Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 57 references

QPO signatures of disk restoration after type-I X-ray bursts from 4U~1636$-$536

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Type-I thermonuclear burst on the neutron star 4U 1636-536 makes the inner disk's kHz quasi-periodic oscillations disappear for about 200 seconds, and they return as the disk refills on a viscous timescale.

desk verdict A careful but incremental AstroSat extension of Peille et al. showing kHz QPO suppression for ~200 s after three bursts in 4U 1636-536, with honest caveats but one unsupported energy-band claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01291 v2 pith:TP6FYZ3Z submitted 2025-05-02 astro-ph.HE

Suchismito Chattopadhyay , Jaiverdhan Chauhan , Ranjeev Misra , Anne Lohfink , Rhaana Starling , Priya Bharali , Soma Mandal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords kHzquasi-periodicoscillationsType-IX-rayburstsneutronstarlow-massbinariesaccretiondiskdisruptionviscoustimescale4U1636-536timinganalysis
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 a Type-I thermonuclear burst on the neutron star in 4U 1636-536 temporarily destroys the innermost part of its accretion disk, and that the disk rebuilds on a well-defined viscous time scale. The key evidence is the behavior of the lower kHz quasi-periodic oscillation: it is present in the 200 seconds before each of three bursts, is not detected in the first 100-200 seconds afterward, and reappears after roughly 200 seconds, with the fractional rms dropping by about 5-6% in the post-burst window. The recovery time matches the viscous refilling time $t_{\mathrm{visc}} \approx R_{\mathrm{in}}^2/\nu$ for a plausible viscosity, which is why the authors read the pattern as disk disruption followed by restoration. If true, this provides a time-resolved link between burst radiation and inner-disk dynamics in accreting neutron stars, and it supports the idea that kHz QPOs are produced in the innermost flow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the kHz quasi-periodic oscillation—a rapid, roughly 700-1100 Hz brightness wobble thought to trace the innermost accretion flow—used as a diagnostic of whether that flow is present. The identity that carries the argument is the viscous refilling time, $t_{\mathrm{visc}} \approx R_{\mathrm{in}}^2/\nu$, evaluated at the inner disk radius; with $R_{\mathrm{in}} = 4\times 10^6$ cm and $\nu \sim 10^{11}$ cm$^2$/s it gives about 160 s, close to the observed ~200 s gap. The paper also uses Lorentzian fits to the power density spectra, with signal-to-noise and null-hypothesis probabilities, to certify which intervals contain a QPO and which only support upper limits.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the post-burst power spectrum with the burst emission removed and with longer effective exposure, for instance by co-adding several bursts of the same source: a QPO appearing in the 0-200 s window at the pre-burst frequency with signal-to-noise ratio above 3 would refute the claimed disruption-and-refilling scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the kHz QPO in 4U 1636-536 follows a reproducible disappear-and-reappear cycle around Type-I bursts. In each of the three analyzed bursts, the lower kHz QPO (centroid roughly 683-768 Hz before the burst) is detected in the 100-200 s before burst onset, is not detected in the first 100-200 s afterward with signal-to-noise ratio below 3 and rms upper limits of about 4-8.4%, and re-emerges around 200 s later. The fractional rms amplitude in the 3-20 keV band falls by about 5-6% in the immediate post-burst window. The authors interpret this as burst radiation pushing the inner accretion flow outward; once the burst ends, the inner disk refills on a viscous time scale, and the QPO returns. For an inner radius $R_{\mathrm{in}} = 4\times 10^6$ cm and kinematic viscosity $\nu \sim 10^{11}$ cm$^2$/s, the viscous time $t_{\mathrm{visc}} \approx R_{\mathrm{in}}^2/\nu \approx 160$ s, matching the observed ~200 s restoration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the missing kHz oscillation in the first 100-200 seconds after the burst is a real disappearance, not a signal hidden by burst-related noise or reduced sensitivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, the ~200 s QPO-free gap is a direct signature of inner-disk disruption: the same gap is seen after all three bursts regardless of spectral state or peak intensity.
  • The restoration time, matching $t_{\mathrm{visc}} \approx R_{\mathrm{in}}^2/\nu$ with $\nu \sim 10^{11}$ cm$^2$/s, turns burst-QPO timing into a probe of disk viscosity in this source.
  • Because kHz QPOs vanish and return with the inner flow, their recovery lets observers watch the inner disk rebuild in real time after a burst.
  • The upper kHz QPO can appear about 200 s after the burst even when it was undetectable before, suggesting the high-frequency part of the flow may recover ahead of the full oscillation pattern.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If radiation pressure is the cause, bursts closer to the Eddington limit should produce longer QPO-free gaps; a larger burst sample could test this correlation quantitatively.
  • The same analysis applied to other atoll neutron-star sources with frequent bursts could turn the ~200 s restoration into a general measure of inner-disk viscosity rather than a single-source result.
  • Because the first 200 s are upper limits rather than detections, co-adding many bursts in the same spectral state could push the rms limits low enough to reveal a weak residual QPO, which would discriminate between full disruption and partial suppression.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes three AstroSat LAXPC observations of the neutron-star low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1636-536, selecting one Type-I burst per observation (TNB-1, TNB-2, TNB-3) for which a lower kHz QPO is detected in the 100-200 s before burst onset. The authors fit power density spectra in the 3-20 keV band and report that the lower kHz QPO is not detected in the first 100-200 s after the burst (rms upper limits of ~4-8.4%), reappears after ~200 s, and that the fractional rms drops by ~5-6%. They interpret this as temporary disruption of the inner accretion disk by burst radiation, followed by viscous refilling on a ~200 s timescale, using t_visc = R_in^2/nu with R_in = 4e6 cm and nu = 1e11 cm2/s. Section 5.1 lists caveats including the small sample and possible instrumental masking of the post-burst signal.

