Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Timing analysis of the black-hole candidate Swift J1727.8-1613: detection of a dip-like feature in the high-energy cross spectrum

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 The paper reports the first detection of a dip at 3–15 Hz in the real part of the cross spectrum of the black-hole binary Swift J1727.8–1613, with hard photons lagging soft ones by more than $\pi/2$.

desk verdict The negative-going dip in the cross spectrum is a genuine, new detection for a black hole X-ray binary, but its interpretation as a distinct 3-15 Hz component and the coronal size estimate depend heavily on a lag model the authors themselves admit is physically unmotivated. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20717 v1 pith:U4EAQ7PG submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.HE

Pei Jin , Mariano Méndez , Federico García , Diego Altamirano , Guobao Zhang , Sandeep K. Rout This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinariescrossspectrumphaselagsquasi-periodicoscillationsaccretionflowcoronaComptonizationInsight-HXMT
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 the first detection, in a black-hole X-ray binary, of a dip at about 3–15 Hz in the real part of the cross spectrum between hard (>25 keV) and soft (<10 keV) photons, seen by Insight-HXMT in Swift J1727.8–1613 during its 2023 outburst. At the dip's minimum the real part becomes negative, meaning the hard photons lag the soft ones by more than a quarter cycle but less than half a cycle. The authors fit the power spectra and the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum simultaneously with a multi-Lorentzian model and show that a Gaussian frequency-dependent phase-lag law describes the dip best. From that Lorentzian they estimate the size of the emitting region, which stays above 10,000 km as the QPO frequency rises from 0.13 to 2.0 Hz, and they find a break near 15 keV in both the phase-lag and fractional-rms energy spectra. The energy dependence resembles the vKompth time-dependent Comptonization model with a low feedback factor, pointing to the corona as the origin of the new component.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is a joint fit of the power density spectrum and the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum, under the assumption that each Lorentzian component is incoherent with the others but fully coherent between energy bands, together with a new lag model: the phase lag of each Lorentzian is a Gaussian function of Fourier frequency, $g_i(\nu)=2\pi k_i \exp[-\frac12(\nu-\nu_{0,i})^2/\sigma_i^2]$, with $\sigma_i$ tied to the Lorentzian FWHM. Unlike the constant phase-lag model, this keeps the dip Lorentzian's negative contribution confined to the 3–15 Hz range and removes the need for compensating Lorentzians, which is why the fitted dip parameters (centroid $3.6\pm0.5$ Hz, FWHM $10.1\pm0.3$ Hz, and $\Delta\Phi_D=2.78^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ rad for Group 9) carry the argument. The same fitted Lorentzian is used to estimate the corona size through $L\sim c\tau$ with $\tau=\Delta\phi_D/(2\pi\nu_0)$, giving sizes consistently above 10,000 km.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same Insight-HXMT power and cross spectra with the phase-lag frequency dependence left free (e.g., a flexible spline or a sum of Gaussians) and check whether a 3–15 Hz Lorentzian with phase lag between $\pi/2$ and $\pi$ remains significant; alternatively, measure the dip's energy-dependent phase-lag and rms spectra with higher photon statistics and test whether the pivot stays near 15 keV with the rms minimum coinciding with the phase-lag drop.