Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Discovery of Rapid Polarization Angle Variation During the 2022 Outburst of XTE J1701-462

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Time-resolved IXPE observations of the neutron star XTE J1701-462 show its X-ray polarization angle swinging by ~80 degrees within a day, revealing that the normal branch's apparent lack of polarization was an artifact of time averaging.

desk verdict Time-resolved PA swing in the NB is a genuine new result and likely resolves the nondetection, but the geometry story needs to reckon with the spectral composition change in the paper's own Table 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11352 v2 pith:TUX35CTE submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.HE

QingChang Zhao , Hong Li , Lian Tao , Hua Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretionpolarimetryX-raybinariesneutronstarXTEJ1701-462coronageometryIXPEpolarizationanglevariation
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 reanalyzes archival IXPE observations of the neutron star XTE J1701-462 taken during its 2022 outburst and claims that the normal branch's apparent absence of polarization was an artifact. By splitting the second observation into three epochs, it finds that the polarization angle changed rapidly from $67^\circ$ to $-34^\circ$ to $-58^\circ$ while the polarization degree stayed constant near $2\%$. If correct, this resolves a puzzle left by earlier time-averaged analyses and implies that the geometry of the Comptonizing corona can transform on timescales of hours, possibly switching between a slab-like configuration and a vertically extended spreading layer.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is depolarization by rapid rotation of the polarization angle: if the polarization degree stays constant while the angle moves through tens of degrees on timescales shorter than the observation, the vector sum of the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ parameters over the full exposure partially cancels, so the time-averaged polarization is suppressed. To expose this, the authors split the IXPE observation into three epochs (each grouping five satellite orbits in Obs2) and require that each segment's polarization degree exceed the 99% minimum detectable polarization. On the spectral side, the analysis uses a model combining a multicolor disk blackbody, a blackbody for the transition layer, and a relativistic reflection component, which attributes the Epoch1 excess near 3-4 keV to hotter disk emission and the excess near 20 keV to stronger reflection.

What would settle it

Measuring the polarization angle as a function of photon energy within each epoch, using a longer IXPE exposure, would distinguish a geometric rotation (angle rotates coherently across energies) from a component-mixing explanation (angle shifts with energy), settling whether the corona really changed shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that in the second IXPE observation of XTE J1701-462, taken when the source was in the normal branch, the polarization angle varied significantly with time: $67\pm8^\circ$ in the first epoch, $-34\pm8^\circ$ in the second, and $-58\pm8^\circ$ in the third, while the polarization degree remained constant near $2\%$, above the 99% minimum detectable polarization. The authors conclude that the nondetection of polarization in the time-averaged data, as reported in earlier studies, was a depolarization artifact produced by the rapid rotation of the polarization angle. They further find, using simultaneous NuSTAR spectra, that the first epoch shows enhanced disk emission and reflection relative to the second epoch, and they interpret the swing as evidence for a fast transformation of the Comptonizing corona geometry, possibly from a slab geometry to a more vertically extended spreading layer, while noting that a change in optical depth could also produce the effect.

Load-bearing premise

The geometric interpretation rests on the assumption that the spectral decomposition in Epoch1 is the same as in the time-averaged Obs2, an assumption that cannot be checked with Epoch1's limited statistics and that, if false, would allow the polarization-angle swing to be explained by changing component flux ratios rather than by a change in corona geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Earlier time-averaged nondetections of polarization in the normal branch of XTE J1701-462 do not exclude a real polarized signal; the true polarization degree is about 2% with a rapidly changing angle.
  • The corona (transition layer) can change its geometry on timescales of hours within a single spectral state, not just between states.
  • The spectral link between the PA swing and enhanced disk emission/reflection in Epoch1 supports a geometric transformation rather than a pure opacity change, though the paper leaves the opacity alternative open.
  • A future detection of the radio jet in XTE J1701-462 could test the geometric interpretation by comparing the jet position angle with the measured polarization angles in the different epochs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the polarization angle is defined modulo 180 degrees, the Epoch1-to-Epoch3 difference could represent a rotation of either about 55 or about 125 degrees; continuous monitoring with finer time bins would show whether the angle drifts monotonically and in which direction.
  • If such rapid polarization-angle rotations are common in neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries during the normal branch, then time-averaged polarimetric surveys of these sources may systematically underestimate polarization; future analyses should bin exposures on spectral-state timescales.
  • The geometric interpretation assumes the spectral decomposition of Epoch1 matches the time-averaged Obs2; if a longer observation showed the polarized flux fraction changing between epochs, the PA swing could instead reflect varying flux ratios of disk and transition-layer components, a testable distinction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes archival IXPE observations of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary XTE J1701-462 during its 2022 outburst, confirming the previously reported time-averaged results: a significant detection in the horizontal branch (Obs1) and a nondetection in the normal branch (Obs2). The new claim is that the Obs2 nondetection is an artifact of time variability: splitting Obs2 into three epochs, the authors report polarization angles of 67° ± 8°, −34° ± 8°, and −58° ± 8° in the 2–8 keV band, with polarization degree around 2% in each epoch. Using simultaneous NuSTAR and IXPE spectra in the first two epochs, they find that Epoch1 has a higher disk flux fraction and stronger reflection than Epoch2. They interpret the PA swing as evidence for a fast transformation of the corona geometry, from a vertically extended spreading layer to a slab-like configuration, while acknowledging that optical depth variations could also play a role.

