Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A Bayesian event-by-event sampler detects X-ray polarization-angle rotation that binned methods miss, and its energy-resolved results favor a slab-like corona over a shell for GX 13+1.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 22:51 UTC pith:XCZOJ6CT

load-bearing objection Useful new method and real rotation detections, but the slab-vs-shell claim is shakier than the abstract lets on, and the rotating-model equations have a factor-of-two slip that needs fixing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07059 v1 pith:XCZOJ6CT submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

What's the Buzz About GX 13+1? Constraining Coronal Geometry with QUEEN-BEE: A Bayesian Nested Sampling Framework for X-ray Polarization Rotation Analysis

Swati Ravi , Mason Ng , Herman L. Marshall , Andrea Gnarini This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords X-ray polarimetryEVPA rotationBayesian nested samplingGX 13+1neutron star low-mass X-ray binariescoronal geometryIXPEStokes parameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces QUEEN-BEE, a Bayesian nested-sampling framework that models IXPE X-ray polarimetry event-by-event instead of in time or energy bins, and uses it to ask whether the polarization angle of the neutron-star binary GX 13+1 rotates and what that implies for the corona's shape. Applied to three IXPE observations, it finds decisive evidence for a steadily rotating polarization angle in the first (42±4 degrees/day), none in the second, and a fast transient rotation of about 170 degrees/day in the third right after a light-curve dip. The payoff is physical: in energy-resolved analysis of the first observation, the recovered polarization degrees favor a slab-like corona over a shell-like corona, a distinction the earlier binned analysis could not make. The broader claim is that unbinned Bayesian model comparison can recover rotation signals in regimes where binning leaves polarization below detection thresholds, making QUEEN-BEE a general diagnostic for sources with smoothly rotating polarization angles.

Core claim

QUEEN-BEE models the azimuthal scattering angle of every detected photoelectron with a likelihood that allows the EVPA to rotate linearly in time, ψ(t)=ψ0+ωt, and uses nested sampling to compute Bayesian evidence for three competing hypotheses: constant EVPA, linearly rotating EVPA, and unpolarized emission. On the first IXPE observation of GX 13+1 the rotating model is decisively favored in the full 2–8 keV band and in both the 2–4 and 4–8 keV sub-bands, with rotation rates of 37±6 and 48+6/−7 degrees/day; the same analysis of the third observation isolates a 170+20/−40 degrees/day rotation in a roughly 10-hour post-dip window where binned PCUBE analysis reports only about 1σ polarization.

What carries the argument

The central object is an event-by-event likelihood over photoelectron azimuthal angles, in which the polarization angle is parametrized three ways: constant, linearly rotating with ψ(t)=ψ0+ωt, or absent (unpolarized). Nested sampling computes the Bayesian evidence for each model from the unbinned event list, and pairwise Bayes factors read against the modified Jeffreys scale select among them. The rotation rate ω, in degrees per day, carries the physical signal, and the use of evidence for model comparison rather than binned point estimates is what lets the method detect rotation in low-signal regimes where binning destroys it.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that within each time or energy segment the polarization angle rotates at a single constant rate; if the true angle evolution is not linear, the recovered polarization degree and rotation rate are biased, and the slab-versus-shell conclusion built on those values would not hold.