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Swift J1727.8–1613 shows a variability component never seen before in a black-hole binary: a dip in the real part of the cross spectrum between 28–200 keV and 2–10 keV photons, spanning roughly 3–15 Hz, with the real part crossing zero and reaching negative values near the minimum. Because the imaginary part stays positive there, the corresponding phase lag lies between $\pi/2$ and $\pi$. The dip is caused by a change in phase lag rather than in the modulus of the cross spectrum. Jointly fitting the power spectra and the cross spectrum with 13 Lorentzians locates the feature in a broad Lorentzian whose centroid frequency rises from below 1 Hz to about 6 Hz as the QPO frequency increases, and its phase lag at the centroid grows from below $0.4\pi$ to about $0.9\pi$ before flattening. The same Lorentzian shows a break near 15 keV in its energy-dependent phase lag and fractional rms, matching the qualitative shape predicted by the vKompth low-feedback Comptonization model.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative dip parameters and the derived corona size rest on the assumption that each Lorentzian's phase lag follows a Gaussian curve peaked at its centroid frequency; the paper itself notes there is little physical justification for that specific frequency dependence, and a different lag law would change the amplitude, width, and inferred size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dip is real, the cross spectrum separates a new variability component in the 3–15 Hz band with hard lags exceeding $\pi/2$, a property not seen in other black-hole binaries, and it constrains Comptonization geometry.
  • The size estimate above 10,000 km (up to roughly $10^4\,R_g$ for an 8-solar-mass black hole) implies the Comptonizing region is extended rather than compact.
  • The break near 15 keV in both phase lag and fractional rms provides an energy scale that the vKompth low-feedback model can reproduce, linking timing and spectral modeling of the corona.
  • The coherence function's decline at high energies indicates that different variability components dominate the soft and hard bands, supporting the presence of multiple radiative regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the dip may be a generic feature of the hard-intermediate state in black-hole binaries that was missed because in previously studied sources the phase-lag hump stays below $\pi/2$; sources like MAXI J1820+070 and XTE J1550−564 should be re-examined for a negative real part.
  • My inference: if the Gaussian lag law is a stand-in for a physical lag that peaks at the Lorentzian centroid, the dip centroid frequency may track the QPO frequency in a universal way, giving a testable scaling from the paper's evolution plot.
  • My inference: the vKompth resemblance suggests the seed photons for the dip component differ from typical disc seeds; spectral-timing fits that leave the seed temperature free could confirm whether a distinct Comptonizing region is responsible.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents Insight-HXMT timing observations of the black-hole candidate Swift J1727.8-1613 during its 2023 outburst, focusing on the Normal State defined by Yu et al. (2024). The authors report a dip-like feature at ~3-15 Hz in the real part of the high-energy (28-200 keV) vs low-energy (2-10 keV) cross spectrum, which reaches negative values near its minimum and corresponds to a phase lag between pi/2 and pi. They jointly fit the two power spectra and the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum with a multi-Lorentzian model under three lag prescriptions: constant phase lag, constant time lag, and a Gaussian phase-lag model (Eq. 2). For the co-added Group #9 data, the Gaussian model gives chi^2/dof = 781/678 and places the dip Lorentzian at 3.6 +/- 0.5 Hz, whereas the constant phase-lag model gives a centroid < 0.81 Hz. Using the Gaussian model results, the authors track the dip's evolution with QPO frequency, its energy dependence, derive a coronal size estimate that consistently exceeds 10,000 km, and compare the energy-dependent rms and phase-lag shapes with predictions of the time-dependent Comptonization model vKompth.

