Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 101 references

A spectro-temporal view of normal branch oscillations in Cygnus X-2 as seen by NICER and NuSTAR

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

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

Pith's one-line read A 5.41 Hz oscillation in Cygnus X-2 appears only in the soft X-ray band, where the Fe L line also lives.

desk verdict A plausible but not airtight soft-X-ray NBO detection in Cyg X-2; worth refereeing after the statistics are tightened and the abstract is softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12803 v1 pith:TNNBM4BP submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.HE

Malu Sudha , Renee M. Ludlam , Diego Altamirano , Edward M. Cackett , Jeremy Hare This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords CygnusX-2normalbranchoscillationsneutronstarlow-massX-raybinaryquasi-periodictimingFeLemissionlineaccretiondisktimelags
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a normal branch oscillation (NBO) at about 5.41 Hz in the neutron star X-ray binary Cygnus X-2, visible only in the 0.5–3 keV X-ray band and strongest between 1 and 2 keV. The same soft band hosts a ∼1 keV Fe L emission line, and the paper argues that the oscillation and the line are produced by the same mechanism in the same photoionized material, located hundreds of kilometers from the neutron star rather than in the innermost accretion flow. If that is right, the millisecond lags seen at the NBO frequency, and the switch from hard to soft lag near 1 keV, are signatures of reprocessing in this outer plasma. This matters because it gives a concrete, testable site for a variability feature whose physical origin has been ambiguous across Z-source neutron star binaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is a normal branch oscillation (NBO), a broad ∼5–8 Hz quasi-periodic variability feature seen in Z-source neutron star binaries. The machinery that carries the argument is the combination of Fourier cross-spectral timing with energy-resolved spectroscopy: segment-by-segment power spectra in NICER, NuSTAR co-spectra above 3 keV, and frequency- and energy-dependent lag, coherence, rms, and covariance spectra across 0.5–10 keV. The ∼1 keV Fe L line, modeled with a ∼1.1 keV plasma, supplies the spatial anchor, while the radiation-hydrodynamic prediction that ∼6 Hz oscillations occur at a radius of ∼300 km supplies the distance scale that lets the authors place both features in the same outer photoionized region.

What would settle it

A long, uninterrupted NICER observation of Cygnus X-2 in the middle of the normal branch that either fails to reproduce a 4–7 Hz Lorentzian at high significance in 0.5–3 keV, or finds an equally strong feature above 3 keV with rms above the ∼2.2% upper limit, would settle whether the oscillation is genuinely soft-only and tied to the Fe L region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Cygnus X-2's normal branch oscillation is confined to soft X-rays: a ∼5.41 Hz quasi-periodic feature with quality factor Q≈2.57 is present in the 0.5–3 keV NICER band, peaks at ∼4.6% rms in 1–2 keV, and is absent above 3 keV, with a 90% upper limit of <2.2% rms in NICER 3–10 keV and <1.1% rms in simultaneous NuSTAR 3–10 keV data. The source spectrum shows an excess near 1 keV attributed to an Fe L blend, modeled with a ∼1.1 keV plasma. Coupling these, the authors propose that the NBO and the Fe L line originate in the same photoionized region far from the central source, and that the 12–15 ms hard lag at the NBO frequency plus the hard-to-soft lag transition near 1 keV are consequences of variability in that outer material.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 5.41 Hz peak is a real oscillation and not a red-noise fluctuation, because the detection rests on a few short segments whose individual p-values run from 0.003 to 0.07 and on a combined peak with quality factor near 2.6.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NBO lags should be interpreted with an outer reprocessing region in the geometry, not only the inner boundary layer or corona.
  • Hard-band-only timing campaigns on Z sources could miss NBOs that are soft-confined.
  • The Fe L line strength and the NBO amplitude should vary together as the source moves down the normal branch, since both trace the same optical-depth and ionization changes.
  • The simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR combination is what allowed the oscillation to be localized in energy, making it a natural setup for future NBO searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the co-location is real, the 1–2 keV oscillation should be phase-coherent with fluctuations in the Fe L line flux on timescales of the oscillation period; a cross-correlation of line and continuum light curves could test this directly.
  • Editorial inference: a softer NBO may be a generic property of high-luminosity Z sources rather than a peculiarity of Cygnus X-2; re-running this energy-resolved search on other Z sources would show whether the soft-only confinement holds elsewhere.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's speculation that NBOs and FBOs are the same oscillation at different radii predicts a monotonic shift of the peak rms energy toward harder X-rays as the oscillation frequency rises from ∼5 to ∼20 Hz, a testable trend in flaring-branch data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectro-temporal study of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary Cygnus X-2 using simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR observations taken while the source was on the normal branch. The central claim is the detection of a ~5.41 Hz normal branch oscillation (NBO) in the middle portion of the normal branch, which appears only in the 0.5-3 keV band, peaks in the 1-2 keV band, and is absent in the 3-10 keV band with estimated rms upper limits. The authors also report frequency- and energy-dependent time lags, a low coherence value at the NBO frequency, rms and covariance spectra peaking near 1 keV, and spectral fits including a Fe L emission component modeled with mekal. On this basis they suggest that the Fe L line and the NBO may originate in the same photoionized region located far from the central source. The analysis uses per-segment power density spectra, likelihood ratio tests calibrated by posterior predictive simulations, cross-spectral lag methods, and phenomenological XSPEC continuum modeling.

