# IXPE Observations of the Quintessential Wind-accreting X-Ray Pulsar Vela X-1

Sofia V. Forsblom, Juri Poutanen, Sergey S. Tsygankov, Matteo Bachetti, Alessandro Di Marco, Victor Doroshenko, Jeremy Heyl, Fabio La Monaca, Christian Malacaria, Herman L. Marshall, et al.

► To cite this version:

Sofia V. Forsblom, Juri Poutanen, Sergey S. Tsygankov, Matteo Bachetti, Alessandro Di Marco, et al. IXPE Observations of the Quintessential Wind-accreting X-Ray Pulsar Vela X-1. The Astrophysical journal letters, 2023, 947, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc391. insu-04079451

HAL Id: insu-04079451

https://insu.hal.science/insu-04079451

Submitted on 28 Apr 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
IXPE Observations of the Quintessential Wind-accreting X-Ray Pulsar Vela X-1

Sofia V. Forsblom¹, Juri Poutanen¹,², Sergey S. Tsygankov¹,², Matteo Bachetti³, Alessandro Di Marco⁴

Victor Doroshenko⁵, Jeremy Heyl⁶, Fabio La Monaca⁴, Christian Malacaria⁷, Herman L. Marshall⁸, Fabio Muleri⁴, Alexander A. Mushtukov⁹,¹⁰, Maura Pilia³, Daniele Rogantini⁸, Valery F. Suleimanov⁵, Roberto Taverna¹¹, Fei Xie⁴,¹², Iván Agudo¹³, Lucio A. Antonelli¹⁴,¹⁵, Luca Baldini¹⁶,¹⁷, Wayne H. Baumgartner¹⁸, Ronaldo Bellazzini¹⁶, Stefano Bianchi¹⁹, Stephen D. Bongiorno¹⁸, Raffaella Bonino²⁰,²¹, Alessandro Brez¹⁶, Niccolò Bucciantini²²,²³,²⁴, Fiamma Capitanio⁴, Simone Castellano¹⁶, Elisabetta Cavazzuti²⁵, Chien-Ting Chen²⁶, Stefano Ciprini¹⁵,²⁷, Enrico Costa⁴, Alessandra De Rosa⁴, Ettore Del Monte⁴, Laura Di Gesu²⁵, Niccolò Di Lalla²⁸, Immacolata Donnarumma²⁵, Michal Dovčiak²⁹, Steven R. Ehlert¹⁸, Teruaki Enoto³⁰, Yuri Evangelista⁴, Sergio Fabiani⁴, Riccardo Ferrazzoli⁴, Javier A. Garcia³¹, Shuichi Gunji³², Kiyoshi Hayashida³³,⁵⁶, Wataru Iwakiri³⁴, Svetlana G. Jorstad³⁵,³⁶, Philip Kaaret¹⁸,³⁷, Vladimir Karas²⁹, Takao Kitaguchi³⁰, Jeffery J. Kolodziejczak¹⁸, Henric Krawczynski³⁸, Luca Latronico²⁰, Ioannis Liodakis³⁹, Simone Maldera²⁰, Alberto Manfreda¹⁶, Frédéric Marin⁴⁰, Andrea Marinucci²⁵, Alan P. Marscher³⁵, Giorgio Matt¹⁹, Ikuyuki Mitsuishi⁴¹, Tsunefumi Mizuno⁴², Michela Negro⁴³,⁴⁴,⁴⁵, Chi-Yung Ng⁴⁶, Stephen L. O’Dell¹⁸, Nicola Omodei²⁸, Chiara Oppedisano²⁰, Alessandro Papitto¹⁴, George G. Pavlov⁴⁷, Abel L. Pirson²⁸, Matteo Perri¹⁴,¹⁵, Melissa Pesce-Rollins¹⁶, Pierre-Olivier Petrucci⁴⁸, Andrea Possenti³, Simonetta Puccetti¹⁵, Brian D. Ramsey¹⁸, John Rankin⁴, Ajay Ratheesh⁴, Oliver J. Roberts²⁶, Roger W. Romani²⁸, Carmelo Sgrò¹⁶, Patrick Slane⁴⁹, Paolo Soffitta⁴, Gloria Spandre¹⁶, Rashid A. Sunyaev²,⁵⁰, Douglas A. Swartz²⁶, Toru Tamagawa³⁰, Fabrizio Tavecchio⁵¹, Yuzuru Tawara⁴¹, Allyn F. Tennant¹⁸, Nicholas E. Thomas¹⁸, Francesco Tombesi²⁷,⁵²,⁵³, Alessio Trois³, Roberto Turolla¹¹,⁵⁴, Jacco Vink⁵⁵, Martin C. Weisskopf¹⁸, Kinwah Wu⁵⁴, and Silvia Zane⁵⁴