What would settle it

Simulate IXPE-like photon events with a known nonlinear EVPA evolution, such as a sudden 70-degree step or a sinusoidal swing, and run QUEEN-BEE on them: if the framework returns a confidently nonzero linear rotation rate with an inflated polarization degree, the method's central detection claim fails. For the coronal conclusion, a future IXPE observation of GX 13+1 with better statistics, or a third energy bin, that shows polarization degree falling with energy when rotation is modeled would exclude the slab geometry the paper favors.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If correct, QUEEN-BEE recovers rotation rates consistent with previous binned analyses when rotation is present and matches PCUBE results when the EVPA is constant, so it can serve as a direct cross-check for IXPE polarization-timing studies.
  • The energy-resolved result for the first GX 13+1 observation would shift the coronal interpretation from 'shell or slab unresolved' to 'slab favored,' lending support to the western spectral model of the source.
  • The framework's evidence-based comparison provides a way to decide statistically between constant, rotating, and unpolarized models without committing to bin sizes in advance.
  • Rotation rates that change across epochs (about 42 degrees/day versus about 170 degrees/day) indicate the rotation mechanism is transient, tied to changing geometry or episodic wind obscuration rather than a fixed, steady precession.
  • Because the method works directly on unbinned events, it extends to other IXPE targets and to future instruments with smoothly rotating EVPA signals, including proposed soft X-ray and enhanced timing-polarimetry missions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural calibration test, not run in the paper, is to feed QUEEN-BEE simulated IXPE events with known nonlinear EVPA evolution (a step change or a sinusoid) and check whether it reports a confidently nonzero linear rotation rate with inflated polarization degree; the paper's own model-dependence caveat suggests this is the missing validation.
  • If the slab conclusion holds, a coordinated spectroscopy campaign during a rotation epoch should show correlated changes in wind diagnostics such as blueshifted absorption and column density only if wind scattering drives the rotation; the absence of such correlation would favor a purely geometric origin such as spin-axis misalignment.
  • The marginal polarization-degree increases QUEEN-BEE reports for rotating epochs imply that other IXPE sources with known EVPA rotation, such as Cir X-1 and Sco X-1, may have their intrinsic polarization underestimated by binned analyses; re-running those datasets through the same framework should lift their measured degrees similarly if the effect is real.
  • The very large Bayes factors in the full-band fits partly reflect enormous event counts, so cross-source comparisons of evidence values should be size-normalized rather than read as absolute model probabilities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QUEEN-BEE, a Bayesian nested-sampling framework for unbinned IXPE event data, and applies it to three IXPE observations of the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 13+1. The framework compares three models—constant EVPA, linearly rotating EVPA, and unpolarized—using Bayesian evidences and Bayes factors. For the first observation the authors report a rotation rate of 42±4 deg/day, consistent with earlier binned analyses, and an energy-resolved PD increase (2.3% at 2–4 keV, 3.2% at 4–8 keV) that they interpret as favoring a slab coronal geometry over a shell geometry. The second observation is consistent with a constant EVPA, and the third shows weak full-band rotation but a strong rotating signal in a post-dip window (170+20−40 deg/day). The paper concludes that QUEEN-BEE can recover rotation signals where binned methods fall below detection thresholds and that GX 13+1's corona is slab-like.