Significance. If the detection and its energy confinement are robust, the paper provides a genuinely new observational constraint on NBOs in the soft X-ray band, with a falsifiable suggestion connecting the 1 keV Fe L emission region to the NBO origin. The study has several strengths: the likelihood ratio tests are calibrated with posterior predictive simulations, the analysis uses simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR data, the 3-10 keV non-detections are quantified with rms upper limits and a sensitivity estimate, and the authors are explicit about caveats such as the low coherence and the tentative lag sign reversal. However, the central detection claim is not yet statistically secure because of uncorrected trials and the post-hoc construction of the QPO epoch from the same segments that showed the feature. The significance assessment is therefore the load-bearing issue for the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Figures 2-4] The detection significance is not corrected for the number of trials implicit in the search: per-GTI p-values are reported for obs2 segments 13-17 (0.42, 0.07, 3.06e-3, 0.41, 0.56), obs3 segments 2-5 (0.57, 0.31, 0.004, 0.67), and obs4 (0.03), and the search also includes multiple energy bands (0.5-10, 0.5-3, 0.5-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-10) and a range of frequencies. The p=0.04 value for the 1-2 keV band and p=0.1 for the 0.5-1 and 2-3 keV bands in Figure 4 are single-trial values. I request a global false-alarm probability, for example via Monte Carlo simulations of the null red-noise model over the full searched frequency range, all GTI segments, and all energy bands, or an equivalent trial-corrected threshold, before the 'detection' and the resulting energy-dependent confinement can be considered established.
  2. [§3.1, Figure 6] The coherence at the NBO frequency is ~0.04, only marginally above the Epitropakis & Papadakis (2017) threshold of 1.2/(1+0.2m), which is ~0.028 for m=210. That threshold only rejects zero intrinsic coherence; it does not establish that the PDS peak is a coherent oscillation. Combined with Q=2.57±1.31 and FWHM~2.1 Hz, a broad Lorentzian near the red-noise-dominated low-frequency end could plausibly be produced by incoherent fluctuations, especially because the QE epoch was built from segments selected for showing the feature. Please estimate the expected coherence implied by the best-fit Lorentzian, report an intrinsic coherence estimate or its uncertainty, and state explicitly what fraction of the 0.5-3 keV peak power is coherent.
  3. [Abstract, §4.2, Figure 7] The abstract's claim of 'a switch from hard to soft lags at 1 keV' overstates the measurement. In §4.2 the text states the reversal toward negative lags 'can not be claimed owing to the uncertainties associated with these values,' and Figure 7 shows large error bars at higher energies. Please report the lag measurements with their confidence intervals in the abstract and conclusion, or qualify the statement as a tentative sign reversal. Similarly, the statement that the NBO 'appeared only in the 0.5-3 keV energy range' should be presented together with the 3-10 keV upper limits and with the caveat that those limits assume the Lorentzian width fixed from the 0.5-3 keV fit.
  4. [§4.1, Table 1] The proposed coincidence between the Fe L line region and the NBO origin is weakened by the spectral trend in Table 1: the mekal normalization increases from 0.11±0.01 (NQ1) to 0.15±0.01 (QE) to 0.23±0.03 (NQ2), i.e., it is largest in the epoch where the NBO is absent, an issue the text acknowledges but does not resolve. Because this is the main spectral support for the Fe L/NBO connection, please provide a quantitative test, such as a correlation between mekal flux and NBO rms across the epochs, or an estimate of how much mekal normalization variation would be expected from the NBO mechanism itself, rather than the current qualitative speculation.