(IXPE Collaboration)

¹ Department of Physics and Astronomy, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland; jurj.poutanen@utu.fi

² Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Prosoyuznaya Str. 84/32, Moscow 117997, Russia

³ INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari, Via della Scienza 5, I-09047 Selargius (CA), Italy

⁴ INAF Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100, I-00133 Roma, Italy

⁵ Institut für Astronomie und Astrophysik, Universität Tübingen, Sand 1, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany

⁶ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada

⁷ International Space Science Institute, Hallerstrasse 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

⁸ MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

⁹ Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK

¹⁰ Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, NL-2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands

¹¹ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università degli Studi di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, I-35131 Padova, Italy

¹² Guangxi Key Laboratory for Relativistic Astrophysics, School of Physical Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, People's Republic of China

¹³ Instituto de Astrofísicade Andalucía—CSIC, Glorieta de la Astronomía s/n, E-18008 Granada, Spain

¹⁴ INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via Frascati 33, 00040 Monte Porzio Catone (RM), Italy

¹⁵ Space Science Data Center, Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Via del Politecnico snc, I-00133 Roma, Italy

¹⁶ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, I-56127 Pisa, Italy

¹⁷ Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, I-56127 Pisa, Italy

¹⁸ NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, USA

¹⁹ Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Via della Vasca Navale 84, I-00146 Roma, Italy

²⁰ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy

²¹ Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy

²² INAF Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo Enrico Fermi 5, I-50125 Firenze, Italy

²³ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via Sansone 1, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy

²⁴ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Firenze, Via Sansone 1, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy

²⁵ Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Via del Politecnico snc, I-00133 Roma, Italy

²⁶ Science and Technology Institute, Universities Space Research Association, Huntsville, AL 35805, USA

²⁷ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, I-00133 Roma, Italy

²⁸ Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA

²⁹ Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Bočňík II 1401/1, 14100 Praha 4, Czech Republic

³⁰ RIKEN Cluster for Pioneering Research, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan

³¹ California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

³² Yamagata University, I-4-12 Kojirakawa-machi, Yamagata-shi 990-8560, Japan

³³ Osaka University, I-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

³⁴ International Center for Hadron Astrophysics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

³⁵ Institute for Astrophysical Research, Boston University, 725 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA

³⁶ Department of Astrophysics, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetsky pr. 28, Petrodvoretz, 198504 St. Petersburg, Russia

³⁷ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

³⁸ Physics Department and McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA

³⁹ Finnish Centre for Astronomy with ESO, FI-2004, University of Turku, Finland

⁴⁰ Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg, UMR 7550, F-67000 Strasbourg, France

⁴¹ Graduate School of Science, Division of Particle and Astrophysical Science, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8602, Japan

⁴² Hiroshima Astrophysical Science Center, Hiroshima University, I-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan

⁴³ University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA
<sup>44</sup> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

<sup>45</sup> Center for Research and Exploration in Space Science and Technology, NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

<sup>46</sup> Department of Physics, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

<sup>47</sup> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA

<sup>48</sup> Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IPAG, F-38000 Grenoble, France

<sup>49</sup> Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

<sup>50</sup> Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str 1, D-85741 Garching, Germany

<sup>51</sup> INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via E. Bianchi 46, I-23807 Merate (LC), Italy

<sup>52</sup> Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata,” Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, I-00133 Roma, Italy

<sup>53</sup> Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

<sup>54</sup> Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK

<sup>55</sup> Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy & GRAPPA, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Received 2022 November 27; revised 2023 March 2; accepted 2023 March 10; published 2023 April 19

## Abstract

The radiation from accreting X-ray pulsars was expected to be highly polarized, with some estimates for the polarization degree of up to 80%. However, phase-resolved and energy-resolved polarimetry of X-ray pulsars is required in order to test different models and to shed light on the emission processes and the geometry of the emission region. Here we present the first results of the observations of the accreting X-ray pulsar Vela X-1 performed with the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer. Vela X-1 is considered to be the archetypal example of a wind-accreting, high-mass X-ray binary system, consisting of a highly magnetized neutron star accreting matter from its supergiant stellar companion. The spectropolarimetric analysis of the phase-averaged data for Vela X-1 reveals a polarization degree (PD) of $2.3^{\circ} \pm 0.4^{\circ}$ at the polarization angle (PA) of $-47.3^{\circ} \pm 5.4^{\circ}$. A low PD is consistent with the results obtained for other X-ray pulsars and is likely related to the inverse temperature structure of the neutron star atmosphere. The energy-resolved analysis shows the PD above 5 keV reaching 6%–10% and a ~90$^{\circ}$ difference in the PA compared to the data in the 2–3 keV range. The phase-resolved spectropolarimetric analysis finds a PD in the range 0%–9% with the PA varying between $-80^{\circ}$ and $40^{\circ}$.