Significance. If the methodological and source-specific claims hold, QUEEN-BEE would be a useful addition to the IXPE polarimetric-timing toolbox: it replaces ad hoc time binning with a coherent likelihood and provides formal model comparison. The code is archived on Zenodo, and the nested-sampling/evidence formalism is standard and reproducible. The apparent detection of rotation in low-significance energy/time bins and the proposed slab-vs-shell discrimination for GX 13+1 would be of interest to the X-ray polarimetry community. However, the current manuscript does not yet establish the central physical conclusion: the slab-vs-shell claim rests on an internal equation inconsistency, a purely visual comparison to fixed model curves, and a post-hoc selected time window. The methodological core is sound and likely fixable, but the source-specific interpretation is over-stated relative to the presented evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (9)–(10) vs Eq. (11)] The rotating model is internally inconsistent. With ψ(t)=ψ0+ωt (Eq. 8), the instantaneous Stokes parameters should be q(t)=p cos(2ψ0+2ωt) and u(t)=p sin(2ψ0+2ωt). As written, Eqs. (9)–(10) imply a Stokes EVPA that rotates at ω/2, while the likelihood in Eq. (11) uses ψ(t) directly and therefore rotates at ω. The authors must clarify which expression is actually implemented in QUEEN-BEE. If the code follows Eqs. (9)–(10), all reported rotation rates in Tables 2, 4, and 6 are off by a factor of two. This is load-bearing because the rotation rate is a primary output and because the recovered PD depends on the modeled EVPA phase.
  2. [§3.3 and Fig. 8] The slab-vs-shell conclusion is not quantitatively supported. The QUEEN-BEE energy-resolved PD points (2.3±0.4% and 3.2±0.4%) are overplotted on fixed MONK slab/shell curves, with no goodness-of-fit statistic, no chi-square or Bayes factor comparing the two geometries, and no systematic uncertainties on the model curves (inclination, spectral state, Comptonization parameters, or wind contamination). The text states that QUEEN-BEE 'appears to exclude the shell geometry', but a visual separation of two points from a curve is not a statistical exclusion. The authors should provide a quantitative model comparison, include model uncertainties, or soften the claim accordingly.
  3. [§3.3, Table 6, and §4] The time-resolved 'discovery' of rotation in the third observation uses the window 15.9–27.0 h after the start, which was selected because it corresponds to a light-curve dip identified in earlier analyses of the same data. This is a post-hoc selection. The reported lnB=11.4 for rotating vs constant EVPA in this window is conditional on the window choice; no trials factor or look-elsewhere correction is applied. Without such a correction, the evidence for a transient rotating event in Observation 3 is over-stated. The authors should either pre-specify analysis windows, correct for the number of windows tested, or explicitly frame the result as exploratory.
  4. [Sec. 5 and §3.3] The linear-EVPA assumption ψ(t)=ψ0+ωt is acknowledged in Sec. 5 as making QUEEN-BEE 'best utilized in scenarios with physical motivation for smoothly rotating EVPA', but the paper does not quantify the sensitivity of the recovered PD to departures from linearity. The slab-vs-shell conclusion depends on a modest PD increase from 2.3% to 3.2% between two energy bands; a small bias from mis-modeled EVPA evolution could alter or reverse the trend. The authors should run injection-recovery simulations with nonlinear EVPA evolution (e.g., a changing rotation rate or a piecewise rotation) and show how the recovered PD and rotation rate are biased. This is necessary to support the physical conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (8)] Typo: 'inital' should be 'initial'.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption vs §3.3] The Fig. 8 top caption states the 2–4 keV PCUBE result has 4.1σ significance, while the text in §3.3 reports 4.2σ for the same quantity. Please harmonize.
  3. [Footnote 8] The suggested substitution of sin^-1 for tan^-1 in the likelihood is not quadrant-safe when q can be negative; using atan2 is preferable. If the code uses the sin^-1 form, the likelihood may be evaluated incorrectly for half of the q-u plane.
  4. [Abstract and §4] The claim of 'marginal but consistent increases in the overall measured PD for epochs where the EVPA rotation is identified' is not consistent across the three observations: Observation 2 shows no rotation and has the highest PD. Please qualify the statement to refer only to the rotating epochs or energy bins where the increase is actually observed.
  5. [§3.3, Table 6] In the selected post-dip window, the constant-EVPA model is disfavored relative to the unpolarized model (lnB = -5.2 in Table 7). This is an unusual intermediate state and deserves a brief comment, since it means the only polarized evidence in that window comes from the rotating model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: QUEEN-BEE's inference chain is self-contained; the slab/shell comparison rests on external MONK simulations and the acknowledged linear-EVPA model assumption is model dependence, not circularity.