Significance. If the central observational claim holds, this is a genuinely new finding: a strong, high-energy dip in the real part of the cross spectrum with a phase lag exceeding pi/2 in a black-hole X-ray binary has not been reported before. The direct detection is based on a large number of averaged segments (547 for Group #9), and the joint fitting of PDS and cross-spectrum components follows a published, reproducible method (Mendez et al. 2024). The predicted phase-lag and coherence spectra derived from the joint fit are compared with the data rather than fitted, which is a strength. The main weakness is that the quantitative interpretation of the dip as a distinct ~3-15 Hz variability component, and all derived quantities based on it, depend on an ad hoc Gaussian phase-lag model whose physical justification the authors themselves question in Section 5.1. The direct detection of negative Re(CS) is model-independent; the component identification and the size estimate are not.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1.2, Eq. (2); Table 3; §5.1] The identification of a distinct dip Lorentzian at 3-15 Hz is strongly model-dependent. Under the constant phase-lag model the dip centroid is < 0.81 Hz, while under the Gaussian phase-lag model it becomes 3.6 +/- 0.5 Hz (Table 3). The Gaussian prescription in Eq. (2) is introduced to break a degeneracy but, as the authors state in Section 5.1, there is little physical justification for a Gaussian frequency dependence of phase lags. Because the dip's evolution (Section 4.3, Fig. 10), its energy dependence (Section 4.4, Fig. 13), and the coronal size estimate from tau = DeltaPhi_D/(2*pi*nu0) in Section 5.3 are all read off the parameters of this Lorentzian, those quantitative results are not robust to the assumed lag law. I recommend testing at least one additional, differently shaped lag prescription (e.g., a Lorentzian or power-law frequency dependence) and explicitly reporting which conclusions survive across lag models, or reframing the paper so that the model-dependent decomposition is clearly separated from the model-independent direct detection.
  2. [§3.2; Fig. 5] The central claim that the real part of the cross spectrum reaches negative values near the dip minimum is not quantified statistically. The paper does not report the value and uncertainty of Re(CS) at the dip minimum, nor a confidence interval for the phase lag exceeding pi/2, computed directly from the averaged segments. Adding such an estimate (e.g., the significance of the most negative frequency bin, or a simple bootstrap error on the phase lag in the 3-15 Hz band) would let the reader judge the detection without relying on the model fits. This is important because the title and abstract present the negative excursion as the paper's headline result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4] The MCMC description says 'a total of 200000 samples and a burn-in phase of 200000', which leaves zero post-burn-in samples. Please clarify whether the chain length is 400000 in total with 200000 burn-in, or whether the quoted numbers are already the post-burn-in length.
  2. [Fig. 10] The y-axis label 'Maximum phase lag (rad)' appears inconsistent with the text: the text quotes values of 0.4*pi to 0.9*pi, while the axis ticks run from 0.375 to 1. If the ticks are in units of pi, the label should read e.g. 'Maximum phase lag (pi rad)'; if they are in radians, the tick values and text do not agree.
  3. [Abstract and §4.2] The Gaussian phase-lag model is described as giving a 'slightly better reduced chi^2' than the constant phase-lag model, but for Group #9 the difference is actually Delta_chi^2 = 29 for the same number of parameters (781 vs 810 for 678 dof). Consider stating this as a formal model comparison rather than 'slightly better'.
  4. [§5.3] The comparison with vKompth predictions is qualitative ('closely resemble'). Since the paper does not fit vKompth to the data, I suggest making explicit that this is a qualitative similarity and, if possible, stating which observable would quantitatively distinguish the low-feedback scenario.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dip is directly present in the observed cross spectrum, and the Gaussian phase-lag model is an acknowledged empirical ansatz rather than a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The central claim—a dip at ~3–15 Hz in the real part of the HE/LE cross spectrum reaching negative values—is established directly from the averaged data in Section 3.2 and Fig. 5, before any Lorentzian decomposition or lag-model fitting is introduced; the paper states from the raw rotated CS that 'the dip in the real part is dominated by changes of the phase lags instead of changes of the modulus of the cross spectrum.' The joint-fit framework of Méndez et al. (2024) is used to decompose the spectra, but the existence and sign of the feature do not reduce to that method or to any parameter fitted by it. The phase-lag spectrum and coherence shown in Fig. 9 are explicitly labeled 'predicted' from the fitted PDS/CS parameters, yet the paper also states these spectra 'are not independent' and uses them only as a consistency check, so no fitted quantity is being relabeled as an independent prediction. The Gaussian phase-lag model (Eq. 2, following Zhou et al. 2022, not the authors' own prior work) is an empirical ansatz whose limitations are openly stated in Section 5.1: 'there is less justification for why the phase lag at other frequencies should either remain the same as at the centroid frequency or vary according to a specific function of frequency.' This makes the inferred dip centroid, its evolution, energy dependence, and the coronal size estimate in Section 5.3 model-dependent, but model dependence is not circularity. Self-citations to Méndez et al. (2024) and to the vKompth papers (Karpouzas et al. 2020; García et al. 2021; Bellavita et al. 2022) motivate the modeling and offer a qualitative physical resemblance, but they are not the basis for the detection itself. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity; the acknowledged Gaussian-lag assumption is a robustness concern, not a circular step.