Significance. If the central detection holds, the paper resolves an apparent contradiction in the IXPE literature: the time-averaged nondetection in XTE J1701-462's normal branch can be explained by depolarization from a rapidly rotating PA. This would be a valuable addition to the growing IXPE sample of accreting neutron stars, and the proposed connection between PA variations and corona geometry changes is physically interesting and falsifiable with future observations. The analysis has genuine strengths: the core PA measurement is model-independent (PCUBE), the results are checked against the literature, and the spectral analysis is carefully cross-calibrated between IXPE and NuSTAR. The main limitations are that the variability claim lacks a formal statistical test, the systematic error budget is not reported, and the geometric interpretation depends on an assumption about the Epoch1 spectral decomposition that the paper's own Table 1 contradicts.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and Figure 2] The central claim that the PA 'varied significantly with time' is not supported by a formal variability test. The paper reports epoch-by-epoch errors, but no fit of a constant-PA (or constant Q/I, U/I) model to the time-resolved Stokes parameters, no Δχ² or null probability, and no treatment of circular statistics or trial factors associated with the choice of epoch segmentation. Given that this variability is the paper's main new result, the authors should add a quantitative significance estimate, for example by comparing a constant-PA model with a model allowing PA jumps between epochs in the PCUBE or spectro-polarimetric framework.
  2. [§3.1 and §4] The paper does not provide a systematic error budget for the polarization parameters. IXPE measurements of bright sources have known systematic uncertainties in PD and PA from instrumental calibration and from the choice of extraction region and energy binning. Because the reported PA differences (76° ± 8°, 79° ± 11°, 55° ± 11°) are large compared with the statistical errors, a small systematic error does not threaten the detection, but the claimed consistency of PD at 2% across epochs and the 'above MDP99' statement require a quantitative account of both statistical and systematic uncertainties per epoch.
  3. [§4 and Table 1] The geometric interpretation assumes that 'the spectral decomposition in Epoch1 is similar to that averaged in the whole Obs2,' but the paper's own spectral fits in Table 1 show a diskbb flux fraction of 44% in Epoch1 versus 32% in Epoch2, and a reflection fraction of 5% versus 3%. If the disk and transition-layer components have different polarization angles, a change in their flux ratio can rotate the observed 2–8 keV PA without any change in corona geometry. Because the authors state that Epoch1 alone does not allow a two-component polarimetric decomposition, they cannot rule out this composition effect. This is a load-bearing gap for the conclusion that the PA swing reflects a fast transformation of the corona geometry. The authors should either perform a joint spectro-polarimetric fit with per-component polarization parameters (even with constraints from the time-averaged Obs2 decomposition) or explicitly reframe the geometric conclusion as tentative and dependent on the assumption that the PA of each spectral component remained constant.
  4. [§4] The paper acknowledges that 'the observed PA variation could also be due to variation in the optical depth rather than geometry, or both', but then argues that the spectral modeling 'seems not in favor' of an optical depth change because the Bbodyrad component is similar between epochs. This argument is not quantitative: the optical depth of the Comptonizing medium can change without a large change in the time-averaged Bbodyrad normalization and temperature, especially if the seed photon supply and geometry also change. If the optical-depth alternative is to be dismissed, the authors need a more concrete test, such as fitting the time-resolved spectra with a thermal Comptonization model and reporting the implied optical depth or y-parameter for each epoch.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] Please state explicitly whether the time-resolved PD and PA values (67°, −34°, −58°) come from the model-independent PCUBE analysis or from the spectro-polarimetric fit with polconst; the text implies both but does not specify which values are plotted in Figure 2.
  2. [Figure 2] The three epochs in Obs2 are highlighted, but the exact time intervals and the number of satellite orbits per epoch are not given in the text or figure; adding this information would make the 'intra-day' claim in the abstract verifiable.
  3. [Abstract and §3.1] The term 'rapid (intra-day)' should be quantified; based on five IXPE orbits per epoch the timescale is roughly 8 hours, but the actual duration of each epoch is not stated.
  4. [Table 1] The inclination is fitted in Epoch1 (31° +2/−3) but fixed at 31° in Epoch2; please justify this asymmetry, since the inclination should be the same for both epochs of the same source.
  5. [§2] The sentence 'Background subtraction was not performed as suggested' would be clearer as 'Background subtraction was not performed, as suggested for high count-rate sources (Di Marco et al. 2023)'.
  6. [§3.1, footnote 1] The note that consistent results were reported in Di Marco et al. (2024) is useful, but the text should give the reader enough context to understand the overlap and the independent timing of the two analyses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central PA variation measurement is model-independent and the time-averaged nondetection follows arithmetically from the epoch-resolved Stokes parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a time-resolved PCUBE measurement of PD and PA in IXPE Obs2; PCUBE is model-independent and no parameter is fitted to produce the epoch values. The statement that rapid PA variation explains the time-averaged nondetection is a direct consequence of the measured Stokes vectors, and it is consistent with the reported 0.84% ± 0.33% time-averaged PD; it is not a constructed result. The geometric interpretation in Section 4 is explicitly contingent: the authors state "We assume that the spectral decomposition in Epoch1 is similar to that averaged in the whole Obs2," and they acknowledge "the observed PA variation could also be due to variation in the optical depth rather than geometry, or both." That is an interpretive assumption, not a circular definition or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citation (Long et al. 2022, with overlapping authors Feng and Li) is background evidence for PA-jet alignment and is not load-bearing for the detection; it is an externally published observational result. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the same authors, and no known result is renamed as new. The main scientific weaknesses, such as the absence of a formal PA variability test and reliance on an untestable spectral-decomposition assumption, are correctness and statistical concerns, not circularity.