  5. [§3.1, rms upper limits] The 3-10 keV rms upper limits are computed by fixing the Lorentzian centroid and width to the values from the QE 0.5-3 keV fit. If the hard-band feature were broader or at a slightly different frequency, the quoted limits of <2.2% (NICER) and <1.0-1.1% (NuSTAR) could be underestimated. Please test the sensitivity by allowing the Lorentzian width and centroid to vary within their 90% confidence ranges, or quote the upper limit as a function of the assumed width. This is important because the NBO has a low quality factor and the hard-band PDS is red-noise dominated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'NB branch' appears in the abstract and conclusion, 'variaions' and 'observarions' appear in Section 2, 'We usecrabcor*tbfeo' is missing a space in Section 3.2, and 'Titarchuck' in the references should be 'Titarchuk'.
  2. [§3.1, obs4] For obs4 the color-color diagram shows only a single branch, making the spectral state uncertain, yet the ~6.3 Hz feature is classified as an NBO based on frequency and quality factor. Please justify this classification or present the relevant HID/CCD for obs4.
  3. [§4.5] The 'crosscor' tool from theftools is used without a reference or version identifier; please provide the appropriate citation or URL.
  4. [Figure 5] The sign convention for soft and hard lags is defined in the caption of Figure 5 but not explicitly repeated in the text; a short statement in Section 3.1 or 4.2 would help readers interpret the negative and positive lag values.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments thank the anonymous referee; this is appropriate for the published version but should be removed from the preprint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NBO detection and its energy dependence are new measurements, and the Fe L–NBO coincidence is an explicitly tentative hypothesis rather than a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed chain is observational: a ~5.4 Hz Lorentzian is found in NICER PDS segments with LRT p-values, its centroid/FWHM/rms are fitted, the same feature is searched in 3–10 keV bands to set upper limits, and lags, rms, and covariance are measured in the selected QE epoch. None of these steps uses the spectral model as an input to generate the timing result; conversely, the Fe L line is identified from the time-averaged spectrum independently of the variability analysis. The suggestion that Fe L and NBO share an origin is explicitly hedged ('we suggest', 'may coincide', 'perhaps be due to the same underlying mechanism'), and Section 4.1 states 'we can not make a conclusive statement based on just the current results', so it is a hypothesis rather than a forced derivation. The only self-citations are ancillary: data-reduction conventions and prior modeling of the same data by Ludlam et al. (2022); the NBO detection is a new measurement, and the ~1 keV residual is also visible in this paper's Figure 9. Statistical concerns about p-values not being corrected for the many segments and bands searched, and the low coherence (~0.04), are robustness risks rather than circularity: the paper reports these numbers honestly instead of hiding a fitted parameter as a prediction. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, not any reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational claim (soft-energy NBO) does not depend on these spectral fits, but the Fe L coincidence argument and the shell-size estimate do. The listed parameters are standard phenomenological XSPEC components, not ad hoc inventions; they are fitted to the NICER+NuSTAR spectra and used for context and for a rough model-dependent size estimate.