Significance. If the disappearance is real, the paper provides one of the few systematic before/after characterizations of kHz QPO evolution across Type-I bursts in a single source, extending the earlier RXTE-based work of Peille et al. (2014). The pre-burst/post-burst count-rate matching and the null-hypothesis probability formalism in Appendix A, validated with simulated dead-time-affected event files, are careful strengths; Table 2 consistently shows p < 0.05 for segments with SNR > 3. The main weakness is that the post-burst non-detection is an upper-limit result whose physical interpretation depends on excluding masking or broadening of the oscillation, and one of the paper's stated supporting checks (the 10-20 keV band) is not actually shown.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4 and Table 1] The post-burst "non-detection" is established only through Lorentzian fits with centroid and width fixed to the pre-burst values (e.g., Obs 1 and Obs 3 post-burst rows with daggered parameters) and through a blind search that optimizes over narrow frequency bins (Table 2). Neither test has demonstrated sensitivity to a QPO that survives the burst but broadens or drifts, for example due to burst-driven turbulence or a changing inner disk radius. Since the central conclusion is that the oscillation disappears rather than is hidden, the authors should add a search over broader Lorentzian widths or an integrated excess-power statistic over 400-1200 Hz and report the corresponding upper limits for the 0-200 s post-burst segments.
  2. [§5, first bullet] The bullet claims that non-detection of QPOs in the 10-20 keV band, "where burst intensity is lower," rules out energy-band dependence, but Section 4 presents only 3-20 keV power spectra and no energy-resolved PDS analysis is shown. This check is the most direct rebuttal to the masking/broadening alternative and should either be presented explicitly or the claim should be removed.
  3. [§3-4, OB4 in Observation 3] The text states that the third burst in Observation 3 (OB4) is omitted from the analysis even though it "meets the necessary conditions," because no QPO is detected in either the pre-burst or post-burst zone. Because this is a qualifying burst whose behavior differs from the three analyzed bursts, its exclusion weakens the claim of a systematic post-burst disappearance and ~200 s reappearance. The authors should either include OB4 in the analysis or justify its exclusion with explicit, pre-defined criteria.
  4. [§5, Eqs. (2)-(4)] The viscous-timescale agreement is not an independent test: R_in is fixed at 4e6 cm from a companion paper, the viscosity range 1e10-1e13 cm2/s is broad, and the value nu = 1e11 cm2/s that produces ~160-200 s is effectively chosen because it matches the observed delay. This should be presented as an order-of-magnitude consistency check with a free effective viscosity, not as a measurement of the viscosity, and the degeneracy between R_in and nu should be discussed.
  5. [Abstract, §4, and Table 1] The claimed "drop of approximately 5-6%" in fractional rms is not what Table 1 shows for the lower kHz QPO: TNB-1 drops from 20 +/- 3% to an upper limit of <8.36%, and TNB-3 drops from 11 +/- 3% to <5.0%, which are larger drops or upper limits only. The quantitative statement in the abstract and Section 4 should be reconciled with the tabulated values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The sentence describing Type-II TNBs says their duration can range from milliseconds to "a few fours"; this should read "a few hours."
  2. [§4 and Table 1] The pre-burst interval is -200 to 0 s for Observations 1 and 3 but -100 to 0 s for Observation 2, while the text refers generically to "100-200 sec before the burst"; the interval definitions should be stated consistently in one place.
  3. [Figure 2] The x-axis tick labels near "108 109" appear to be garbled time labels and should be fixed.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase "The kHz QPOs then re-emerges after approximately 200 sec" has a subject-verb agreement error and should be corrected.
