface density prescription, and the spin-equilibrium assumption. The spin-equilibrium assumption is the most fragile: it is adopted to break degeneracies, yet is likely violated for two of the three systems. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • B (surface magnetic field) = inferred lower limits ~10^12 to 10^13 G
    The QPO frequency scales with mu^2 = B^2 R^6, so B is the main constrained output of the fit, not an input.
  • Mdot (mass accretion rate) = 10^-7 to 10^-5 M_sun/yr for the three sources
    Free parameter of the MDP model; constrained by matching observed frequencies and, for M82 X-2, by the observed dP/dt.
  • alpha (viscosity parameter) = explored 10^-3 to 1
    Affects the surface density and disc height in the precession frequency formula.
  • eta (magnetospheric radius coefficient) = explored 10^-2 to 1
    Multiplicative constant in the magnetospheric radius r_M, which sets the QPO radius.
  • theta (magnetic tilt angle) = explored 0 to 90 degrees
    Enters through F(theta) = -sin^2(theta) for f=0; degenerate with other parameters.
  • b (beaming factor) = 1 and 0.1 explored
    Relates observed luminosity to accretion rate; changes inferred B by a factor of about 3 to 4.
  • A (precession scaling constant) = fixed at 0.65
    Taken as fiducial from the Shirakawa & Lai (2002) range 0.3 to 0.85; not fitted, but a chosen value that scales the QPO frequency.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MDP precession frequency formula (Eq 1) from Lai (1999) and Shirakawa & Lai (2002)
    The central equation is adopted from prior literature; the paper does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Thin-disc surface density and half-height from Eq 5.41 of Frank et al. (2002)
    Used for Sigma and H(r) in the QPO frequency expression, applicable to sub-Eddington thin discs.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin equilibrium r_M = r_co (Section 2)
    Adopted specifically to reduce parameter degeneracies; acknowledged to be violated for two of the three sources.
  • domain assumption Linear luminosity-accretion rate relation (Eq 5)
    Converts observed luminosity to Mdot without modelling super-Eddington luminosity saturation or winds.
  • domain assumption Sub-Eddington treatment with r_M > r_sph
    The model is anchored to the thin-disc regime; the paper checks this condition a posteriori for each source.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wobbling around the clock: magnetically-driven quasi-periodic oscillations in pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7WKKERR

@misc{pith2026250505557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wobbling around the clock: magnetically-driven quasi-periodic oscillations in pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7WKKERR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05557}
}
abstract

Ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are X-ray binary systems containing an accreting neutron star (NS) or black hole emitting at luminosities above the Eddington limit of a $10M_{\odot}$ black hole. Approximately 1900 (either confirmed or candidate) ULXs have been identified to date. Three systems have been confirmed to exhibit coherent signals consistent with NS spin frequencies and quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the mHz range. Several interpretations for generating such QPOs have been proposed, including general relativistic frame-dragging effects. In this work, we test if an alternative model in which magnetically-driven precession of the inner accretion flow can self-consistently reproduce the observed NS spin and QPO frequencies for reasonable values for accretion rates and NS magnetic field strengths. For a range of parameters, we recover family of solutions with accretion rates $\approx10^{-7}$--$10^{-5}$\,M$_{\odot}$\,yr$^{-1}$ and surface magnetic fields $\gtrsim10^{12}$\,G, in agreement with previous estimates. If validated, this interpretation could reconcile several observed properties of pulsating ULXs, including QPO frequencies and the observed high luminosities of these systems, in a self-consistent framework without requiring general relativistic effects and/or strong beaming due to specific viewing angles. Although the predictive power of the model is currently limited by parameter degeneracies and uncertainties, searching for and discovering more pulsating ULX systems will allow to further test or refute the proposed model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter space of the MDP model with all parameter combinations (in grey circles) producing QPO frequency and spin within the observed errors as noted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    Aschenbach B., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...425.1075A 425, 1075

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041412 2004

  4. [4]

    D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2766A 486, 2766

    Atapin K., Fabrika S., Caballero-Garc \' a M. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2766A 486, 2766

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1027 2019

  5. [5]

    Bachetti M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.514..202B 514, 202

    doi:10.1038/nature13791 2014

  6. [6]

    Bachetti M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d00 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...44B 891, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d00 2020

  7. [7]

    Bachetti M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937..125B 937, 125

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d67 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Petterson J

    Bardeen J. M., Petterson J. A., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195L..65B 195, L65

    doi:10.1086/181711 1975

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Belfiore A., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0903-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..147B 4, 147

