Quasi Periodic Oscillations and Strongly Comptonized X-ray emission from Holmberg IX X-1

A. R. Rao (TIFR); G. C. Dewangan (CMU); R. E. Griffiths (CMU)

REVIEW

Quasi Periodic Oscillations and Strongly Comptonized X-ray emission from Holmberg IX X-1

G. C. Dewangan (CMU), R. E. Griffiths (CMU), A. R. Rao (TIFR)

Astrophysics · Submitted 21 Feb 2006 · 29 references

Pith's verdict: Second ULX QPO claim rests on a 99.5% single-trial significance that likely doesn't survive a search trials factor.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 1 major objection · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDastro-ph/0602472 (version 2)

Pith IDRR5KZQUN, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. R. Rao (TIFR), G. C. Dewangan (CMU), R. E. Griffiths (CMU). "Quasi Periodic Oscillations and Strongly Comptonized X-ray emission from Holmberg IX X-1." arXiv:astro-ph/0602472 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/RR5KZQUN

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The one thing you should know: this paper announces a 200 mHz QPO in Holmberg IX X-1, making it only the second ULX with a claimed QPO, and uses it to argue for an intermediate-state stellar-mass black hole. The spectral analysis is careful and the source is interesting. But the QPO’s statistical significance is quoted without a trials correction, and once you account for the search over frequencies the detection may be a noise fluctuation. That is the load-bearing claim, so the paper is shaky as it stands.

What is actually good: the observation is long (103.7 ks of good PN+MOS time), the PDS is fitted with a power law plus Lorentzian plus constant, and the QPO appears visually as a clear peak. The spectral work is also solid: they find a soft excess and a high-energy cutoff, modeled either with a cutoff power law or with thermal Comptonization in an optically thick, cool plasma. The comparison with type C QPOs in Galactic black hole binaries is sensible and ties the result into the broader state-transition framework. The authors are also honest that the mass estimate scales from GRS 1915+105 and is not independently calibrated.

The soft spot is the significance. They quote Δχ² = 13.1 for three additional parameters and report a 99.5% significance from a maximum likelihood ratio test. That is a single-trial p-value, implicitly assuming the QPO frequency, width, and amplitude were known in advance. In reality, the peak was found in a broad frequency search, with a resolution of 7.8 mHz and likely at least fifty independent bins above 0.01 Hz. Even a modest trials factor of a few tens drops the significance to below 90%. This is not a nitpick: the QPO is the reason to read the paper. Without it, the “strong evidence against beaming” and the mass limits lose their anchor. The spectral curvature alone is suggestive of an intermediate state, but that is already known for several bright ULXs.

A minor additional issue: the spectral fits include two absorption edges and a 6.2 keV emission line added post hoc with modest Δχ² improvements. They do not affect the continuum shape, but they should be seen as tentative.

Who should read it: observers working on ULX variability and black hole state transitions would find value, but they should treat the QPO as a candidate rather than an established detection until a proper blind-search significance is provided.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. A competent referee can request a trials-corrected false-alarm probability. If the QPO survives, this is a short but important discovery. If it does not, the authors can still report the spectral results and a marginal timing feature. The source selection and analysis are serious enough to deserve referee time rather than a desk reject.

Referee report

Significance

If the QPO detection is statistically robust, this is a significant result: it would be only the second ULX QPO, would provide a direct probe of the accretion flow in a ULX, and would strengthen the analogy between ULXs and Galactic black hole binaries. The spectral analysis is also valuable, with two independent models (cutoff power law and compTT) both supporting a strongly Comptonized continuum and a cool disk component that cannot be used for a standard high/soft-state mass measurement. The paper is clearly written and the measurements are direct, not derived from circular reasoning. However, the central discovery claim rests entirely on a single-trial significance estimate that does not account for the search over many independent frequencies; this issue must be resolved before the conclusions can be accepted.