free parameters (12)
  • NBO centroid frequency = 5.41 ± 1.02 Hz (QE epoch)
    Fitted with power-law + Lorentzian to the combined 0.5-3 keV NICER PDS; the identification as an NBO depends on this value.
  • NBO FWHM = 2.10 ± 1.01 Hz
    Fitted with the same Lorentzian; broadness (Q ~ 2.6) sets the frequency range used for lag and rms spectra.
  • NBO rms amplitude (0.5-3 keV) = 4-5% (varying by segment)
    Fractional rms from Lorentzian normalization; the energy dependence claim rests on comparing rms in different bands.
  • rms upper limit (3-10 keV) = <2.2% NICER, <1.0-2.3% NuSTAR
    90% confidence upper limits from fixing the Lorentzian to the soft-band best fit; supports the absence claim.
  • diskbb temperature kTin = 1.56 ± 0.02 keV (QE)
    Fitted in the 0.5-20 keV NICER+NuSTAR spectral model; used to track spectral evolution along the NB.
  • diskbb normalization = 162.07 ± 7.75 (QE)
    Fitted; used to infer inner disk radius changes along the NB.
  • blackbody temperature kTBB = 2.46 ± 0.06 keV (QE)
    Fitted; boundary layer temperature, used in the alternate NBO scenario.
  • blackbody normalization = 3.88 ± 0.20 x 1e-2 (QE)
    Fitted; used to discuss boundary layer size changes.
  • mekal plasma temperature kTmekal = 1.11 ± 0.01 keV (QE)
    Fitted; the Fe L emission model temperature, central to the coincidence argument.
  • mekal normalization = 0.15 ± 0.01 (QE)
    Fitted; tracks Fe L strength along the NB.
  • Power-law index and normalization = Γ = 3.66 ± 0.06, Npl = 2.76 ± 0.11 (QE)
    Fitted; continuum component.
  • Absorption column NH = 0.44 ± 0.01 x 1e22 cm^-2 (QE)
    Fitted; interstellar absorption.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cyg X-2 is a Z source and the selected GTI segments lie on the normal branch as identified by the NICER color-color diagram
    Section 3.1 and Figure 1; the QPO is classified as an NBO only if the branch identification is correct.
  • domain assumption The ~1 keV excess is the Fe L transition from photoionized plasma in the outer disk
    Section 4.1, based on prior literature (Vrtilek et al. 1986; Kallman et al. 1989; Ludlam et al. 2022).
  • domain assumption NBO models: radiation-hydrodynamic oscillation at ~300 km (Fortner et al. 1989) and spherical-shell viscous oscillation (Titarchuk et al. 2001) are viable
    Sections 4.1 and 4.3; the coincidence argument and the size estimate use these models.
  • domain assumption The NuSTAR FPMA-FPMB co-spectrum correctly removes dead-time and Poisson noise
    Section 2 and 3.1, following Bachetti et al. 2015; upper limits on 3-10 keV rms rest on this.
  • standard math Lightcurves are stationary over 32 s segments and Fourier cross-spectra yield unbiased phase lags
    Section 3.1; standard assumption in Fourier timing analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A spectro-temporal view of normal branch oscillations in Cygnus X-2 as seen by NICER and NuSTAR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNNBM4BP