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

The model-independent PA detection itself uses no free parameters beyond standard IXPE binning. The spectral interpretation, however, depends on a chain of literature-based assumptions and on several fitted spectral parameters, which enter only as context for the geometry interpretation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Epoch segmentation length (Obs2) = 5 satellite orbits per segment
    Chosen by hand so each segment reaches PD above MDP99; the three epoch PA values and the claimed swing depend on this binning choice.
  • Spectral model parameters (Diskbb Tin/Rin, Bbodyrad kT/Rbb, RelxillNS logxi, AFe, kTbb, Norm) = Table 1 values, e.g., Tin=0.93 keV and kTbb=2.69 keV in Epoch1
    Fitted to NuSTAR+IXPE spectra; used to associate the PA swing with enhanced disk and reflection, not for the PCUBE PA detection.
  • Cross-calibration normalization K and spectral slope DeltaGamma per detector = K_DU1=0.88, K_DU2=0.84, K_DU3=0.80, K_FPMB=1.01, etc.
    Standard XSPEC cross-calibration factors fitted to co-observed spectra; they affect the spectral decomposition but not the model-independent polarimetric result.
  • Neutron star spin parameter a in RelxillNS = 0.1 (fixed)
    Chosen after testing a range from 0.1 to 0.3 as the best-fitting value; fixed in spectral fits. It influences the reflection model and inferred fluxes but not the PA measurement.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The X-ray spectrum is described by Tbabs*(Diskbb + Bbodyrad + RelxillNS).
    Standard phenomenological model for NS-LMXBs; if a different continuum is correct, the derived disk/reflection decomposition changes, weakening the geometric interpretation, but not the PCUBE PA detection.
  • domain assumption The polarized X-ray flux is dominated by transition layer emission in both Obs1 and Obs2.
    Inherited from Cocchi et al. (2023) via spectro-polarimetric decomposition; the authors cannot check this in Epoch1 alone and state 'The data in Epoch1 alone do not allow us to perform a similar decomposition.'
  • ad hoc to paper The spectral decomposition in Epoch1 is similar to that of the time-averaged Obs2.
    Explicit assumption in Section 4; unverifiable with current statistics and load-bearing for the claim that the PA swing reflects a geometric change rather than a change in component contributions.
  • domain assumption The X-ray PA in the horizontal branch aligns with the radio jet, so Obs1 PA marks the orientation perpendicular to the disk plane.
    Based on other NS-LMXBs (Farinelli et al. 2023; Bhargava et al. 2024); no radio jet is detected for XTE J1701-462, and the authors call for future jet detection to confirm.
  • domain assumption In an optically thick corona, the PA aligns with the elongation of the scattering region (case C).
    Standard radiative transfer expectation (Chandrasekhar 1960; Sunyaev & Titarchuk 1985); used to translate the PA change into a slab-to-spreading-layer geometry transformation.
  • standard math IXPE Stokes Q and U uncertainties are Gaussian and background contamination is negligible.
    Standard IXPE data-reduction assumption; no background subtraction was applied because the source count rate is high.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of Rapid Polarization Angle Variation During the 2022 Outburst of XTE J1701-462." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUX35CTE