Major objections (1)

[Section 3] The claimed statistical significance of the QPO is not properly established. The paper reports Δχ² = -13.1 for three additional parameters and quotes a significance level of 99.5% based on the maximum likelihood ratio test. This is a single-trial value that implicitly assumes the Lorentzian centroid frequency, width, and normalization were specified in advance. In fact, the 202.5 mHz peak was selected after searching a broad frequency range; with the frequency resolution of 7.8 mHz and a plausible search band of roughly 0.001–1 Hz, there are about 128 independent frequency bins. Even a conservative trials factor of ~60 reduces the single-trial p ≈ 0.004 to p ≈ 0.25, and a factor of ~12 gives p ≈ 0.05, so the detection may no longer be significant. Furthermore, the regularity conditions for the chi-square approximation of the likelihood ratio are not satisfied because the Lorentzian frequency is undefined under the null hypothesis, making the quoted 99.5% unreliable even before a trials correction. The authors should compute a trial-corrected false-alarm probability, for example by Monte Carlo simulation of the power-law-plus-white-noise PDS and fitting a Lorentzian at every frequency bin, or explicitly justify a narrow pre-specified search window. This is load-bearing because the QPO is the basis for the 'second ULX QPO' claim, the 'strong evidence against beaming' conclusion, and the intermediate-state/truncated-disk interpretation.

Minor objections (5)

[Section 3] The text does not state the frequency range used for the PDS fit or for the QPO search. Specifying the fitted band (e.g., 0.001–0.5 Hz) would help the reader evaluate the number of independent trials and reproduce the analysis.
[Section 5] The phrase 'ruling out the possibility of beamed jet emission' is too strong. A QPO in the X-ray emission does not by itself exclude a jet origin for some component; the wording should be softened to 'provides evidence against' or 'argues against' beamed emission being the dominant mechanism.
[Table 1] The independent PN and MOS fits yield notably different best-fit parameters (e.g., kT_in ≈ 0.25 keV vs. 0.36 keV and E_cutoff ≈ 9 keV vs. 4.2 keV in Model A). The authors should comment on whether these differences are consistent with cross-calibration uncertainties or indicate the need for a more unified physical model.
[General] The manuscript contains several typos, including 'Stoobart' in Section 1, 'luminsoity' and 'frequecy' in Section 5, and a formatting error in Table 1 where the upper error on NH appears as '0. 0. 07'. A careful proofread is needed.
[Section 4] The significances of the ~0.7 keV and ~8 keV absorption edges and the 6.2 keV emission line are quoted as single-trial Δχ² improvements and are not corrected for the number of features tried. Since these features are not essential to the main spectral curvature conclusion, they should be presented as tentative or with a trials correction.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A 202.5 mHz quasi-periodic oscillation in Holmberg IX X-1 is only the second QPO found in a ULX and argues against beamed emission.