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

The paper's physical interpretation rests on the assumed Gaussian phase-lag model and the light travel time relation for the corona size, plus the adopted black hole mass. The central detection is empirical and does not depend on these, but the quantitative size and energy-dependent interpretation do.

free parameters (5)
  • Dip Lorentzian centroid frequency nu0 = 3.6 +/- 0.5 Hz (Group #9, Gaussian model)
    Fitted to the real part of the cross spectrum; sets the frequency location of the observed dip and is used in the corona size estimate.
  • Dip Lorentzian FWHM Delta = 10.1 +/- 0.3 Hz (Group #9, Gaussian model)
    Fitted width of the dip; determines the range of frequencies over which the phase lag exceeds pi/2.
  • Dip phase lag at centroid Delta_Phi_D = 2.78 (+0.08, -0.07) rad (Group #9, Gaussian model)
    Fitted phase lag used to derive a hard X-ray lag time and thus the corona size via tau = Delta_Phi_D/(2 pi nu0).
  • Gaussian phase-lag amplitudes k_i, one per Lorentzian = Free in fit; values in Table 2
    These amplitudes control the lag spectrum of each component, including the dip; the Gaussian model is one of three lag models compared.
  • Number of Lorentzians in joint fit = 13 (Group #9); 12 (representative observation)
    Chosen by adding Lorentzians until residuals in the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum are acceptable; the dip is one of these components.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each Lorentzian component is incoherent with the others and fully coherent with itself in different energy bands (Mendez et al. 2024 framework).
    This is the basis for the joint fit of PDS and real and imaginary parts of the CS; without it, the decomposition into additive Lorentzians for the CS is not justified. Invoked in Section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian phase-lag model (Eq. 2) describes the frequency dependence of each component's phase lag, with sigma linked to the Lorentzian FWHM.
    This functional form is not derived from a physical mechanism; the authors note in Section 5.1 that there is little justification for it. It is essential for isolating the dip Lorentzian without compensating components.
  • domain assumption The time lag between hard and soft photons equals the light travel time across the corona, L = tau c.
    Used in Section 5.3 to convert the fitted phase lag at the dip's centroid to a coronal size. Reynolds & Nowak (2003) give this relation, but it is a strong simplification and the paper acknowledges it with an 'if'.
  • domain assumption The black hole mass is 8 solar masses.
    Used to convert sizes to gravitational radii throughout Section 5.3. This mass is taken from the literature, not measured in this paper.
  • standard math Standard Fourier timing analysis assumptions: stationarity, Poisson noise subtraction, and background modeling.
    The calculation of PDS and CS relies on these standard techniques, described in Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timing analysis of the black-hole candidate Swift J1727.8-1613: detection of a dip-like feature in the high-energy cross spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4EAQ7PG

@misc{pith2026250420717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timing analysis of the black-hole candidate Swift J1727.8-1613: detection of a dip-like feature in the high-energy cross spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4EAQ7PG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20717}
}
abstract