full rationale

Reviewing the derivation chain, none of the paper's central claims reduce by construction to its inputs. The likelihood (Eqs. 1, 2, 7, 11) is the standard IXPE modulation distribution built event-by-event; the rotating model uses the explicit ansatz ψ(t)=ψ0+ωt (Eq. 8), whose parameters (p, ψ0, ω) are inferred from unbinned data by nested sampling. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the reported rotation rates and PDs are posterior outputs, and the 'marginal PD increase' is a consequence of the fitted rotating model, not an independent quantity forced by the model definition. The energy-resolved slab-vs-shell claim compares QUEEN-BEE PDs with MONK Monte Carlo simulations from Zhang et al. (2019, 2022) and Gnarini et al. (2022). These are external, parameter-free predictions with stated assumptions (inclination 70°, weakly magnetized NS-LMXB, high soft state) and do not incorporate QUEEN-BEE's fitted values, so they constitute independent evidence rather than a self-citation chain. Marshall (2021a,b, 2024) is cited for the weighted log-likelihood formalism, but the core likelihood in this paper is standard and the citation is not load-bearing; co-authorship alone is not circularity. The narrow Gaussian prior (σ=10^-6) for the unpolarized delta function (Sec. 2.5) affects evidence comparisons but is a transparent prior choice, not an equivalence of input and output. Finally, the paper itself flags in Sec. 5 that QUEEN-BEE is model-dependent and best used for smoothly rotating EVPA; this is an honest limitation that weakens the certainty of the slab geometry conclusion if the true EVPA evolution is nonlinear, but a modeling assumption of that kind is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction. No step in the paper's derivation is equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on standard statistical choices (unbinned Stokes likelihood, nested sampling), on the instrument response, and on the external MONK slab/shell simulations. The fitted parameters (q, u, omega, and derived PDs) are all outputs of the inference, not constants imported from elsewhere. The prior choices for the unpolarized Gaussian width and the rotation range are hand-set and affect the evidence comparisons.

free parameters (6)
  • q and u for constant model = Obs 1: q=0.013, u=0.003; Obs 2: q=0.015, u=0.020; Obs 3: q=0.011, u=-0.003
    The Stokes parameters are the fit outputs for the constant EVPA model; all PD and PA results derive from them.
  • Rotation rate omega = 42±4 deg/day (Obs 1 full), 37±6 and 48±6 (Obs 1 energy bins), 170 +20/-40 (Obs 3 post-dip)
    Central to the rotation detection claim.
  • PD in 2-4 keV (Obs 1) = 2.3 +0.4/-0.3 %
    Used for the slab-vs-shell geometry comparison.
  • PD in 4-8 keV (Obs 1) = 3.2±0.4 %
    The rise in PD with energy is the evidence for a slab geometry.
  • Prior width sigma for unpolarized model = 1e-6
    Hand-set delta-function approximation; evidence for unpolarized depends on this value.
  • Prior range for omega = [-200, 200] deg/day
    Hand-set; can truncate the posterior, relevant for the 170 deg/day result near the boundary.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Photoelectron azimuthal angles follow f(phi) = (1/2pi)[1+mu p cos 2(phi-psi)] (Eq. 1)
    Standard IXPE modulation model. Invoked in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Instrument modulation factors from IXPE response files are accurate
    Used implicitly in all likelihood evaluations.
  • ad hoc to paper EVPA rotates linearly, psi(t)=psi0+omega*t (Eq. 8)
    The rotating model is restricted to constant rotation rate; the paper acknowledges this is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption MONK slab/shell simulations (Gnarini et al. 2022) at inclination i=70 deg describe GX 13+1
    The geometry conclusion compares QUEEN-BEE PDs to these fixed model curves; no model uncertainty is propagated.
  • ad hoc to paper Unpolarized model can be represented by a Gaussian with sigma=1e-6
    Delta-function approximation; evidence for the null model depends on this width. Section 2.5.
  • standard math Nested sampling evidence estimates are reliable
    dynesty is a tested package; the authors set nlive=100 and walks=20.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19296 in / 17294 out tokens · 152302 ms · 2026-08-04T22:51:01.203260+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What's the Buzz About GX 13+1? Constraining Coronal Geometry with QUEEN-BEE: A Bayesian Nested Sampling Framework for X-ray Polarization Rotation Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XCZOJ6CT