The reading

Using a 103.7 ks XMM-Newton observation of the ultraluminous X-ray source Holmberg IX X-1, this paper reports a quasi-periodic oscillation at $202.5^{+4.9}_{-3.8}$ mHz with coherence $Q\approx 9.3$ and 6% rms amplitude. This is only the second QPO detected from a ULX, after M82 X-1, and the authors take it as strong evidence against beamed jet emission. They also show that the X-ray spectrum has a cool disk component ($kT_{\rm in}\sim0.3$ keV) and high-energy curvature that can be modeled as thermal Comptonization in an optically thick corona ($\tau\sim7.3$, $kT_e\sim3$ keV). Together the timing and spectral signatures place the source in an intermediate state with a truncated disk, ruling out the high/soft thermally dominated state, and suggest a black hole mass near $50$--$200\,M_\odot$ if the QPO scales with those of Galactic binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QPO itself as a state diagnostic: a Lorentzian feature at $\nu_{\rm QPO}=202.5^{+4.9}_{-3.8}$ mHz with $Q\equiv\nu_{\rm QPO}/\Delta\nu_{\rm FWHM}\approx 9.3$, whose properties are compared with type-C QPOs, the strong low-frequency oscillations that define the hard intermediate state of black hole X-ray binaries. The companion machinery is the spectral decomposition into a multicolor disk blackbody plus a thermal Comptonization continuum (compTT), which converts the observed high-energy curvature into physical parameters of the corona ($\tau\approx 7.3$, $kT_e\approx 3$ keV). Together they identify the accretion state and allow a mass estimate by scaling the QPO frequency against the known relation in sources such as GRS 1915+105.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Holmberg IX X-1 shows a genuine 202.5 mHz quasi-periodic oscillation in its 0.2--10 keV power density spectrum, with a Lorentzian width of $21.8$ mHz, a coherence $Q\approx 9.3$, and an rms amplitude of 6%; the background-subtracted power spectrum is otherwise a power law of index $\approx 0.73$ with about 9.4% total rms power between 0.001 and 1 Hz. Only M82 X-1 among ULXs had previously shown such a signal, so the authors argue this provides strong evidence against beaming. Spectrally, the source shows a soft multicolor disk blackbody at $kT\approx 0.25$--$0.3$ keV plus high-energy curvature fitted either by a cut-off power law ($\Gamma\approx 1$, $E_{\rm cutoff}\approx 9$ keV) or by Comptonization in an optically thick, cool plasma ($\tau\approx 7.3$, $kT_e\approx 3$ keV). Both the QPO and the spectral shape are inconsistent with a high/soft thermally dominated state; the paper proposes a truncated disk with an optically thick inner corona, analogous to the very-high/hard intermediate state of black hole X-ray binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the 202.5 mHz oscillation being real, yet the quoted significance does not account for the many frequencies examined in the power spectrum, so a noise fluctuation could still mimic the signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the QPO is real and type-C-like, the ULX is a scaled version of a stellar-mass black hole in the hard intermediate state, making beamed jet models unnecessary for this source.
The disk temperature in Holmberg IX X-1 cannot be used as a standard black-hole mass indicator; instead the QPO frequency implies a mass estimate of 50--200 solar masses, with an upper limit near 400 solar masses.
The truncated-disk/optically-thick-corona geometry should be a general property of bright ULXs with curved spectra, so QPOs may be common in such sources.
A transition from the hard intermediate state to a soft state should eject a relativistic jet, which could be searched for in Holmberg IX X-1 and similar ULXs.

Reading between the lines

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

A cautious reading is that the 6% amplitude and $Q\approx 9.3$ come from a single observation; an independent pointing of similar length would be the fastest way to separate a true QPO from a trials-factor artifact.
If ULXs are scaled intermediate-state binaries, simultaneous X-ray and radio monitoring around state transitions could test the predicted jet ejection, and such data would also help break the degeneracy between the cut-off-power-law and Comptonization spectral fits.
The mass estimate via frequency scaling assumes the QPO frequency tracks black hole mass the way it does in GRS 1915+105; comparing QPO frequencies across ULXs with independent mass constraints would test that scaling.