*Unified Astronomy Thesaurus concepts: Pulsars* (1306); *Starlight polarization* (1571); *Neutron stars* (1108); *High mass x-ray binary stars* (733); *Magnetic fields* (994); *Accretion* (14)

## 1. Introduction

Accreting X-ray pulsars (XRs) harbor some of the strongest magnetic fields in the entire universe, which can be as large as several times $10^{12}$ G. The strong magnetic field channels accreting matter onto the polar regions at the neutron star (NS) surface, where it produces hot spots that are bright in the X-rays; these spots rotate in and out of the observer's line of sight, resulting in the appearance of pulsed X-ray emission. Highly magnetized XRs represent unique laboratories, and much information is embedded in the interplay between the immense magnetic fields and the accretion flow. Observations of emission from accreting XRs therefore constitute a substantial area of interest for theoretical models of matter interactions with ultrastrong magnetic fields, which cannot be replicated in terrestrial laboratories (see Mushtukov & Tsygankov 2022 for a recent review).

The magnetic field of the NS is the main cause for the polarized X-ray emission from accreting XRs. The scattering of photons in a highly magnetized plasma is expected to result in a large degree of polarization of the emerging X-ray emission, up to 80% (Meszaros et al. 1988; Caiazzo & Heyl 2021). Meszaros et al. (1988) showed that linear X-ray polarization is strongly dependent on the geometry of the emission region and also that it varies with energy and pulse phase. X-ray polarimetric observations of accreting XRs can therefore be used to probe the geometry of the emission region.

The phase-resolved polarimetry can be used as a tool to constrain the viewing geometry and to distinguish between the models of their radiation.

A large window of opportunity to achieve significant observations of polarized X-ray emission opened up recently, thanks to the launch of the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE; Weisskopf et al. 2022). IXPE is the first imaging X-ray polarimetric mission. For observations of XRs, the strategy is to detect pulsations in the polarized emission, as well as to measure the polarization degree (PD) and polarization angle (PA) as a function of the pulse phase, which allows for the system geometry to be determined.

Vela X-1 (associated with the Uhuru source 4U 0900–40) is a high-mass X-ray binary (HMXB) discovered as one of the first X-ray sources at the early years of X-ray astronomy (Chodil et al. 1967) and remains one of the best-studied objects among NS HMXBs. It is one of the brightest, persistent XRs chosen to be observed by IXPE. Vela X-1, located at a distance of about 2 kpc (Kretschmar et al. 2021), is often considered the quintessential wind accretor. It displays strong X-ray pulsations with a pulse period of 283 s (McClintock et al. 1976), variations with the orbital period of 8.964 days (Ulmer et al. 1972; van Kerkwijk et al. 1995), and eclipses lasting for about 2 days per orbit. The lower limit on the orbital inclination was obtained at $i = 73^{\circ}$ (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995).

Persistent wind-accreting XRs are expected to have a different emission-region geometry as opposed to the disk-accreting Be/X-ray binaries. Additionally, polarization signatures are expected to be introduced by the scattering in the dense asymmetric wind. The main goal is therefore to study the accretion geometry for wind accretion and the properties of the dense stellar wind.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="56"><sup>56</sup> Deceased.</footnote>

<footnote>Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Background-corrected light curves of Vela X-1 in the 2–8 keV energy bands summed over the three DUs of IXPE for the first and second observations, shown in the left and right panels, respectively. The light-curve time bin value was set to ~250 s. The time of the eclipse is marked by the blue shaded area.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Pulse profiles of Vela X-1 as seen by IXPE in two different energy bands for the first and second observations, combined for DU1–3.</figcaption></figure>

Quaintrell et al. (2003) have shown that the separation between the NS and its stellar companion, the B0.5Ib supergiant HD 77581 (also known as GP Vel), is only about 1.7 stellar radii, and therefore the NS is deeply embedded in the stellar wind of its companion star. The stellar companion has a mass-loss rate of ~$10^{-6} M_{\odot} yr^{-1}$ (Nagase et al. 1986). The average X-ray luminosity of the source is ~$4 \times 10^{36} erg s^{-1}$. The luminosity is, however, strongly variable on all timescales, varying up to a factor of at least 20–30 (Soffitta et al. 2004; Kreykenbohm et al. 2008).