@misc{pith2026241112803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A spectro-temporal view of normal branch oscillations in Cygnus X-2 as seen by NICER and NuSTAR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNNBM4BP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12803}
}
read the original abstract

We report the spectro-temporal study of the neutron star low mass X-ray binary Cygnus X-2 using NICER and NuSTAR data while the source was in the normal branch (NB). We detect a normal branch oscillation (NBO) feature at ~ 5.41 Hz that appears in the middle portion of the NB branch. We note that the NBO appeared only in the 0.5-3 keV energy range, with maximum strength in the 1-2 keV energy band, but was absent in the 3-10 keV energy band of NuSTAR and NICER data. The energy spectrum of the source exhibits an emission feature at ~ 1 keV, previously identified as the Fe L transition in the outer region of the accretion disk. Upon considering both the Fe L and NBO features, we suggest that the originating location of the Fe L line and the NBOs may coincide and perhaps be due to the same underlying mechanism. Therefore, lags seen in the frequency/energy dependent lag spectra of Cygnus X-2 could be considered to be arising from a region of photoionized material far from the central source. We study the frequency and energy dependent lag spectra of the source, which exhibited a few milliseconds hard lag at the NBO frequency (12-15 ms) and a switch from hard to soft lags at 1 keV. The rms spectrum peaks at 1 keV and the covariance spectrum clearly resembles a thermal spectrum. We discuss the spectro-temporal behavior of the NBO and attempt to constrain its location of origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12803 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , where soft color is the ratio of X-ray photon counts in the 3–5 keV and 2–3 keV energy bands, and hard color is the ratio obtained from the counts in 5–8 keV and 3–5 keV energy bands. For the NuSTAR HID, please refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NICER PDS of GTI segments in the 0.5–3 keV energy band preceding, during and succeeding the NBO detected in obs2, thus shows the evolution of the NBO in obs2. PDS is Poisson noise subtracted in the figure. To understand the nature of these detected QPOs, the specific location of the GTIs exhibiting QPO signatures were located in the color-color diagram ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Poisson noise subtracted averaged PDS of the NICER QE epoch in the 0.5–3 keV (grey line) logarithmically rebinned by a factor of 0.02 (black line) modeled using a power-law + Lorentzian + constant model. Here, the red line indicates the best fit obtained. data was estimated to be < 1.0% (obs2), 1.1% (obs3) and < 2.3% (obs4) with a 90% confidence level. Furthermore, to determine the sensitivity of QPO de￾tection we u… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panels (a), (b) and (c) show PDS of the NBO segment (QE) in 0.5–1 keV, 1–2 keV and 2–3 keV energy bands respectively. The grey line indicates the obtained averaged PDS and the black line indicates the averaged PDS logarithmically rebinned by a factor of 0.02. It can be…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency lag spectra obtained in the 0.5–1 keV vs 1–2 keV energy bands. Inset shows the 3-10 Hz frequency range of the spectra to highlight the lag occurring in the NBO frequency range. Dashed line indicates 0 lag, plotted to clearly indicate the soft and hard lags. S…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy lag spectra obtained in the frequency interval centered around the NBO central frequency. Dashed line indicates 0 lag. Inset shows the lag obtained in 0.5–3 keV energy range where the NBO is present. A sign reversal (hard to soft) is seen in the lags at around 1…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fractional RMS and covariance spectrum ob￾tained in the 0.5–10 keV energy band between a frequency interval centered around the NBO central frequency. the frequency range centered around the NBO central frequency. The obtained covariance spectrum was then folded with t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ratio of NICER data to continuum model in￾dicating the presence of a Fe L line emission at ∼ 1.1 keV. The continuum is modeled by a diskbb+bbody+powerlaw model. Variation in the Fe L strength as it moves along the NB can be clearly noted. A higher blackbody temperature…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratios of the unfolded NICER spectra of the NQ1, QE and NQ2 epochs with respect to the total spectrum which exhibits spectral deviations of the QE epoch at 1.5–1.8 keV and ∼ 3 keV. consideration of a varying optical depth along the NB, we speculate that NBOs and FBOs …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    """aHDDD2 T 0

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., & Shaham, J., 1985, Nature, 316, 239

    Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J., 1985, Nature, 316, 239

    1985

  5. [5]

    Alpar M. A. Hasinger G. Shaham J. Yancopoulos S., 1992, A&A, 257, 627

    1992

  6. [6]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 801

    Arevalo, P., Uttley, P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 801

    2006

  7. [7]

    A.\ 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, 101, 17

    Arnaud, K. A.\ 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, 101, 17

    1996

  8. [8]

    W., Weisskopf, M

    Bussard, R. W., Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., et al.\ 1988, , 327, 284. doi:10.1086/166189

    doi:10.1086/166189 1988

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Bachetti, M., Huppenkothen, D., Khan, U., et al.\ 2021, Zenodo

    2021

  2. [10]

    A., Cook, R., et al.\ 2015, , 800, 109

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Cook, R., et al.\ 2015, , 800, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/109

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    & Huppenkothen, D.\ 2018, , 853, L21

    Bachetti, M. & Huppenkothen, D.\ 2018, , 853, L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa83b

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    & Vaughan, S.\ 2012, , 746, 131

    Barret, D. & Vaughan, S.\ 2012, , 746, 131. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/131

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    Bellavita, C., Garc \' a, F., M \'e ndez, M., et al.\ 2022, , 515, 2099. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    & Hasinger, G.\ 1990, , 227, L33

    Belloni, T. & Hasinger, G.\ 1990, , 227, L33

    1990

  7. [15]

    M., Sanna, A., & M \'e ndez, M.\ 2012, , 426, 1701

    Belloni, T. M., Sanna, A., & M \'e ndez, M.\ 2012, , 426, 1701. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21634.x

    2012

  8. [16]