Original abstract

We report the discovery of a 200mHz quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the X-ray emission from a bright ultra-luminous X-ray source (ULX) Holmberg IX X-1 using a long XMM-Newton observation. The QPO has a centroid at 202.5_{-3.8}^{+4.9}mHz, a coherence Q ~9.3 and an amplitude (rms) of 6% in the 0.2-10keV band. This is only the second detection of a QPO from an ULX, after M82 X-1, and provides strong evidence against beaming. The power spectrum is well fitted by a power law with an index of ~0.7. The total integrated power (rms) is ~9.4% in the 0.001-1Hz range. The X-ray spectrum shows clear evidence for a soft X-ray excess component that is well described by a multicolor disk blackbody (kT_in ~ 0.3keV) and a high energy curvature that can be modeled either by a cut-off power law (Gamma ~ 1; E_cutoff ~9keV) or as a strongly Comptonized continuum in an optically thick (tau ~7.3) and cool (kT_e ~3keV) plasma. Both the presence of the QPO and the shape of the X-ray spectrum strongly suggest that the ULX is not in the high/soft or thermally dominated state. A truncated disk and inner optically thick corona may explain the observed X-ray spectrum and the presence of the QPO.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,557 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.15 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.95 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We report the discovery of a 200mHz quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the X-ray emission from a bright ultra-luminous X-ray source (ULX) Holmberg IX X-1 using a long XMM-Newton observation. The QPO has a centroid at 202.5_{-3.8}^{+4.9}mHz, a coherence Q ~9.3 and an amplitude (rms) of 6% in the 0.2-10keV band. This is only the second detection of a QPO from an ULX, after M82 X-1, and provides strong evidence against beaming. The power spectrum is well fitted by a power law with an index of ~0.7. The total integrated power (rms) is ~9.4% in the 0.001-1Hz range. The X-ray spectrum shows clear evidence for a soft X-ray excess component that is well described by a multicolor disk blackbody (kT_in ~ 0.3keV) and a high energy curvature that can be modeled either by a cut-off power law (Gamma ~ 1; E_cutoff ~9keV) or as a strongly Comptonized continuum in an optically thick (tau ~7.3) and cool (kT_e ~3keV) plasma. Both the presence of the QPO and the shape of the X-ray spectrum strongly suggest that the ULX is not in the high/soft or thermally dominated state. A truncated disk and inner optically thick corona may explain the observed X-ray spectrum and the presence of the QPO.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We report the discovery of a 200mHz quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the X-ray emission from a bright ultra-luminous X-ray source (ULX) Holmberg IX X-1 using a long XMM-Newton observation.	result 0.67	0.97	0.30	asserted 1.00
s1	The QPO has a centroid at 202.5_{-3.8}^{+4.9}mHz, a coherence Q ~9.3 and an amplitude (rms) of 6% in the 0.2-10keV band.	result 1.00	0.95	0.07	asserted 1.00
s2	This is only the second detection of a QPO from an ULX, after M82 X-1, and provides strong evidence against beaming.	interpretation 0.95	0.50	0.41	asserted 0.97
s3	The power spectrum is well fitted by a power law with an index of ~0.7.	result 1.00	0.93	0.04	asserted 1.00
s4	The total integrated power (rms) is ~9.4% in the 0.001-1Hz range.	result 1.00	0.93	0.04	asserted 1.00
s5	The X-ray spectrum shows clear evidence for a soft X-ray excess component that is well described by a multicolor disk blackbody (kT_in ~ 0.3keV) and a high energy curvature that can be modeled either by a cut-off power law (Gamma ~ 1; E_cutoff ~9keV) or as a strongly Comptonized continuum in an optically thick (tau ~7.3) and cool (kT_e ~3keV) plasma.	result 1.00	0.94	0.11	asserted 0.97
s6	Both the presence of the QPO and the shape of the X-ray spectrum strongly suggest that the ULX is not in the high/soft or thermally dominated state.	interpretation 1.00	0.77	0.33	hedged possibility 0.97
s7	A truncated disk and inner optically thick corona may explain the observed X-ray spectrum and the presence of the QPO.	interpretation 1.00	0.45	0.27	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.76.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** — Power density spectrum of Holmberg IX X-1 derived from the EPIC PN and MOS data in the 0.2 − 10 keV band. The white noise level expected (∼ 0.8) from the Poisson errors has not been subtracted. The frequency resolution is 7.8 mHz. The best-fitting model comprising a simple power-law for the PDS continuum, a constant for the white noise and a Lorentzian for the QPO is shown as a thick line

**Figure 2.** — Ratios of EPIC PN data and the best-fit absorbed PL, MCD+PL and MCD+cutoff PL models. The soft X-ray excess and the high energy curvature are clearly seen in the top panel. The data have been rebinned for the purpose of display only. level. First we fitted a simple absorbed power law (PL) model to the PN and MOS spectra of Ho IX X-1. We fit the MOS1 and MOS2 data jointly with an overall normalization constant to account for possible differences in the source extraction areas or calibration uncertainties. We used the 0.2−12 keV band in all the fits. The simple power law model…