  5. [Table 2] The column header "p (1-p)%" is ambiguous; it should be made clear that the tabulated quantity is the confidence level 1 - p_N(<P_max).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QPO disappearance and reappearance are directly measured, and the viscous-timescale match is an explicitly caveated consistency check rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—kHz QPOs present within 200 s before a Type-I burst, absent in the first 100–200 s after, and reappearing after about 200 s—rests on PDS fits and upper limits reported in Table 1 and Figures 3–5. These are direct measurements, and the upper limits are computed with standard SNR and null-hypothesis methods (van der Klis 2004; Barret et al. 2008; Appendix A). No quantity is defined in terms of the result it is claimed to predict. The rms drop of about 5–6% is derived by comparing the pre-burst rms with post-burst upper limits while fixing the pre-burst Lorentzian parameters; this is a detection-threshold comparison, and Section 5.1 explicitly concedes that non-detection 'may result not only from physical disruption but also from instrumental limitations.' The viscous-timescale argument (Eqs. 2–4) adopts R_in = 4e6 cm from Chattopadhyay et al. (2025), a same-group paper, and a viscosity range of 10^10–10^13 cm^2/s from Frank et al. (1985). Choosing nu = 10^11 cm^2/s to match the observed ~160–200 s delay is a post-hoc order-of-magnitude consistency check, not a derivation, and the paper states that 'this should be regarded as an order-of-magnitude consistency rather than a precise measurement.' The self-citation is therefore not load-bearing for the empirical result. The bullet claiming non-detection of QPOs in 10–20 keV is not backed by an energy-resolved PDS in Section 4, but this is a missing-evidence issue, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained for the primary observational claim, with only a mild, explicitly caveated interpretive consistency argument involving a same-group radius estimate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim is direct measurement. The physical interpretation rests on two external inputs: the inner disk radius from the companion same-author paper and a broad literature viscosity range, from which about 10^11 cm^2/s is selected to match the observed delay. The assumption that the post-burst absence is physical rather than sensitivity-limited is load-bearing and is acknowledged in the caveats. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Kinematic viscosity (effective value chosen to match the observed delay) = ~10^11 cm^2/s (within a 10^10-10^13 cm^2/s range)
    Eqs. (2)-(4) use R_in = 4e6 cm and a viscosity range; 10^11 cm^2/s gives 160 s, close to the observed ~200 s reappearance. The value is selected from a broad assumed range, so it is a weak consistency parameter rather than a fitted constant.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Poisson-noise model and chi-square distribution of averaged PDS powers apply to the LAXPC data.
    This is the basis of the null-hypothesis probability estimation in Appendix A; it is standard X-ray timing statistics, but assumes no unmodeled red noise or systematics in the 400-1200 Hz band.
  • domain assumption LAXPC dead time (about 42 microseconds) is correctly modeled by the simulator and does not create spurious QPO features.
    The dead-time correction is discussed in Appendix A and checked with ten simulated event files. If the simulator is wrong, the significance levels and upper limits could shift.
  • domain assumption The inner disk radius of this source is about 4x10^6 cm, taken from the companion paper Chattopadhyay et al. (2025).
    This value enters the viscous timescale estimate in Eqs. (2)-(4). It comes from a same-author preprint and is not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption The kinematic viscosity of the disk lies in the range 10^10 to 10^13 cm^2/s from Frank et al. (1985).
    The range spans three orders of magnitude, which is what makes the observed 200 s delay appear consistent with the viscous timescale.
  • domain assumption kHz QPOs originate in the inner accretion flow, as in the relativistic precession model.
    The interpretation of QPO disappearance as inner disk disruption depends on this association; the paper acknowledges the model-dependence of kHz QPO origins in Section 5.
  • domain assumption The post-burst non-detection of kHz QPOs reflects a real physical disappearance rather than masking by burst emission.
    Section 5.1 concedes that high photon flux during bursts can hide weak QPO features. If the QPOs were present but undetectable, the disk-disruption conclusion would be weakened.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QPO signatures of disk restoration after type-I X-ray bursts from 4U~1636$-$536." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TP6FYZ3Z