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Brightman M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e2a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895..127B 895, 127

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Brightman M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...18B 925, 18

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Campana S., Stella L., Mereghetti S., de Martino D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...610A..46C 610, A46

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Casella P., Ponti G., Patruno A., Belloni T., Miniutti G., Zampieri L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13372.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387.1707C 387, 1707

    2008

  6. [14]

    Chashkina A., Abolmasov P., Poutanen J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2799C 470, 2799

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Chashkina A., Lipunova G., Abolmasov P., Poutanen J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...626A..18C 626, A18

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Colbert E. J. M., Mushotzky R. F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519...89C 519, 89

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Dihingia I

    Das S., Nandi A., Agrawal V. K., Dihingia I. K., Majumder S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2777D 507, 2777

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3840E 456, 3840

    Earnshaw H. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3840E 456, 3840

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    O., Keppens R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622L...3E 622, L3

    El Mellah I., Sundqvist J. O., Keppens R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622L...3E 622, L3

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Fabbiano G., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.000511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA&A..27...87F 27, 87

    1989

  13. [21]

    N., Atapin K

    Fabrika S. N., Atapin K. E., Vinokurov A. S., Sholukhova O. N., 2021, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S1990341321010077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AstBu..76....6F 76, 6

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Feng H., Rao F., Kaaret P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/L137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710L.137F 710, L137

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Mathews G

    Fragile P. C., Mathews G. J., Wilson J. R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..955F 553, 955

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    Frank J., King A., Raine D. J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  17. [25]

    F \"u rst F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831L..14F 831, L14

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    F \"u rst F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A.186F 616, A186

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    F \"u rst F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..75F 651, A75

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Bachetti M., Earnshaw H., Brightman M., 2025, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.20240106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AN....34640106F 346, e20240106

    F \"u rst F., Walton D. J., Bachetti M., Earnshaw H., Brightman M., 2025, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.20240106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AN....34640106F 346, e20240106

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    1979 doi

  22. [30]

    G \'u rpide A., Castro Segura N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1459G 532, 1459

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.104G 649, A104

    G \'u rpide A., Godet O., Koliopanos F., Webb N., Olive J. F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.104G 649, A104

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Hu C.-P., Ueda Y., Enoto T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7a5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909....5H 909, 5

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Imbrogno M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.284I 689, A284

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Motta S

    Ingram A. R., Motta S. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NewAR..8501524I 85, 101524

    2019

  27. [35]

    L., et al., 2017a, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aai8635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...355..817I 355, 817

    Israel G. L., et al., 2017a, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aai8635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...355..817I 355, 817

    doi

  28. [36]

    L., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466L..48I 466, L48

    Israel G. L., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466L..48I 466, L48

    doi

  29. [37]

    I., Andersson N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..811J 324, 811

    Jones D. I., Andersson N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..811J 324, 811

    2001

  30. [38]

    J., Zezas A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08020.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351L..83K 351, L83

    Kaaret P., Ward M. J., Zezas A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08020.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351L..83K 351, L83

    2004

  31. [39]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..303K 55, 303

    Kaaret P., Feng H., Roberts T. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..303K 55, 303

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    King A., Lasota J.-P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3611K 494, 3611

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    arXiv:2112.03779

    King A., Lasota J.-P., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2112.03779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211203779K p. arXiv:2112.03779

    2021 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    R., Davies M

    King A. R., Davies M. B., Ward M. J., Fabbiano G., Elvis M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552L.109K 552, L109

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Lubow S

    King A. R., Lubow S. H., Ogilvie G. I., Pringle J. E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09378.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363...49K 363, 49

    2005

  36. [44]

    King A., Lasota J.-P., Klu \'z niak W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468L..59K 468, L59

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    King A., Lasota J.-P., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NewAR..9601672K 96, 101672

    2023

  38. [46]

    Kong A. K. H., Hu C.-P., Lin L. C.-C., Li K. L., Jin R., Liu C. Y., Yen D. C.-C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.4395K 461, 4395

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Lai D., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524.1030L 524, 1030

    1999 doi

  40. [48]

    Lai D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591L.119L 591, L119

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    Lasota J.-P., King A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2506L 526, 2506

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    V., 1999, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AstL...25..508L 25, 508

    Lipunova G. V., 1999, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AstL...25..508L 25, 508

    1999 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Liu J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..196L 961, 196

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..679L 292, 679

    Lyubarskii Y. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..679L 292, 679