We present a timing analysis of observations with the Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope of the black hole X-ray transient Swift J1727.8-1613 during its 2023 outburst. We detect, for the first time in a black hole X-ray binary, a prominent dip at ~ 3-15 Hz in the real part of the cross spectrum between high-energy (>25 keV) and low-energy (<10 keV) photons in the Low Hard and Hard Intermediate States, during which the QPO frequency rapidly increases and then stabilizes at ~ 1.0-1.5 Hz. Remarkably, the real part of the cross spectrum reaches negative values at the frequencies around the minimum of the dip, indicative of a phase lag ranging between ${\pi}/2$ and ${\pi}$ in this frequency range. We fit the power spectra and the real and imaginary parts of the cross spectra simultaneously using a multi-Lorentzian model. Among the lag models, the Gaussian phase-lag model provides a slightly better reduced ${\chi}^2$ than the constant phase-lag and constant time-lag models, while it also alleviates the degeneracy associated with those models. From the parameters of the Lorentzian that fits the dip, we estimate the size of the accretion flow, which consistently exceeds 10,000 km as the QPO frequency increases from 0.13 Hz to 2.0 Hz. Furthermore, both the energy-dependent phase-lag and fractional-rms spectra of the dip exhibit a change in trend around 15 keV, with the phase lag dropping and rms reaching a local minimum. These spectra closely resemble the shapes predicted by the time-dependent Comptonization model, vKompth, for a low feedback factor, offering a pathway to explain the radiative properties of the corona. Additionally, the coherence function suggests a diversity of variability components, potentially arising from different parts of the corona.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardness intensity diagram of the 2023 outburst of Swift J1727.8−1613, observed with Insight-HXMT. The red asterisks are observations in the Normal State defined by Yu et al. (2024). The black circles are observations in the Flare State. This paper focuses on the observations in the Normal State. PDS or the CS. All errors represent the 68% confidence range for a single parameter unless otherwise stated. 3. General a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamical power density spectrum in the HE 28−200 keV band of Swift J1727.8−1613 throughout the Insight-HXMT observation period. The color scale represents the Poisson-noise-subtracted power in fractional rms-squared units. The black solid vertical line marks the transition from the Normal State to the Flare State (MJD=60198). The dotted vertical lines indicate the time interval of the observation shown in [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative power spectra and cross spectrum of Swift J1727.8−1613 in the Normal State. The LE 2−10 keV PDS (red), the HE 28−200 keV PDS (blue), and the modulus of the cross spectrum of the HE data with respect to the LE data (gray), corresponding to the observations between the black dotted vertical lines in Fig.2. 3.2. Dip-like feature in the real part of the cross spectrum In the Normal State we detect a promi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top Left: Real and imaginary parts of the cross spectrum of Swift J1727.8−1613 for Group #9 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LE 2−10 keV (upper left panel), HE 28−200 keV PDS (upper right panel), the real (lower left panel) and imaginary (lower right panel) parts of the rotated CS of Swift J1727.8−1613 for the data shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LE 2−10 keV (upper left panel) and HE 28−200 keV PDS (upper right panel) and the real (lower left panel) and imaginary (lower right panel) parts of the rotated CS of Swift J1727.8−1613 for Group #9 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The phase-lag spectrum (left panel) and intrinsic coherence function (right panel) of Swift J1727.8−1613 for Group #9. The models are not fitted to the data, but predicted on the basis of the parameters of the Lorentzians fitted to the LE 2-10 keV and HE 28-200 keV PDS…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The centroid frequency, FWHM and phase lags at the centroid frequency of the Lorentzian accounting for the dip in the real part of the cross spectrum of Swift J1727.8−1613 as a function of the QPO frequency. The lags are for the HE 28−200 keV with respect to the LE 2−…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The phase lags at the centroid frequency of the QPO (upper panel) and second harmonic (bottom panel) of Swift J1727.8−1613 as a function of the QPO frequency. We used the Gaussian phase-lag model for the fits. The second harmonic is not detected in the first two group…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Energy dependence of the rotated real part and the phase lags of the cross spectrum of Swift J1727.8−1613 for Group #9 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Energy dependence of the phase lags at the centroid frequency of the dip, ∆ΦD, and the fractional rms of the dip of Swift J1727.8−1613 for Group #9 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A broadband spectral-timing study of QPOs in the bright black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The QPO waveform in Swift J1727.8-1613 reverses its frequency-dependent evolution across roughly 15-20 keV, suggesting a spectral pivot in the harmonic component, with similar behavior in MAXI J1535-571.