    M., 2016, ApJ, 826, 103

    Cackett E. M., 2016, ApJ, 826, 103

    2016

  9. [17]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Bhattacharyya, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 415

    2008

  10. [18]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Ballantyne, D. R. et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 205

    2010

  11. [19]

    Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L.\ 2006, , 446, 579

    2006

  12. [20]

    Dieters S. W. et al., 2000, ApJ, 538, 307

    2000

  13. [21]

    M., Wijnands, R., et al.\ 2013, , 767, L37

    Degenaar, N., Miller, J. M., Wijnands, R., et al.\ 2013, , 767, L37. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L37

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    T., & Miller-Jones, J

    Ding, H., Deller, A. T., & Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2021, PASA, 38, e048

    2021

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli \'n ski, M., & Kubota, A.\ 2007, , 15, 1. doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    & Papadakis, I

    Epitropakis, A. & Papadakis, I. E.\ 2017, , 468,

    2017

  17. [25]

    W., Lang, D., et al.\ 2013, , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., et al.\ 2013, , 125, 306. doi:10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Miller G

    Fortner B., Lamb F. K., Miller G. S., 1989, Nature, 342, 775

    1989

  19. [27]

    Gilfanov M., Revnivtsev M., Molkov S., 2003, A&A, 410, 217

    2003

  20. [28]

    Hasinger G., 1987, A&A, 186, 153

    1987

  21. [29]

    1989, A&A, 225, 79

    Hasinger G., & van der Klis, M. 1989, A&A, 225, 79

    1989

  22. [30]

    L., et al.\ 2019, , 881, 39

    Huppenkothen, D., Bachetti, M., Stevens, A. L., et al.\ 2019, , 881, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.21105/joss.01393

    Huppenkothen, D., Bachetti, M., Stevens, A., et al.\ 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1393. doi:10.21105/joss.01393

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Jonker, P. G. et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, 878

    2002

  25. [33]

    Homan, J., van der, Klis M., Fridriksson, J. K. et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 201

    2010

  26. [34]

    & van der Klis, M.\ 2013, , 434, 1476

    Ingram, A. & van der Klis, M.\ 2013, , 434, 1476. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1107

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    & Done, C.\ 2011, , 415, 2323

    Ingram, A. & Done, C.\ 2011, , 415, 2323. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18860.x

    2011

  28. [36]

    M., Qu, J

    Jia, S. M., Qu, J. L., Lu, F. J., et al.\ 2023, , 521, 4792. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad876

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    G., van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., et al.\ 2000, , 537, 374

    Jonker, P. G., van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., et al.\ 2000, , 537, 374. doi:10.1086/309029

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Santangelo A., 1999, ApJ, 514, L31

    Kaaret P., Piraino S., Ford E. C., Santangelo A., 1999, ApJ, 514, L31

    1999

  31. [39]

    R., Vrtilek, S

    Kallman, T. R., Vrtilek, S. D., & Kahn, S. M.\ 1989, , 345, 498. doi:10.1086/167924

    1989 doi

  32. [40]

    R.\ 1995, , 455, 603

    Kallman, T. R.\ 1995, , 455, 603. doi:10.1086/176608

    1995 doi

  33. [41]

    M., et al.\ 2020, , 492, 1399

    Karpouzas, K., M \'e ndez, M., Ribeiro, E. M., et al.\ 2020, , 492, 1399. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3502

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    N., Owens, A., et al.\ 1997, , 323, L29

    Kuulkers, E., Parmar, A. N., Owens, A., et al.\ 1997, , 323, L29. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706009

    1997 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    N., Owens, A., Oosterbroek, T., & Lammers, U

    Kuulkers, E., Parmar, A. N., Owens, A., Oosterbroek, T., & Lammers, U. 1997, A&A, 323, L29

    1997

  36. [44]

    Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., & Vaughan, B. A. 1996, A&A, 311, 197

    1996

  37. [45]

    K., 1989, in Hunt J

    Lamb F. K., 1989, in Hunt J. Battrick B., 23rd ESLAB Symp., Two Topics in X-ray Astronomy, ESA SP-296. ESA, Noordwijk, p. 215

    1989

  38. [46]

    A., Pike, S

    Lazar, H., Tomsick, J. A., Pike, S. N., et al.\ 2021, , 921, 155. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bab