@misc{pith2026241111352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of Rapid Polarization Angle Variation During the 2022 Outburst of XTE J1701-462},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUX35CTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11352}
}
abstract

The geometry of the Comptonization corona in neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries is still unclear. We conducted time-resolved polarimetric analysis of the archival observations of XTE J1701--462 obtained with the \textit{Imaging X-ray Polarimeter Explorer} during its 2022 outburst, and found that the polarization angle (PA) varied significantly with time when the source was in the normal branch (NB), with $67 \pm 8^{\circ}$ in the first epoch, $-34 \pm 8^{\circ}$ in the second, and $-58 \pm 8^{\circ}$ in the third, last epoch. Meanwhile, the polarization degree remained constant at around 2\%, above the minimum detectable polarization at the 99\% confidence level (MDP$_{99}$). The rapid PA variation causes depolarization in the time-averaged data, resulting in a nondetection as reported in the literature. The rapid (intra-day) PA variation may suggest that there is a fast transformation of the corona geometry, likely switching from a slab geometry with enhanced disk emission and reflection, to a more vertically extended spreading layer geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CCD (top) and HID (bottom) of XTE J1701–462 con￾structed using the IXPE data. The color or hardness is defined as the ratio of count rate in two bands: (3–5 keV) / (2–3 keV) for the soft color, (5–8 keV) / (3–5 keV) for the hard color, and (4–8 keV) / (2–4 keV) for the hardness ratio. The intensity is the count rate in 2–8 keV. The source events in the 2–8 keV energy range are selected using xpselect. To conduct a m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time variation of the spectral and polarization properties. (a): IXPE DU1 light curve in the 2–8 keV energy range (black) and NuSTAR light curve in 3–30 keV (red). (b): Hardness ratio as count rate in 4–8 keV to that in 2–4 keV. (c) and (d): PD and PA in different time epochs. The gray bars mark the MDP99. The three epochs in Obs2 are highlighted. the source dominates, were generated using nuproducts, and rebinned t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Simultaneous NuSTAR and IXPE energy spectra with best-fit models in Epoch1 (left) and Epoch2 (middle) of Obs2. The right panel displays the spectral flux ratio between the two epochs, using IXPE DU1 (green) and NuSTAR FPMA (red) data. if the seed photon energy is much lower than the observing energy band (2–8 keV for IXPE). Numerical simulations pro￾duce results in agreement with the first-principle estimation (e.g.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. X-ray polarization of Z-type neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries -- I. Model-independent, time-resolved X-ray polarimetry

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Z-sources show decreasing X-ray polarization from the horizontal to the normal branch, then an increase in the flaring branch, with state-dependent polarization angle rotations in Sco X-1 and GX 349+2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    1996

  2. [2]

    D., et al

    Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Lalla, N. D., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19324, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19324

    Bhargava, Y ., Ng, M., Zhang, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19324, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19324

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19324 2024

  4. [4]

    V ., Di Marco, A., et al

    Bobrikova, A., Forsblom, S. V ., Di Marco, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449318

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449318 2024

  5. [5]

    M., Romani, R

    Braje, T. M., Romani, R. W., & Rauch, K. P. 2000, ApJ, 531, 447, doi: 10.1086/308448

    doi:10.1086/308448 2000

  6. [6]