@misc{pith2026250501291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QPO signatures of disk restoration after type-I X-ray bursts from 4U~1636$-$536},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TP6FYZ3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01291}
}
abstract

Type--I thermonuclear bursts (TNBs) from neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries (NS LMXBs) originate on the neutron star's surface from the unstable burning of the accreted material. On the other hand, kHz quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) are thought to originate in the innermost regions of the in-spiralling accretion disk. Type-I TNBs are expected to impact the inner accretion flow, and consequently the kHz QPOs, due to the intense radiation pressure. In this work, we systematically study the evolution of the upper and the lower kHz QPOs immediately before and after a Type--I TNB on 4U 1636-536 using AstroSat observations in the 3--20,keV band. The analysis of the power-density-spectra show the presence of kHz QPOs within 200,seconds before the onset of the Type--I burst. However, we have not detected any prominent signature of the same within 100--200,sec after the burst. The kHz QPOs then re-emerges after $\approx$\,200\,sec. The fractional rms variation in the 3--20\,keV band drops by $\approx$\,5--6\,\%, supporting the non-existence of kHz QPOs in the 200\,sec post-Burst Zone. The time scale of 200\,sec coincides with the viscous time scale, highlighting a scenario where the inner disk is temporarily disrupted by the intense radiation from the Type--I TNB. The kHz QPO then re-establishes as the inner disk is restored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardness vs Intensity diagram using LAXPC PCU 20 to see the evolution of the source. The bin time is 1024 sec. while Observation 2 shows only a single Type–I TNB. To analyze the evolution of kHz QPOs before, during, and after the TNBs, a sufficient amount of data (> 200 s) is required to support any conclusions. Based on this criterion, two TNBs from Observation 3 and two TNBs from Observation 1 are excluded from fu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves of observations 1, 2, and 3 in the 3–10, 10–15, and 15–20 keV energy ranges. The abbreviation OB stands for the Omitted Burst, representing burst emis￾sions that have not been considered for further analysis. B1 (TNB–1), B2 (TNB–2), and B3 (TNB–3) represent bursts considered for further analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of the kHz QPO in the pre-burst and the post-burst zone of the Type–I TNB of Observation 1. While the kHz QPO is present in pre-burst data, the same QPO is not present in the post-burst within 0–400 sec data (we over-plot the pre-burst QPO with the blue line, highlighting the lack of signal). In some scenarios (400–600 sec, 600–800 sec, 800–1200 sec), we have changed the y-axis limit to show the promin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The evolution of the kHz QPO in the pre-burst and the post-burst zone of the Type–I TNB of Observation 2. While the kHz QPO is present in pre-burst data, the same QPO is not present in the post-burst within 0-100 sec data (we over-plot the pre-burst QPO with the blue l…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The evolution of the kHz QPO in the pre-burst and the post-burst zone of the Type–I TNB of Observation 3. While the kHz QPO is present in pre-burst data, the same QPO is not present in the post-burst within 0-200 sec data (we over-plot the pre-burst QPO with the blue l…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of probability (p-value) vs. bin frequency. Black, red and blue horizontal lines mark the p-value thresholds of 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01. Each curve from Panel 2 to Panel 4 (left to right) corresponds to a segment from Obs 1 (Panel 2), Obs 2 (Panel 3) and Obs 3 (Panel 4…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Yadav, J