Observations of the cyclotron resonance scattering features in the spectra of XRs provide a direct measurement of the magnetic field strength in the line-forming region. These features were first discovered in Vela X-1 by Kendziorra et al. (1992) by utilizing Mir-HEXE data, reporting a fundamental line around 25 keV and a first harmonic close to 50 keV. Evidence for these features was also given by Makishima & Mihara (1992), and they were further detailed by Kretschmar et al. (1996). Early observations with RXTE also confirmed this detection (Kretschmar et al. 1997). More recent observations of Vela X-1 by NuSTAR clearly detected the fundamental line at 25 keV together with a more prominent first harmonic at 55 keV and revealed a positive correlation between the

harmonic line energy and the observed flux (Fürst et al. 2014). La Parola et al. (2016) confirmed a flux dependence of the first harmonic line energy and discovered its secular variation with time in the long-term data collected by Swift/BAT (see also Ji et al. 2019).

In this Letter, we present the first results of X-ray polarimetric observations of Vela X-1 by IXPE carried out on two separate occasions during 2022. In Section 2, the data used in the paper are described. Section 3 is devoted to the description of the results: the analysis of the phase-averaged, phase-resolved, and energy-resolved polarimetric data is given. Finally, the discussion and a short summary are presented in Section 4.

## 2. Data

IXPE is an observatory launched on 2021 December 9, as a NASA mission in partnership with the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI). IXPE consists of three telescope-detector systems that provide imaging polarimetry over a nominal 2–8 keV band at ~30" angular resolution (half-power diameter). Each one of the three grazing incidence telescopes is comprised of a mirror module assembly, which focuses the X-rays onto a corresponding focal plane polarization-sensitive gas pixel
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Energy dependence of the normalized Stokes parameters *q* and *u* for the phase-averaged data of the combined data set, obtained with the PCUBE algorithm.</figcaption></figure>

electron tracking detector unit (DU). The detection principle is based on the photoelectric effect. All characteristics of each detected photon (sky coordinates, time of arrival, energy, and direction of the photoelectron) are measured simultaneously. A comprehensive description of the observatory, the instruments, and their performance is given by Soffitta et al. (2021) and Weisskopf et al. (2022).

IXPE observations of Vela X-1 were carried out between 2022 April 15–21 and November 30–December 6, with the total effective exposure of ~280 ks and ~270 ks, respectively. The data have been processed with the IXPEOBSSIM package version 30.2.1 (Baldini et al. 2022) using the CalDB released on 2022 November 17. The position offset correction and energy calibration were applied before the scientific analysis of the data. Source photons were collected using a circular region with a radius $R_{src} = 70''$. The background region was chosen in the form of an annulus with inner and outer radii equal to $2R_{src}$ and $4R_{src}$, respectively. Data from the first observation were cleaned from events due to solar events, which have been identified by comparing the IXPE light curve with the one from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), then removing time intervals where the IXPE count rate in the background annular region was higher than the mean background value plus three times the rms of this count rate. The background makes up ~3.6% and ~2.2% of the total count rate of the source region in the 2–8 keV energy range for the first and second observations, respectively.

The barycorr tool from the FTOOLS package was used to correct the event arrival times to the barycenter of the solar system. This was followed by a correction of arrival times as it relates to the effects of binary motion using the orbital parameters obtained by the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor<fnref n="57" /> for Vela X-1 and given in Table 1.

Stokes *I* energy spectra have been binned to have at least 30 counts per energy channel, and the same energy binning was applied to the energy spectra of Stokes parameters *Q* and *U*.