**Figure 3.** — The EPIC PN data and the best-fit absorbed MCD plus thermal Comptonization model. Also shown is the ratio of the PN data and the best-fit model. TABLE 1 Best-fit spectral model parameters for Holmberg IX X-1. Parameter Model Aa Model Ba PN MOS PN MOS NH b 1.85+0.12 −0.07 1.32+0.10 −0.0.07 1.78+0.12 −0.12 1.26+0.2 −0.2 Eedge c 0.66+0.02 −0.02 – 0.66+0.02 −0.02 – τ 0.16+0.05 −0.04 – 0.16+0.03 −0.02 – Eedge c 7.89+0.13 −0.40 – 7.88+0.11 −0.42 – τ 0.13+0.08 −0.07 – 0.15+0.09 −0.07 – kTinc 0.25+0.007 −0.009 0.36+0.02 −0.03 0.28+0.02 −0.02 0.29+0.04 −0.03 AMCDd 39.1 +4.2 −3.0 6.3 +2.3…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:astro-ph/0602472 by the authors.

References

Works cited (29)

[1]

Agrawal, V. K., & Misra, R.\ 2006, , 638, 83

View on Pith 2006
[2]

Belloni, T.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0507556

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[3]

Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L.\ 2005, , 629, 403

View on Pith 2005
[4]

Colbert, E. J. M. & Mushotzky, R. F.\ 1999, , 519, 89 (CM99)

View on Pith 1999
[5]

Dewangan, G. C., Griffiths, R. E., & Rao, A. R.\ 2006a, submitted to ApJ, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0511112

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

Dewangan, G. C., Titarchuk, L., & Griffiths, R. E.\ 2006b, , 637, L21

View on Pith
[7]

Done, C., & Kubota, A.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0511030

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[8]

Feng, H., & Kaaret, P.\ 2005, , 633, 1052

View on Pith 2005
[9]

Fiorito, R., & Titarchuk, L.\ 2004, , 614, L113

View on Pith 2004
[10]

Georgiev, T. B., Bilkina, B. I., Tikhonov, N. A., & Karachentsev, I. D.\ 1991, , 89, 529

View on Pith 1991
[11]

Goad, M. R., Roberts, T. P., Reeves, J. N., & Uttley, P.\ 2006, , 365, 191

View on Pith 2006
[12]

Hill, J. K., et al.\ 1993, , 402, L45

View on Pith 1993
[13]

King, A. R., Davies, M. B., Ward, M. J., Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M.\ 2001, , 552, L109

View on Pith 2001
[14]

Kubota, A., & Done, C.\ 2004, , 353, 980

View on Pith 2004
[15]

La Parola, V., Peres, G., Fabbiano, G., Kim, D. W., & Bocchino, F.\ 2001, , 556, 47

View on Pith 2001
[16]

McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A.\ 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0306213

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[17]

Miller, J. M., Fabian, A. C., & Miller, M. C.\ 2004, , 607, 931

View on Pith 2004
[18]

Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr \' guez, L. F.\ 1999, , 37, 409

View on Pith 1999
[19]

Mucciarelli, P., Casella, P., Belloni, T., Zampieri, L., & Ranalli, P.\ 2006, , 365, 1123

View on Pith 2006
[20]

Roberts, T. P., Warwick, R. S., Ward, M. J., Goad, M. R., & Jenkins, L. P.\ 2005, , 357, 1363

View on Pith 2005
[21]

Soria, R., Motch, C., Read, A. M., & Stevens, I. R.\ 2004, , 423, 955

View on Pith 2004
[22]

Stobbart, A.-M., Roberts, T. P., & Warwick, R. S.\ 2004, , 351, 1063

View on Pith 2004
[23]

Stobbart, A., Roberts, T. P., & Wilms, J.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0601651

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[24]

Strohmayer, T. E., & Mushotzky, R. F.\ 2003, , 586, L61 (SM03)

View on Pith 2003
[25]

Titarchuk, L.\ 1994, , 434, 570

View on Pith 1994
[26]

Titarchuk, L., & Fiorito, R.\ 2004, , 612, 988 (TF04)