  2. Energy-dependent Optical/Near-infrared and X-ray Correlations in Swift J1727.8-1613

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Swift J1727.8–1613, the optical–X-ray correlation flips sign with X-ray energy, and the QPO lag is flat (~60–80 ms) from 2 to 150 keV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ar \'e valo P., Uttley P., 2006, 367, 801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09989.x

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, Vol

    Arnaud K.A., 1996, In: Jacoby G.H., Barnes J. (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, Vol. 101. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 17

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Bellavita C., Garc \' a F., M \'e ndez M., Karpouzas K., 2022, 515, 2099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1922 2022

  4. [4]

    Bellavita C., M \'e ndez M., Garc \' a F., et al., 2025, 696, A128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202453092

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453092 2025

  5. [5]

    (eds.) Interacting Binaries: Accretion, Evolution, and Outcomes, Vol

    Belloni T., 2005, In: Burderi L., Antonelli L.A., D'Antona F., di Salvo T., Israel G.L., Piersanti L., Tornamb \`e A., Straniero O. (eds.) Interacting Binaries: Accretion, Evolution, and Outcomes, Vol. 797. American Institute of Physics Conference Series, AIP, p.197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2130233

    doi:10.1063/1.2130233 2005

  6. [6]

    Belloni T., Psaltis D., van der Klis M., 2002, 572, 392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/340290

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  7. [7]

    Belloni T., van der Klis M., Lewin W.H.G., et al., 1997, 322, 857

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    In: Belloni T

    Belloni T.M., 2010, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries . In: Belloni T. (ed.) Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 794., p. 53

    work page 2010

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Belloni T.M., M \'e ndez M., Garc \' a F., Bhattacharya D., 2024, 527, 7136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3639

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Belloni T.M., Motta S.E., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., 2011, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India 39, 409 http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1109.3388

    2011 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bendat J.S., Piersol A.G., 2000, Measurement Science and Technology 11, 1825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/11/12/702

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    edition https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Random+Data

    Bendat J.S., Piersol A.G., 2010, Random data :, Wiley, New Delhi, 4th ed. edition https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Random+Data

    2010

  5. [13]

    Burridge B.J., Miller-Jones J.C.A., Bahramian A., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2502.06448 http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.06448

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Casella P., Belloni T., Homan J., Stella L., 2004, 426, 587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20041231

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    Castro-Tirado A.J., Sanchez-Ramirez R., Caballero-Garcia M.D., et al., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram 16208, 1

    2023

  8. [16]

    Cui W., Zhang S.N., Chen W., 2000, 531, L45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/312520

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    Debnath D., Chatterjee K., Nath S.K., et al., 2023, Advances in Space Research 71, 3508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.12.011

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Draghis P.A., Miller J.M., Homan J., et al., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram 16219, 1

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fender R.P., Belloni T.M., Gallo E., 2004, 355, 1105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x

    2004

  12. [20]

    Fogantini F.A., Garc \' a F., M \'e ndez M., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2503.03078 http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.03078

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Garc \' a F., Karpouzas K., M \'e ndez M., et al., 2022, 513, 4196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1202

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Garc \' a F., M \'e ndez M., Karpouzas K., et al., 2021, 501, 3173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3944

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Homan J., Belloni T., 2005, 300, 107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    Ingram A., Done C., 2011, 415, 2323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18860.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    Ingram A., Done C., Fragile P.C., 2009, 397, L101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x

    2009

  18. [26]

    Ingram A., van der Klis M., Middleton M., et al., 2016, 461, 1967 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1245

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Ingram A.R., Motta S.E., 2019, 85, 101524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  20. [28]

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

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Katoch T., Antia H.M., Nandi A., Shah P., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram 16235, 1

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kawamura T., Done C., Axelsson M., Takahashi T., 2023, 519, 4434 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad014

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Kompaneets A.S., 1957, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 4, 730

    1957

  24. [32]

    Kylafis N.D., Reig P., 2018, 614, L5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833339