<table><caption>**Table 1**</caption><caption>Orbital Parameters for Vela X-1 Adopted from the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Project (dated 2021 January 30)</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>Value</th><th>Unit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Orbital period</td><td>8.9642140</td><td>day</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>π/2</sub></td><td>2459115.02085</td><td>Julian Ephemeris Date</td></tr><tr><td>a<sub>X</sub> sin i</td><td>113.105</td><td>light-s</td></tr><tr><td>Longitude of periastron</td><td>162.33</td><td>deg</td></tr><tr><td>Eccentricity</td><td>0.0872</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eclipse egress</td><td>0.12</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eclipse ingress</td><td>0.92</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2**</caption><caption>Measurements of the Normalized Stokes Parameters *q* and *u*, PD, and PA for the Phase-averaged Data of Vela X-1 in Different Energy Bins Using the PCUBE Algorithm for the Combined Data Set</caption><thead><tr><th>Energy (keV)</th><th><i>q</i> (%)</th><th><i>u</i> (%)</th><th>PD (%)</th><th>PA (deg)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2–3</td><td>0.5 ± 1.2</td><td>3.8 ± 1.2</td><td>3.9 ± 1.2</td><td>41.4 ± 9.1</td></tr><tr><td>3–4</td><td>0.2 ± 0.8</td><td>-1.4 ± 0.8</td><td>1.4 ± 0.8</td><td>-40.7 ± 16.1</td></tr><tr><td>4–5</td><td>-0.1 ± 0.8</td><td>-2.7 ± 0.8</td><td>2.7 ± 0.8</td><td>-46.4 ± 8.8</td></tr><tr><td>5–6</td><td>-1.2 ± 1.0</td><td>-5.6 ± 1.0</td><td>5.7 ± 1.0</td><td>-50.9 ± 4.8</td></tr><tr><td>6–7</td><td>-0.3 ± 1.2</td><td>-4.1 ± 1.2</td><td>4.1 ± 1.2</td><td>-47.3 ± 8.3</td></tr><tr><td>7–8</td><td>-2.7 ± 2.0</td><td>-9.4 ± 2.0</td><td>9.7 ± 2.0</td><td>-53.1 ± 6.0</td></tr><tr><td>2–8</td><td>-0.6 ± 0.5</td><td>-3.7 ± 0.5</td><td>3.7 ± 0.5</td><td>-49.9 ± 4.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

The energy spectra were fitted in the XSPEC package (Arnaud 1996) using $\chi^2$ statistics, using the version 12 instrument response functions. The reported uncertainties are at the 68.3% confidence level ($1\sigma$), unless stated otherwise.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Light Curve and Pulse Profile

The light curves from the first and second observations of Vela X-1 in the 2–8 keV energy range obtained with the IXPE observatory are shown in Figure 1. For the first observation of Vela X-1, the observing window can be separated into three parts: pre-eclipse (MJD 59,684.7–59,687.7), eclipse (MJD 59,687.7–59,689.5), and post-eclipse (MJD 59,689.5–59690.5). The post-eclipse count rate of the source was about 1 order of magnitude greater than the pre-eclipse source count rate. During the eclipse, which lasted about 2 days, the count rate dropped by 1 order of magnitude compared to the pre-eclipse value. For the following analysis, only pre- and post-eclipse data were included, i.e., only data outside of the eclipse.

A spin period of $P_{spin} = 283.488(7)$ s and $P_{spin} = 283.437(6)$ s were measured for Vela X-1 for the first and second observations, respectively, using phase-connection technique. The pulsed fraction in the 2–8 energy band, defined as $PF = (F_{max} - F_{min})/(F_{max} + F_{min})$, where $F_{max}$ and $F_{min}$ are the maximum and minimum count rates in the pulse profile, respectively, was determined as $PF = 53.3\% \pm 0.7\%$ for the first observation and as $PF = 48.1\% \pm 0.9\%$ for the second observation. The resulting pulse profiles for Vela X-1 in two separate energy bands are shown in Figure 2.

### 3.2. Polarimetric Analysis

First, the analysis of the polarimetric properties of Vela X-1 was carried out by using the PCUBE algorithm (xpbin tool) in

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ https://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/science/pulsars.html</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Phase-resolved analysis of Vela X-1 for the combined data set in the 2–7 keV range, combining data from all DUs. (a) Pulse profile. Panels (b) and (c) display the dependence of the Stokes *q* and *u* parameters, respectively, on the pulse phase, obtained for the phase-resolved polarimetric analysis utilizing the PCUBE algorithm. Panels (d) and (e) show the dependence of the PD and PA, respectively, on the pulse phase, obtained from the phase-resolved spectropolarimetric analysis using XSPEC. Upper limits (arrows) to the PD in panel (d) are at 99.73% (3σ) confidence level and are computed using a χ² with 1 degree of freedom.</figcaption></figure>

the IXPEOBSSIM package, which is implemented according to the formalism by Kislat et al. (2015). The unweighted analysis has been used. We compute the normalized Stokes parameters, $q = Q/I$ and $u = U/I$, and the PD using the formula $PD = \sqrt{q^2 + u^2}$ and ignoring the bias at low signal-to-noise ratios (Serkowski 1958; Simmons & Stewart 1985; Maier et al.