    1960, Radiative transfer

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Radiative transfer

    1960

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 674, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346275

    Cocchi, M., Gnarini, A., Fabiani, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346275

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346275 2023

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Dauser, T., Garc´ıa, J., Walton, D. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628135 Di Marco, A., Soffitta, P., Costa, E., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f 6 —. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, e20240126, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.20240126 Di Salvo, T., Papitto, A., Marino, A., Iaria, R., & Burderi, L. 2023...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628135 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 684, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347374

    Fabiani, S., Capitanio, F., Iaria, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347374

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, A&A, 684, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348915

    Farinelli, R., Waghmare, A., Ducci, L., & Santangelo, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348915

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3726

    Farinelli, R., Fabiani, S., Poutanen, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3726

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Dahlem, M., Homan, J., et al

    Fender, R. P., Dahlem, M., Homan, J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, L25, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00350.x

    2007

  6. [14]

    2019, Experimental Astronomy, 47, 225, doi: 10.1007/s10686-019-09625-z Garc´ıa, J

    Feng, H., Jiang, W., Minuti, M., et al. 2019, Experimental Astronomy, 47, 225, doi: 10.1007/s10686-019-09625-z Garc´ıa, J. A., Dauser, T., Ludlam, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3cb7

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Gasealahwe, K. V . S., Monageng, I. M., Fender, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad649

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2003, A&A, 410, 217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031141

    Gilfanov, M., Revnivtsev, M., & Molkov, S. 2003, A&A, 410, 217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031141

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    1989, A&A, 225, 79

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

    1989

  11. [19]

    2007, ApJ, 656, 420, doi: 10.1086/510447

    Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Wijnands, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 420, doi: 10.1086/510447

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    A., & Sunyaev, R

    Inogamov, N. A., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 269, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904333

    1999 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15592, 1

    Iwakiri, W., Serino, M., Negoro, H., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15592, 1

    2022

  14. [22]

    M., Agrawal, V

    Jayasurya, K. M., Agrawal, V . K., & Chatterjee, R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2601

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovˇciak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad132d

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2009a, ApJ, 699, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/60

    Lin, D., Altamirano, D., Homan, J., et al. 2009a, ApJ, 699, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/60

    doi

  17. [25]

    A., & Homan, J

    Lin, D., Remillard, R. A., & Homan, J. 2009b, ApJ, 696, 1257, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1257

    doi

  18. [26]

    S., Chanan, G

    Long, K. S., Chanan, G. A., Ku, W. H. M., & Novick, R. 1979, ApJL, 232, L107, doi: 10.1086/183045

    1979 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4673

    Long, X., Feng, H., Li, H., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4673

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Long, K

    Novick, R., Kestenbaum, H. L., Long, K. S., et al. 1977, OSO-8 X-Ray Polarimeter and Bragg Crystal Spectrometer Observations, ed. E. A. M¨uller (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 95–97, doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-1248-5 6

    1977 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a

    Patruno, A., Haskell, B., & Andersson, N. 2017, ApJ, 850, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2001, ApJ, 547, 355, doi: 10.1086/318336

    Popham, R., & Sunyaev, R. 2001, ApJ, 547, 355, doi: 10.1086/318336

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1832

    Rankin, J., La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1832

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Lin, D., ASM Team at MIT, & NASA/GSFC

    Remillard, R. A., Lin, D., ASM Team at MIT, & NASA/GSFC. 2006, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 696, 1

    2006

  25. [33]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  26. [34]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/908

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1988, Advances in Space Research, 8, 135, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(88)90396-1

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, AJ, 162, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac19b0

    Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac19b0

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 2036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10454.x

    Suleimanov, V ., & Poutanen, J. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10454.x

    2006

  30. [38]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1985, A&A, 143, 374

    1985

  31. [39]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3649

    Tomaru, R., Done, C., & Odaka, H. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3649

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 43, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040043 van der Klis, M

    Ursini, F., Gnarini, A., Capitanio, F., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 43, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040043 van der Klis, M. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505

    2024

  33. [41]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02658, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02658

    Yu, W., Bu, Q., Doroshenko, V ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02658, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02658

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    A., Jourdain, E., Lubi´nski, P., et al

    Zdziarski, A. A., Jourdain, E., Lubi´nski, P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 914, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0147

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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