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Kahn, S

    Liedahl, D. A., Kahn, S. M., Osterheld, A. L., et al.\ 1990, , 350, L37. doi:10.1086/185662

    1990 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Osterheld, A

    Liedahl, D. A., Osterheld, A. L., & Goldstein, W. H. 1995, ApJ, 438, 115

    1995

  41. [49]

    C., Remillard R

    Lin D. C., Remillard R. A. and Homan J. 2009 ApJ 696 1277

    2009

  42. [50]

    J., Qu, J

    Lei, Y. J., Qu, J. L., Song, L. M. et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 461

    2008

  43. [51]

    A., Homan, J

    Lin, D., Remillard, R. A., Homan, J. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1073

    2007

  44. [52]

    M., Miller, J

    Ludlam, R. M., Miller, J. M., Bachetti, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 140

    2017

  45. [53]

    Ludlam, R., Cackett, E., Garcia, J., et al.\ 2022, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division

    2022

  46. [54]

    M.\ 2024, , 369, 16

    Ludlam, R. M.\ 2024, , 369, 16. doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04281-y

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    & Agrawal, V.K 2020, MNRAS, Volume 499, Issue 2 (arXiv:2009.11002v2)

    Malu S., Sriram, K. & Agrawal, V.K 2020, MNRAS, Volume 499, Issue 2 (arXiv:2009.11002v2)

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    & Agrawal, V.K

    Malu, S., Sriram, K., Harikrishna, S. & Agrawal, V.K. 2021, MNRAS, Volume 506, Issue 4, 6203–6211

    2021

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3786

    M \'e ndez, M., Peirano, V., Garc \' a, F., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 9405. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3786

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Mewe, R., Gronenschild, E. H. B. M., & van den Oord, G. H. J. 1985, A&AS, 62, 197

    1985

  51. [59]

    R., & van den Oord, G

    Mewe, R., Lemen, J. R., & van den Oord, G. H. J. 1986, A&AS, 65, 511

    1986

  52. [60]

    Dotani T., 1989, PASJ, 41, 531

    Mitsuda K. Dotani T., 1989, PASJ, 41, 531

    1989

  53. [61]

    Miller G. S. Lamb F. K., 1992, ApJ, 388, 541

    1992

  54. [62]

    doi:10.1086/186389

    Miyamoto, S., Kitamoto, S., Iga, S., et al.\ 1992, , 391, L21. doi:10.1086/186389

    1992 doi

  55. [63]

    K., Homan, J., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2310.01511

    Ng, M., Hughes, A. K., Homan, J., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2310.01511. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.01511

    2023 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2000, ApJL 538, L137

    Nobili, L., Turolla, R., Zampieri, L., & Belloni, T. 2000, ApJL 538, L137

    2000

  57. [65]

    A., Vaughan B

    Nowak M. A., Vaughan B. A., Wilms J., Dove J. B. and Begelman M. C. 1999 ApJ 510 847

    1999

  58. [66]

    ascl:1408.004

    Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)\ 2014, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:1408.004

    2014

  59. [67]

    Pahari, M., Suman, S., Bhargava, Y., et al.\ 2024, , 528, 4125

    2024

  60. [68]

    R., Strohmayer, T

    Pasham, D. R., Strohmayer, T. E., & Mushotzky, R. F.\ 2013, , 771, L44. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L44

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.1086/338037

    Piraino, S., Santangelo, A., & Kaaret, P.\ 2002, , 567, 1091. doi:10.1086/338037

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    2001, ApJ, 547, 355

    Popham,R., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, ApJ, 547, 355

    2001

  63. [71]

    A., Connors, A., et al.\ 2002, , 571, 545

    Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., et al.\ 2002, , 571, 545. doi:10.1086/339856

    2002 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Yu, W

    Qu, J. L., Yu, W. & Li, T. P. 2001, ApJ, 555, 7

    2001

  65. [73]

    doi:10.1086/381143

    Reig, P., van Straaten, S., & van der Klis, M.\ 2004, , 602, 918. doi:10.1086/381143

    2004 doi

  66. [74]

    Reig, P., & Kylafis, N. D. 2016, A&A, 591, A24

    2016

  67. [75]