2014; Mikhalev 2018) and the PA = $\frac{1}{2}$ arctan($u/q$) (measured counterclockwise on the sky from north to east).

In the entire IXPE energy band (2–8 keV), the average PD and PA are found to be 3.9% ± 0.9% and -51.5° ± 6.5°, respectively, for the first observation. For the second observation, the average PD and PA are found to be 3.7% ± 0.7% and -48.9° ± 5.2°, respectively.

Considering the similarities between the first and second observations, the data were combined into one single set of data in order to increase the statistics and further study the polarization properties of Vela X-1. In order to correctly phase-tag each event, the phase difference between the pulse profiles from the first and second observations was determined from cross correlation (using the implementation provided by the Python library NumPy). Using the PCUBE algorithm (xpbin tool) in the IXPEOBSSIM package, the average PD and PA are found to be 3.7% ± 0.5% and -49.9° ± 4.1°, respectively, in the entire IXPE energy band.

We then studied the energy dependence of polarization by dividing the data into six energy bins. The PD is above the minimum detectable polarization at a 99% confidence level, MDP₉₉ (Weisskopf et al. 2010), in all of the energy bins, except for the 3–4 keV bin, where the PD is below the MDP₉₉, and in this case, the PA is not well constrained (Table 2 and Figure 3). The energy-resolved analysis shows that at higher energies (above 5 keV) the PD reaches 6%–10% with the PA differing by ~90° from that below 3 keV.

Next, a phase-resolved polarimetric analysis was performed utilizing the PCUBE algorithm. The results in the 2–7 keV energy band are given in Table 3 and are shown in Figure 4 for the combined data set.

Then, the spectropolarimetric analysis was performed according to the following steps. Source *I*, *Q*, and *U* Stokes spectra were produced via the xpbin tools PHA1, PHA1Q, and PHA1U algorithms, producing a full data set comprised of nine spectra per observation, three for each DU. As the background region is dominated by source events, background subtraction is not applied (Di Marco et al. 2023). Here we also used unweighted analysis. The XSPEC package (version 12.12.1) (Arnaud 1996), which is a part of the standard high-energy astrophysics software suite HEASOFT, was used to study polarization as a function of energy. All 18 spectra were fitted simultaneously in XSPEC.

There are several phenomenological spectral models used to describe the spectral continuum of Vela X-1. However, it is well known that except for a soft excess below 3 keV, the X-ray emission below 10 keV can be well described by a simple absorbed power law with an iron line at 6.4 keV. Due to the restricted energy range covered by IXPE and the energy resolution of the instrument (Weisskopf et al. 2022), we used a simple model consisting of a power law affected by interstellar absorption (model tbabs with the abundances from Wilms et al. 2000) combined with the polconst polarization model, which assumes energy-independent PD and PA. In order to account for the soft excess below 3 keV, a partial covering fraction absorption (model tbpf) was introduced as well, which applies an added column density to a fraction of the power law. The re-normalization constant, *const*, was used to account for the possibility of discrepancies between the different DUs, and for DU1 it was fixed to unity. The final model