    Agrawal, P. C., Yadav, J. S., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 30, doi: 10.1007/s12036-017-9451-z

    doi:10.1007/s12036-017-9451-z 2017

  2. [2]

    S., et al

    Anand, K., Misra, R., Yadav, J. S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad410c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad410c 2024

  3. [3]

    M., Yadav, J

    Antia, H. M., Yadav, J. S., Agrawal, P. C., et al. 2017, ApJS, 231, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a0e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a0e 2017

  4. [4]

    M., Agrawal, P

    Antia, H. M., Agrawal, P. C., Dedhia, D., et al. 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, doi: 10.1007/s12036-021-09712-8

    doi:10.1007/s12036-021-09712-8 2021

  5. [5]

    Galloway, D. K. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv330

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv330 2015

  6. [7]

    Barret, D., Olive, J.-F., & Miller, M. C. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 855, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09214.x

    arXiv 2005

  7. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    Bellavita, C., Garc´ ıa, F., M´ endez, M., & Karpouzas, K. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922 2022

  8. [9]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 379, 247, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11943.x

    Belloni, T., Homan, J., Motta, S., Ratti, E., & M´ endez, M. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 379, 247, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11943.x

    arXiv 2007

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290 ˇCadeˇ z, A., Calvani, M., & Kosti´ c, U

    Belloni, T., Psaltis, D., & van der Klis, M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290 ˇCadeˇ z, A., Calvani, M., & Kosti´ c, U. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 527

    2002 doi

  2. [11]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 373, 1235, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11106.x

    Casares, J., Cornelisse, R., Steeghs, D., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 373, 1235, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11106.x

    2006

  3. [12]

    2025, Spectral-timing analysis of the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations and constraints on the mass of the neutron star in 4U1636 − 536 using AstroSat observations

    Chattopadhyay, S., Mandal, S., & Misra, R. 2025, Spectral-timing analysis of the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations and constraints on the mass of the neutron star in 4U1636 − 536 using AstroSat observations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00676

    2025

  4. [13]

    Pandey, S. K. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9332

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    V., Yadav, J

    Chauhan, J. V., Yadav, J. S., Misra, R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d7e

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts215

    Corbel, S., Coriat, M., Brocksopp, C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts215

    2013 doi

  7. [16]

    C., Ballantyne, D

    Fragile, P. C., Ballantyne, D. R., & Blankenship, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 541, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0987-5

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    1985, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, Cambridge astrophysics series (Cambridge University Press)

    Frank, J., Frank, J., King, A., et al. 1985, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, Cambridge astrophysics series (Cambridge University Press). https://books.google.fr/books?id=QJ08AAAAIAAJ

    1985

  9. [18]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    2021

  10. [19]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 209–262, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 5

    doi

  11. [20]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 179, 360, doi: 10.1086/592044

    2008 doi

  12. [21]

    K., Psaltis, D., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Psaltis, D., Muno, M. P., & Chakrabarty, D. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 1033, doi: 10.1086/499579 14 German` a, C., Kosti´ c, U.,ˇCadeˇ z, A., & Calvani, M. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1126, SIMBOL-X: Focusing on th...

    2006 doi

  13. [22]

    B., Hill, K

    Giles, A. B., Hill, K. M., Strohmayer, T. E., & Cummings, N. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 279, doi: 10.1086/338890

    2002 doi

  14. [23]

    F., Hernquist, L., Martini, P., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Martini, P., et al. 2005, ApJL, 625, L71, doi: 10.1086/431146

    2005 doi

  15. [24]

    2012, PhD thesis, Durham University

    Ingram, A. 2012, PhD thesis, Durham University. https://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3582/

    2012

  16. [25]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 2447, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16614.x

    Ingram, A., & Done, C. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 2447, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16614.x

    2010

  17. [26]

    Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 397, L101, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x in’t Zand, J. J. M., Galloway, D. K., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2011, A&A, 525, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015556

    2009

  18. [27]

    G., M´ endez, M., & van der Klis, M

    Jonker, P. G., M´ endez, M., & van der Klis, M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05781.x