    1997 doi

  45. [53]

    K., Nandi A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2086M 526, 2086

    Majumder S., Das S., Agrawal V. K., Nandi A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2086M 526, 2086

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Roberts T

    Middleton M. J., Roberts T. P., Done C., Jackson F. E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17712.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411..644M 411, 644

    2011

  47. [55]

    J., Walton D

    Middleton M. J., Walton D. J., Fabian A., Roberts T. P., Heil L., Pinto C., Anderson G., Sutton A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3134M 454, 3134

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..154M 475, 154

    Middleton M. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..154M 475, 154

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Fragile P

    Middleton M. J., Fragile P. C., Ingram A., Roberts T. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..282M 489, 282

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2224M 519, 2224

    Middleton M., G \'u rpide A., Walton D. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2224M 519, 2224

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    W., Gris \'e F., Soria R., 2011, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201011501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AN....332..367M 332, 367

    Motch C., Pakull M. W., Gris \'e F., Soria R., 2011, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201011501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AN....332..367M 332, 367

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    W., Soria R., Gris \'e F., Pietrzy \'n ski G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.514..198M 514, 198

    Motch C., Pakull M. W., Soria R., Gris \'e F., Pietrzy \'n ski G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.514..198M 514, 198

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898..174M 898, 174

    Motta S. E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898..174M 898, 174

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Ingram A., Suleimanov V

    Mushtukov A. A., Ingram A., Suleimanov V. F., DiLullo N., Middleton M., Tsygankov S. S., van der Klis M., Portegies Zwart S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530..730M 530, 730

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Cenko S

    Pasham D. R., Cenko S. B., Zoghbi A., Mushotzky R. F., Miller J., Tombesi F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811L..11P 811, L11

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    Patterson J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab863d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...70P 897, 70

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    P., Lai D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..766P 604, 766

    Pfeiffer H. P., Lai D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..766P 604, 766

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    Pinto C., Kosec P., 2023, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.20220134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AN....34420134P 344, e20220134

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    J., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230200006P p

    Pinto C., Walton D. J., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230200006P p. arXiv:2302.00006

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    J., Fabian A

    Pinto C., Middleton M. J., Fabian A. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature17417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.533...64P 533, 64

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    G., Abolmasov P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377.1187P 377, 1187

    Poutanen J., Lipunova G., Fabrika S., Butkevich A. G., Abolmasov P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377.1187P 377, 1187

    2007

  62. [70]

    E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.1.357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..357P 281, 357

    Pringle J. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.1.357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..357P 281, 357

    1996 doi

  63. [71]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44...49R 44, 49

    2006 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8a44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895...60R 895, 60

    Rodr \' guez Castillo G. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8a44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895...60R 895, 60

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  66. [74]

    Shirakawa A., Lai D., 2002a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564..361S 564, 361

    doi

  67. [75]

    Shirakawa A., Lai D., 2002b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565.1134S 565, 1134

    doi

  68. [76]

    L., Mushotzky R

    Smith K. L., Mushotzky R. F., Boyd P. T., Wagoner R. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aac88c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860L..10S 860, L10

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    E., Mushotzky R

    Strohmayer T. E., Mushotzky R. F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1386S 703, 1386

    2009 doi

  70. [78]

    E., Mushotzky R

    Strohmayer T. E., Mushotzky R. F., Winter L., Soria R., Uttley P., Cropper M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660..580S 660, 580

    2007 doi

  71. [79]

    T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4528U 511, 4528

    Urquhart R. T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4528U 511, 4528

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    K., Koliopanos F., Bailyn C

    Vasilopoulos G., Lander S. K., Koliopanos F., Bailyn C. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4949V 491, 4949

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    P., G \'u rpide A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abda49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909...50V 909, 50

    Vasilopoulos G., Koliopanos F., Haberl F., Treiber H., Brightman M., Earnshaw H. P., G \'u rpide A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abda49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909...50V 909, 50

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    Veresvarska M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.3087V 534, 3087

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827L..13W 827, L13

    Walton D. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827L..13W 827, L13

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    M., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&A...183..257W 183, 257

    Wang Y. M., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&A...183..257W 183, 257

    1987

  77. [85]

    Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...514..939W 514, 939

    1999 doi

  78. [86]

    P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15509.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400..677Z 400, 677

    Zampieri L., Roberts T. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15509.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400..677Z 400, 677

    2009

  79. [87]

    van der Klis M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA&A..27..517V 27, 517

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.