$$tbabs \times tbpf \times polconst \times powerlaw \times const$$
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Stokes *I*, *Q*, and *U* energy distributions for the combined data set of Vela X-1 with the best-fit model superimposed for IXPE's DUs (upper larger panels in rows 1 and 3). The residuals between the best-fit model and the data are shown in the lower narrow panels of rows 2 and 4. Two upper and two lower rows correspond to the first and second observations, respectively, and are shown separately for clarity.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Pulse-phase Dependence of the Normalized Stokes *q* and *u* Parameters for the Combined Data Set from the Polarimetric Analysis (2–7 keV) Using the PCUBE Algorithm and the Spectral Parameters, PD and PA, Obtained by the Spectropolarimetric Analysis</caption><thead><tr><th>Phase</th><th><i>q</i><br>(%)</th><th><i>u</i><br>(%)</th><th><i>N</i><sub>H</sub><br>(10<sup>22</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th><i>N</i><sub>H, tbpcf</sub><br>(10<sup>22</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th><i>f</i><sub>cov</sub></th><th>Photon Index</th><th>PD<br>(%)</th><th>PA<br>(deg)</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup>/d.o.f.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.000–0.100</td><td>1.7 ± 1.4</td><td>-1.2 ± 1.4</td><td>6.0<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>23.0<sup>+1.8</sup><sub>-2.2</sub></td><td>0.82 ± 0.02</td><td>1.55<sup>+0.13</sup><sub>-0.16</sub></td><td>2.3 ± 1.2</td><td>-22.0 ± 16.9</td><td>2160/2152</td></tr><tr><td>0.100–0.150</td><td>0.8 ± 1.8</td><td>-4.4 ± 1.8</td><td>4.4<sup>+1.0</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td>18.5<sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-2.0</sub></td><td>0.83<sup>+0.04</sup><sub>-0.03</sub></td><td>1.26 ± 0.16</td><td>4.2 ± 1.6</td><td>-33.0 ± 11.3</td><td>2162/2029</td></tr><tr><td>0.150–0.200</td><td>0.6 ± 1.9</td><td>-8.7 ± 1.9</td><td>4.9<sup>+1.2</sup><sub>-2.1</sub></td><td>18.4<sup>+3.2</sup><sub>-3.4</sub></td><td>0.77<sup>+0.07</sup><sub>-0.04</sub></td><td>0.96<sup>+0.19</sup><sub>-0.22</sub></td><td>7.3 ± 1.7</td><td>-42.4 ± 6.8</td><td>2081/2011</td></tr><tr><td>0.200–0.300</td><td>0.9 ± 1.4</td><td>-5.1 ± 1.4</td><td>3.8<sup>+0.8</sup><sub>-0.9</sub></td><td>19.9<sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-1.9</sub></td><td>0.80 ± 0.02</td><td>0.75<sup>+0.14</sup><sub>-0.13</sub></td><td>5.0 ± 1.2</td><td>-36.6 ± 7.2</td><td>2284/2179</td></tr><tr><td>0.300–0.400</td><td>-0.2 ± 1.3</td><td>-1.5 ± 1.3</td><td>4.0<sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-1.1</sub></td><td>16.5<sup>+1.7</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td>0.81<sup>+0.04</sup><sub>-0.03</sub></td><td>1.11 ± 0.11</td><td>&lt;4.6</td><td>...</td><td>2304/2185</td></tr><tr><td>0.400–0.500</td><td>0.0 ± 1.7</td><td>0.1 ± 1.7</td><td>4.2<sup>+0.8</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>20.5<sup>+2.5</sup><sub>-2.9</sub></td><td>0.78 ± 0.03</td><td>1.08 ± 0.2</td><td>&lt;4.6</td><td>...</td><td>2057/2086</td></tr><tr><td>0.500–0.600</td><td>1.3 ± 1.6</td><td>3.2 ± 1.6</td><td>2.1<sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>17.7<sup>+1.7</sup><sub>-1.7</sub></td><td>0.83 ± 0.03</td><td>0.63 ± 0.13</td><td>2.6 ± 1.5</td><td>37.7 ± 17.2</td><td>2230/2116</td></tr><tr><td>0.600–0.650</td><td>-7.1 ± 2.2</td><td>-3.5 ± 2.2</td><td>3.8<sup>+1.0</sup><sub>-1.5</sub></td><td>21.3<sup>+2.6</sup><sub>-3.0</sub></td><td>0.82 ± 0.03</td><td>0.98<sup>+0.19</sup><sub>-0.22</sub></td><td>8.3 ± 2.0</td><td>-77.3 ± 6.9</td><td>1885/1858</td></tr><tr><td>0.650–0.700</td><td>-7.0 ± 2.2</td><td>-8.7 ± 2.2</td><td>2.5<sup>+1.8</sup><sub>-1.6</sub></td><td>18.2<sup>+2.4</sup><sub>-2.1</sub></td><td>0.84 ± 0.04</td><td>0.73 ± 0.18</td><td>9.2 ± 2.0</td><td>-64.2 ± 6.1</td><td>1934/1912</td></tr><tr><td>0.700–0.775</td><td>-3.4 ± 1.9</td><td>-6.4 ± 1.9</td><td>0.6<sup>+1.5</sup><sub>-0.6</sub></td><td>15.3<sup>+2.0</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>0.85<sup>+0.02</sup><sub>-0.05</sub></td><td>0.30<sup>+0.15</sup><sub>-0.13</sub></td><td>5.6 ± 1.6</td><td>-60.6 ± 8.7</td><td>2025/2038</td></tr><tr><td>0.775–0.875</td><td>-2.0 ± 1.6</td><td>-4.3 ± 1.6</td><td>4.0<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>20.6<sup>+2.0</sup><sub>-2.2</sub></td><td>0.81 ± 0.02</td><td>1.05<sup>+0.14</sup><sub>-0.15</sub></td><td>4.4 ± 1.4</td><td>-58.7 ± 9.2</td><td>2117/2134</td></tr><tr><td>0.875–1.000</td><td>3.7 ± 1.6</td><td>1.6 ± 1.6</td><td>3.1<sup>+1.7</sup><sub>-2.1</sub></td><td>14.9<sup>+1.9</sup><sub>-1.7</sub></td><td>0.81<sup>+0.07</sup><sub>-0.05</sub></td><td>0.95<sup>+0.13</sup><sub>-0.15</sub></td><td>4.4 ± 1.4</td><td>21.4 ± 9.5</td><td>2271/2092</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. An upper limit to the PD at 99.73% (3σ) confidence level is computed using a χ² with one degree of freedom (d.o.f.).
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Polarization vector of Vela X-1 from the results of the phase-averaged spectropolarimetric analysis of the combined data set. Contours at 68.3%, 95.45%, and 99.73% confidence are shown in blue, purple, and red, respectively.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 4**