@misc{pith2026250907059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What's the Buzz About GX 13+1? Constraining Coronal Geometry with QUEEN-BEE: A Bayesian Nested Sampling Framework for X-ray Polarization Rotation Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XCZOJ6CT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07059}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Observations from the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) have revealed electric vector position angle (EVPA) rotation in several neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries, including the galactic X-ray burster GX 13+1. We developed a novel Bayesian nested sampling framework-"Q-U Event-by-Event Nested sampling for Bayesian EVPA Evolution" (QUEEN-BEE)-to model unbinned Stokes parameters and infer optimal EVPA rotation rates in IXPE data. We then applied this framework to three previous IXPE observations of GX 13+1. In the first observation, QUEEN-BEE recovers a rotation rate of 42+/-4 degrees/day, consistent with prior binned analysis. Energy-binned QUEEN-BEE analysis of this first observation suggests a slab-like coronal geometry, providing the first constraints between slab and shell coronae for this source. We also explore alternative EVPA rotation scenarios in GX 13+1 including variable disk wind behavior. The second observation of this source shows no evidence of rotation, and the third observation shows transient rotating behavior with an EVPA rotation rate when exiting a light curve dip of 170 +20/-40 degrees/day. The results show marginal but consistent increases in the overall measured polarization degree (PD) for epochs where the EVPA rotation is identified. These results demonstrate that QUEEN-BEE can identify evolving polarization signatures in both time- and energy-resolved regimes, even where binned methods fall below detection thresholds. Our findings highlight the diagnostic potential of QUEEN-BEE as a tool for discriminating between competing physical models of coronal geometry and probing disk-wind-related polarization behavior, highlighting the promising potential for application of this framework in a variety of other IXPE observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07059 by Andrea Gnarini, Herman L. Marshall, Mason Ng, Swati Ravi.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Polarimetric summary for the first GX 13+1 IXPE observation in the 2–4 keV energy band, with EVPA plotted east of north. Top: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming constant EVPA (scout const()) (purple). Bottom: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming rotating EVPA (scout rot()) (purple). full 2–8 keV results for the second and third IXPE ob￾servations of GX 13+1—results bet… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Polarimetric summary for the first GX 13+1 IXPE observation, with EVPA plotted east of north. Top: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE as￾suming constant EVPA (scout const()) (purple). Bottom: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE as￾suming rotating EVPA (scout rot()) (purple). 4. DISCUSSION The three IXPE observations of GX 13+1 analyzed in this work reveal a complex and dynamic picture … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Polarimetric summary for the first GX 13+1 IXPE observation in the 4–8 keV energy band, with EVPA plotted east of north. Top: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming constant EVPA (scout const()) (purple). Bottom: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming rotating EVPA (scout rot()) (purple) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Polarimetric summary for the second GX 13+1 IXPE observation, with EVPA plotted east of north. Com￾parison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming constant EVPA (scout const()) (purple) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Polarimetric summary for the third GX 13+1 IXPE observation between 15.9 hrs-27.0 hrs, with EVPA plotted east of north. Top: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming constant EVPA (scout const()) (purple). Bottom: Comparison between PCUBE (teal) and QUEEN-BEE assuming rotating EVPA (scout rot()) (purple) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic illustration of the orbital phase inter￾vals within GX 13+1’s 24.5-day period sampled by the three previous IXPE observations. Phase 0 is defined as the start of the first IXPE observation of the source, defined as MJD 60234.718. tainties associated with polarimetric results, though the 4–8 keV band polarization falling below MDP99 (1.54% PD) appear to slightly prefer a shell geometry (see Fig￾ur… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., Schulz, N

    Allen, J. L., Schulz, N. S., Homan, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2d1 2018

  2. [2]

    1996, PASJ, 48, 257, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.257

    Asai, K., Dotani, T., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, 257, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.257