    Revnivtsev, M. G. & Gilfanov, M. R.\ 2006, , 453, 253. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053964

    2006 doi

  68. [76]

    S., Huenemoerder, D

    Schulz, N. S., Huenemoerder, D. P., Ji, L., et al. 2009, ApJL, 692, L80

    2009

  69. [77]

    P., Done, C., Mushotzky, R

    Smale, A. P., Done, C., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 1993, ApJ, 410, 796

    1993

  70. [78]

    R., & Choi, C

    Sriram K., Rao, A. R., & Choi, C. S. 2012, A&A, 541, A6

    2012

  71. [79]

    Sriram K., Malu S., & Choi, C. S. 2019, ApJS, 244, 5S

    2019

  72. [80]

    Stella L., Vietri M., 1998, ApJ, 492, L59

    1998

  73. [81]

    M., Hasinger, G., Lewin, W

    Stollman, G. M., Hasinger, G., Lewin, W. H. G., et al.\ 1987, , 227, 7P. doi:10.1093/mnras/227.1.7P

    1987 doi

  74. [82]

    2001, ApSSS, 276, 201

    Swank J. 2001, ApSSS, 276, 201

    2001

  75. [83]

    F., Geldzahler, B

    Titarchuck, L., Bradshaw, C. F., Geldzahler, B. J., & Fomalont, E. B. 2001, ApJ, 555, 45

    2001

  76. [84]

    S., Cackett, E

    Troyer, J. S., Cackett, E. M., Peille, P., et al.\ 2018, , 860, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a4

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    Uttley P., Wilkinson T., Cassatella P. et al. 2011 MNRAS 414 L60

    2011

  78. [86]

    M., Fabian A

    Uttley P., Cackett E. M., Fabian A. C., Kara E., Wilkins D. R., 2014, A&ARv, 22, 72

    2014

  79. [87]

    & Malzac, J.\ 2023, arXiv:2312.08302

    Uttley, P. & Malzac, J.\ 2023, arXiv:2312.08302. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.08302

    2023 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    Vaughan, B. A. & Nowak, M. A.\ 1997, , 474, L43. doi:10.1086/310430

    1997 doi

  81. [89]

    A., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W

    Vaughan, B. A., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., Mitsuda, K., & Dotnai, T. 1999, A&A, 343, 197

    1999

  82. [90]

    H., Zhang, W., et al.\ 1996, , 469, L1

    van der Klis, M., Swank, J. H., Zhang, W., et al.\ 1996, , 469, L1. doi:10.1086/310251

    1996 doi

  83. [91]

    van der Klis M., Hasinger G., Stella L. et al. 1987 ApJL 319 L13

    1987

  84. [92]

    2006, in Lewin W., van der Klis M., eds, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, Cambridge Univ

    van der Klis M. 2006, in Lewin W., van der Klis M., eds, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, p. 39

    2006

  85. [93]

    D., Kahn, S

    Vrtilek, S. D., Kahn, S. M., Grindlay, J. E., Helfand, D. J., & Seward, F. D. 1988, ApJ, 329, 276

    1988

  86. [94]

    D., Swank, J

    Vrtilek, S. D., Swank, J. H., Kelley, R. L., & Kahn, S. M. 1986, ApJ, 307, 69

    1986

  87. [95]

    D., Raymond, J

    Vrtilek, S. D., Raymond, J. C., Garcia, M. R., et al.\ 1990, , 235, 162

    1990

  88. [96]

    doi:10.4236/ijaa.2016.61006

    Wang, J.\ 2016, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 82. doi:10.4236/ijaa.2016.61006

    2016

  89. [97]

    Wang, J., Chang, H.-K., & Liu, C.-Y.\ 2012, , 547, A74

    2012

  90. [98]

    doi:10.1086/311872

    Wijnands, R., van der Klis, M., & Rijkhorst, E.-J.\ 1999, , 512, L39. doi:10.1086/311872

    1999 doi

  91. [99]

    2001, MNRAS, 321, 537

    Wijnands, R., & van der Klis, M. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 537

    2001

  92. [100]

    doi:10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R.\ 2000, , 542, 914. doi:10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  93. [101]

    Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., Uttley, P., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 3823

    2021

Pith tools

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