View on Pith 2004
[27]

Vadawale, S. V., Rao, A. R., & Chakrabarti, S. K.\ 2001, , 372, 793

View on Pith 2001
[28]

Winter, L. M., Mushotzky, R. F., & Reynolds, C. S.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0512480

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[29]

Sobczak, G. J., et al., \ 2000a, , 531, 537

View on Pith

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Agrawal, V. K., & Misra, R.\ 2006, , 638, 83

View on Pith 2006

[2] [2]

Belloni, T.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0507556

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[3] [3]

Casella, P., Belloni, T., & Stella, L.\ 2005, , 629, 403

View on Pith 2005

[4] [4]

Colbert, E. J. M. & Mushotzky, R. F.\ 1999, , 519, 89 (CM99)

View on Pith 1999

[5] [5]

Dewangan, G. C., Griffiths, R. E., & Rao, A. R.\ 2006a, submitted to ApJ, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0511112

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

Dewangan, G. C., Titarchuk, L., & Griffiths, R. E.\ 2006b, , 637, L21

View on Pith

[7] [7]

Done, C., & Kubota, A.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0511030

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[8] [8]

Feng, H., & Kaaret, P.\ 2005, , 633, 1052

View on Pith 2005

[9] [9]

Fiorito, R., & Titarchuk, L.\ 2004, , 614, L113

View on Pith 2004

[10] [10]

Georgiev, T. B., Bilkina, B. I., Tikhonov, N. A., & Karachentsev, I. D.\ 1991, , 89, 529

View on Pith 1991

[11] [11]

Goad, M. R., Roberts, T. P., Reeves, J. N., & Uttley, P.\ 2006, , 365, 191

View on Pith 2006

[12] [12]

Hill, J. K., et al.\ 1993, , 402, L45

View on Pith 1993

[13] [13]

King, A. R., Davies, M. B., Ward, M. J., Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M.\ 2001, , 552, L109

View on Pith 2001

[14] [14]

Kubota, A., & Done, C.\ 2004, , 353, 980

View on Pith 2004

[15] [15]

La Parola, V., Peres, G., Fabbiano, G., Kim, D. W., & Bocchino, F.\ 2001, , 556, 47

View on Pith 2001

[16] [16]

McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A.\ 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0306213

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[17] [17]

Miller, J. M., Fabian, A. C., & Miller, M. C.\ 2004, , 607, 931

View on Pith 2004

[18] [18]

Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr \' guez, L. F.\ 1999, , 37, 409

View on Pith 1999

[19] [19]

Mucciarelli, P., Casella, P., Belloni, T., Zampieri, L., & Ranalli, P.\ 2006, , 365, 1123

View on Pith 2006

[20] [20]

Roberts, T. P., Warwick, R. S., Ward, M. J., Goad, M. R., & Jenkins, L. P.\ 2005, , 357, 1363

View on Pith 2005

[21] [21]

Soria, R., Motch, C., Read, A. M., & Stevens, I. R.\ 2004, , 423, 955

View on Pith 2004

[22] [22]

Stobbart, A.-M., Roberts, T. P., & Warwick, R. S.\ 2004, , 351, 1063

View on Pith 2004

[23] [23]

Stobbart, A., Roberts, T. P., & Wilms, J.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0601651

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[24] [24]

Strohmayer, T. E., & Mushotzky, R. F.\ 2003, , 586, L61 (SM03)

View on Pith 2003

[25] [25]

Titarchuk, L.\ 1994, , 434, 570

View on Pith 1994

[26] [26]

Titarchuk, L., & Fiorito, R.\ 2004, , 612, 988 (TF04)

View on Pith 2004

[27] [27]

Vadawale, S. V., Rao, A. R., & Chakrabarti, S. K.\ 2001, , 372, 793

View on Pith 2001

[28] [28]

Winter, L. M., Mushotzky, R. F., & Reynolds, C. S.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0512480

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[29] [29]

Sobczak, G. J., et al., \ 2000a, , 531, 537

View on Pith