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/48.2.257 1996

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 15 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Astropy Collaboration, R...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2024a, A&A, 688, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450207

    Bobrikova, A., Di Marco, A., La Monaca, F., et al. 2024a, A&A, 688, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450207

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450207

  6. [6]

    V., Di Marco, A., et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449318

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 674, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346302

    Cibrario, N., Negro, M., Moriakov, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346302

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346302 2023

  8. [8]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Pearlman, A. B., Buxton, M., & Levine, A. M. 2010, ApJ, 719, 979, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/979 Del Pozzo, W., Veitch, J., & Vecchio, A. 2011, PhRvD, 83, 082002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.082002 Di Gesu, L., Marshall, H. L., Ehlert, S. R., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1245, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02032-7 Di Marco, A., Soffitta, P...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/979 2010

  9. [9]

    S., et al

    Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1433, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01799-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01799-5 2022

  10. [10]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    K., Homan, J., & Remillard, R

    Fridriksson, J. K., Homan, J., & Remillard, R. A. 2015, ApJ, 809, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/52

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/52 2015

  12. [12]

    E., Kim, D

    Gianolli, V. E., Kim, D. E., Bianchi, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1697

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1697 2023

  13. [13]

    Bubbly, S. G. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3941

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3941 2024

  14. [14]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1523

    Gnarini, A., Ursini, F., Matt, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1523

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1523 2022

  15. [15]

    2024, A&A, 690, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450716

    Gnarini, A., Lynne Saade, M., Ursini, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450716

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450716 2024

  16. [16]

    2025, A&A, 699, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554573

    Gnarini, A., Ursini, F., Matt, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554573

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554573 2025

  17. [17]

    J., Hobson, M

    Handley, W. J., Hobson, M. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 2015

  18. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  19. [19]

    1989, A&A, 225, 79

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

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 35, doi: 10.33232/001c.117476

    Heyl, J., Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., & Caiazzo, I. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 35, doi: 10.33232/001c.117476

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.117476 2024

  21. [21]

    X-ray Polarization Reveals the Precessions of the Neutron Star in Hercules X-1

    Heyl, J., Doroshenko, V., Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.03667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.03667

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.03667 2023

  22. [22]

    2014, A&A, 561, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322328

    Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., Burderi, L., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322328

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322328 2014

  23. [23]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Ingram, A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 113, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 139-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2022

  24. [24]

    1998, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn

    Jeffreys, H. 1998, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press)

    work page 1998

  25. [25]

    X-ray and radio polarimetry of the neutron star low mass X-ray binary GX 13+1

    Kashyap, U., Maccarone, T. J., Pattie, E. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.05763, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.05763

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05763 2025

  26. [26]

    Kelly, R. M. E., Marshall, H. L., Zane, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adde58

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adde58 2025

  27. [27]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007 2015

  28. [28]

    2019, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 942, 162389, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2019.162389 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al

    Kitaguchi, T., Black, K., Enoto, T., et al. 2019, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 942, 162389, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2019.162389 La Monaca, F., Di Marco, A., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad132d

    work page arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Li, H., Zhao, Q.-C., Feng, H., Tao, L., & Tsygankov, S. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04775

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04775 2025

  30. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7eb

    Liu, X., Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., & Creighton, J. 2021, ApJ, 908, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd7eb 2021

  31. [31]

    S., Chanan, G

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

    work page doi:10.1086/183045 1979

  32. [32]

    K., Jonker, P

    Madej, O. K., Jonker, P. G., D ´ ıaz Trigo, M., & Miˇ skoviˇ cov´ a, I. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2119

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2119 2014

  33. [33]

    W., et al

    Marin, F., Porquet, D., Goosmann, R. W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1677

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1677 2013

  34. [34]

    Marshall, H. L. 2021a, AJ, 162, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac173d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac173d

  35. [35]

    Marshall, H. L. 2021b, ApJ, 907, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcfc3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcfc3