    2002

  19. [28]

    2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 59, 451

    Kato, S. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 59, 451

    2007

  20. [29]

    Keek, L., Wolf, Z., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2016, ApJ, 826, 79, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/79

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    Klis, M. V. D. 1997, in Astronomical Time Series (Springer Netherlands), 121–132, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8941-3 10

    1997 doi

  22. [31]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 2818 —

    Kumar, N., & Misra, R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2818 —. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2580

    2014

  23. [32]

    A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R

    Leahy, D. A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R. F., et al. 1983, ApJ, 266, 160, doi: 10.1086/160766

    1983 doi

  24. [33]

    C., Misra, R., & Taam, R

    Lee, H. C., Misra, R., & Taam, R. E. 2001, ApJ, 549, L229

    2001

  25. [34]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., & Taam, R. E. 1993, SSRv, 62, 223, doi: 10.1007/BF00196124

    1993 doi

  26. [35]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/74

    Lin, Y.-F., Boutelier, M., Barret, D., & Zhang, S.-N. 2011, ApJ, 726, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/74

    2011 doi

  27. [36]

    2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed

    Martini, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho, 169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0304009

    2004 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Miller, M. C. 1999, ApJL, 515, L77, doi: 10.1086/311970

    1999 doi

  29. [38]

    2004, MNRAS, 354, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08260.x

    Misra, R., & Shanthi, K. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08260.x

    2004

  30. [39]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 109

    Peille, P., Barret, D., & Uttley, P. 2015, ApJ, 811, 109

    2015

  31. [40]

    2014, A&A, 567, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423784

    Peille, P., Olive, J.-F., & Barret, D. 2014, A&A, 567, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423784

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2680

    Roy, P., Beri, A., & Bhattacharyya, S. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2680

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al

    Russell, T. D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 763, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07133-5

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    Spruit, H. C. 1995, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 450, The Lives of the Neutron Stars, ed. M. A. Alpar, U. Kiziloglu, & J. van Paradijs, 355–376, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9502098

    1995 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075 —

    Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075 —. 1999, PhRvL, 82, 17, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.17

    1998 doi

  36. [45]

    M., Kalemci, E., & Motta, S

    Stiele, H., Belloni, T. M., Kalemci, E., & Motta, S. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts548

    2013 doi

  37. [46]

    2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301544

    Strohmayer, T., & Bildsten, L. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301544

    2003 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der

    2006

  39. [48]

    39, 623–665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    Klis, Vol. 39, 623–665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    Gladstone, J. C. 2016, ApJS, 222, 15, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15 van der Klis, M. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505 —. 2004, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0410551 van der Klis, M. 2006, in Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, e...

    2016

  41. [50]

    2016, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 82

    Wang, J., et al. 2016, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 82

    2016

  42. [51]

    Wijnands, R. A. D., van der Klis, M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1997, ApJL, 479, L141, doi: 10.1086/310600

    1997 doi

  43. [52]

    P., Mason, K

    Willmore, A. P., Mason, K. O., Sanford, P. W., et al. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 169, 7, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.1.7

    1974 doi

  44. [53]

    V., et al

    Yadav, J., Misra, R., Chauhan, J. V., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 27

    2016

  45. [54]

    S., Misra, R., Verdhan Chauhan, J., et al

    Yadav, J. S., Misra, R., Verdhan Chauhan, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/27

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    2024, Insight-HXMT observations of thermonuclear X-ray bursts in 4U 1636-53

    Yan, Z., Zhang, G., Chen, Y.-P., et al. 2024, Insight-HXMT observations of thermonuclear X-ray bursts in 4U 1636-53. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11172

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    P., Zhang, W., & Zhang, S

    Yu, W., Li, T. P., Zhang, W., & Zhang, S. N. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 512, L35, doi: 10.1086/311859

    1999 doi

  48. [57]

    Giles, A. B. 1995, ApJ, 449, 930, doi: 10.1086/176111

    1995 doi

  49. [58]

    E., & Titarchuk, L

    Zhang, W., Lapidus, I., White, N. E., & Titarchuk, L. 1996, ApJL, 473, L135, doi: 10.1086/310411

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.