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Kylafis N.D., Reig P., Papadakis I., 2020, 640, L16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038468

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

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

    1983 doi

  27. [35]

    Ma X., Tao L., Zhang S.N., et al., 2021, Nature Astronomy 5, 94 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Mastroserio G., Ingram A., van der Klis M., 2018, 475, 4027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty075

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Mastroserio G., Ingram A., van der Klis M., 2019, 488, 348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1727

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Mastroserio G., Ingram A., Wang J., et al., 2021, 507, 55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2056

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Mata S \'a nchez D., Torres M.A.P., Casares J., et al., 2025, 693, A129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451960

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    In: Lewin W.H.G., van der Klis M

    McClintock J.E., Remillard R.A., 2006, Black hole binaries . In: Lewin W.H.G., van der Klis M. (eds.) Compact stellar X-ray sources, Vol. 39., p.157

    2006

  33. [41]

    M \'e ndez M., Karpouzas K., Garc \' a F., et al., 2022, Nature Astronomy 6, 577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01617-y

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

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

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Mereminskiy I., Lutovinov A., Molkov S., et al., 2024, 531, 4893 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1393

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Miller-Jones J.C.A., Sivakoff G.R., Bahramian A., Russell T.D., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram 16211, 1

    2023

  37. [45]

    Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Motta S., Belloni T.M., 2011, 410, 679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17476.x

    2011

  38. [46]

    Nowak M.A., 2000, 318, 361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03668.x

    2000

  39. [47]

    Nowak M.A., Vaughan B.A., 1996, 280, 227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/280.1.227

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    O'Connor B., Hare J., Younes G., et al., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram 16207, 1

    2023

  41. [49]

    Page K.L., Dichiara S., Gropp J.D., et al., 2023, GRB Coordinates Network 34537, 1

    2023

  42. [50]

    Palmer D.M., Parsotan T.M., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram 16215, 1

    2023

  43. [51]

    Pawar D.D., Motta S., Shanthi K., et al., 2015, 448, 1298 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv024

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    Psaltis D., Belloni T., van der Klis M., 1999, 520, 262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/307436

    1999 doi

  45. [53]

    Ratti E.M., Belloni T.M., Motta S.E., 2012, 423, 694 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20906.x

    2012

  46. [54]

    Reynolds C.S., Nowak M.A., 2003, 377, 389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00584-7

    2003 doi

  47. [55]

    Tanaka Y., Shibazaki N., 1996, 34, 607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.607

    1996 doi

  48. [56]

    (eds.) Timing Neutron Stars, Vol

    van der Klis M., 1989, In: \"O gelman H., van den Heuvel E.P.J. (eds.) Timing Neutron Stars, Vol. 262. NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, p. 27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2273-0_3

    1989 doi

  49. [57]

    van der Klis M., 2004, arXiv e-prints astro--ph/0410551 http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0410551

    2004 doi

  50. [58]

    van Doesburgh M., van der Klis M., 2020, 496, 5262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1867

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Vaughan B.A., Nowak M.A., 1997, 474, L43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/310430

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    Wood C.M., Miller-Jones J.C.A., Bahramian A., et al., 2024, 971, L9 http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad6572

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Yang Z.X., Zhang L., Zhang S.N., et al., 2024, 970, L33 http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bd

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Yu W., Bu Q.C., Zhang S.N., et al., 2024, 529, 4624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae835

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Zhang L., M \'e ndez M., Altamirano D., et al., 2020a, 494, 1375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa797

    doi

  56. [64]

    Zhang S.N., Li T., Lu F., et al., 2020b, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy 63, 249502

  57. [65]

    Zhang Y., M \'e ndez M., Garc \' a F., et al., 2022, 514, 2891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1050

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    Zhang Y., M \'e ndez M., Motta S.E., et al., 2024, 527, 5638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3623

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Zhou D.K., Zhang S.N., Song L.M., et al., 2022, 515, 1914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1789

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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