  36. [36]

    Marshall, H. L. 2024, ApJ, 964, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0897

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0897 2024

  37. [37]

    L., Schulz, N

    Marshall, H. L., Schulz, N. S., Trowbridge Heine, S. N., et al. 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10397, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. O. H. Siegmund, 103970K, doi: 10.1117/12.2274107 16

    doi:10.1117/12.2274107 2017

  38. [38]

    L., Ng, M., Rogantini, D., et al

    Marshall, H. L., Ng, M., Rogantini, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac98c2 2022

  39. [39]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 422, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06539.x M´ endez, M., & Belloni, T

    Matt, G., Guainazzi, M., & Maiolino, R. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 422, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06539.x M´ endez, M., & Belloni, T. M. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 263–331, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3

  41. [41]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    1984

  42. [42]

    K., Homan, J., et al

    Ng, M., Hughes, A. K., Homan, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bd 2024

  43. [43]

    P., Veledina, A., & Poutanen, J

    Nitindala, A. P., Veledina, A., & Poutanen, J. 2025, A&A, 694, A230, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453188

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453188 2025

  44. [44]

    L., Romani, R

    Peirson, A. L., Romani, R. W., Marshall, H. L., Steiner, J. F., & Baldini, L. 2021, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 986, 164740, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2020.164740 P´ erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    1996, ApJ, 470, 249, doi: 10.1086/177865

    Poutanen, J., & Svensson, R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 249, doi: 10.1086/177865

    doi:10.1086/177865 1996

  46. [46]

    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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1832 2024

  47. [47]

    Ravi, S., Ng, M., & Marshall, H. L. 2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17068831

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17068831 2025

  48. [48]

    M., et al

    Rogantini, D., Homan, J., Plotkin, R. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcabe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcabe 2025

  49. [49]

    L., Kaaret, P., Gnarini, A., et al

    Saade, M. L., Kaaret, P., Gnarini, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad235a 2024

  50. [50]

    N., Oosterbroek, T., & Lumb, D

    Sidoli, L., Parmar, A. N., Oosterbroek, T., & Lumb, D. 2002, A&A, 385, 940, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020192

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020192 2002

  51. [51]

    Smith, R. J. E., Ashton, G., Vajpeyi, A., & Talbot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2483

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2483 2020

  52. [52]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac19b0 2021

  53. [53]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  54. [54]

    1994, ApJ, 434, 570, doi: 10.1086/174760

    Titarchuk, L. 1994, ApJ, 434, 570, doi: 10.1086/174760

    doi:10.1086/174760 1994

  55. [55]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3649 2024

  56. [56]

    2001, ApJL, 556, L87, doi: 10.1086/323007

    Ueda, Y., Asai, K., Yamaoka, K., Dotani, T., & Inoue, H. 2001, ApJL, 556, L87, doi: 10.1086/323007

    work page doi:10.1086/323007 2001

  57. [57]

    2004, ApJ, 609, 325, doi: 10.1086/420973

    Ebisawa, K. 2004, ApJ, 609, 325, doi: 10.1086/420973

    work page doi:10.1086/420973 2004

  58. [58]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  59. [59]

    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

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.2.026002 2022

  60. [60]

    E., Stella, L., & Parmar, A

    White, N. E., Stella, L., & Parmar, A. N. 1988, ApJ, 324, 363, doi: 10.1086/165901

    doi:10.1086/165901 1988

  61. [61]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

    Zhang, S., Santangelo, A., Feroci, M., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

    doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2 2019

  62. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08101

    Zhang, S.-N., Santangelo, A., Xu, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08101

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08101 2025

  63. [63]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1261

    Zhang, W., Dovˇ ciak, M., & Bursa, M. 2019, ApJ, 875, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1261

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1261 2019

  64. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1937

    Zhang, W., Dovˇ ciak, M., Bursa, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1937 2022