Spectral Parameters for the Best-fit Model Obtained from the Phase-averaged Spectropolarimetric Analysis of the Combined Data Set</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>Value</th><th>Unit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>N<sub>H</sub></td><td>3.8 ± 0.3</td><td>10<sup>22</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>N<sub>H,tbpcf</sub></td><td>18.5<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.6</sub></td><td>10<sup>22</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>f<sub>cov</sub></td><td>0.80 ± 0.01</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>const<sub>DU2</sub></td><td>0.964 ± 0.003</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>const<sub>DU3</sub></td><td>0.923 ± 0.002</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Photon index</td><td>0.93 ± 0.04</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PD</td><td>2.3 ± 0.4</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td>-47.3 ± 5.4</td><td>deg</td></tr><tr><td>Flux<sub>2-8 keV</sub></td><td>7.93<sup>+0.02</sup><sub>-0.06</sub></td><td>10<sup>-10</sup> erg cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Luminosity<sub>2-8 keV</sub></td><td>3.8 × 10<sup>35</sup></td><td>erg s<sup>-1</sup> at d = 2.0 kpc</td></tr><tr><td>χ<sup>2</sup> (d.o.f.)</td><td>2640.19 (2222)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

was subsequently applied to both the phase-averaged and phase-resolved data. The spectral analysis was confined to the 2–7 keV energy band, ignoring photons above 7 keV due to remaining calibration uncertainties.

For the phase-averaged data, the results of the spectral fitting, including the best-fit model, are shown in Figure 5, and the best-fit model parameters are found in Table 4. The *steppar* command in *XSPEC* was used to create the confidence contours for the polarization measurements, and the resulting contour plots at 68.3%, 95.45%, and 99.73% confidence levels are presented in Figure 6. The results of the phase-averaged polarimetric analysis for the two different approaches give compatible results.

A wavy structure of the Stokes *U* parameter residuals in Figure 5 (see also Figure 3) indicates that polarization is energy dependent. Thus, we replaced the *polconst* polarization model with the *pollin* model, corresponding to a linear energy dependence of the PD and PA. For the *pollin* model we assumed a constant PA ($\psi_1$ in *XSPEC*; we fixed $\psi_{slope} = 0$) and allowed the PD to vary with photon energy *E* (keV) as $PD(E) = A_1 + A_{slope}(E - 1)$. This results in an improved fit ($\chi^2$/d. o. f. = 2608.51/2221 with an F-test probability of $2.3 \times 10^{-7}$). The best-fit parameters are $A_1 = -5.3\% \pm 2.3\%$ and $A_{slope} = (2.2\% \pm 0.6\%)$ keV$^{-1}$, and $PA = \psi_1 = -47^\circ 1 \pm 6^\circ 1$. The negative $A_1$ means that the PA at lower energies is rotated by 90° relative to the PA at higher energies, and the PD is zero at

$\approx 3.4$ keV. Such a model is able to describe the observed behavior of Stokes *Q* and *U* parameters in Figures 3 and 5.

For the phase-resolved spectropolarimetric analysis, *I*, *Q*, and *U* Stokes spectra were extracted for each phase bin individually, again utilizing the *xpbin* tools *PHA1*, *PHA1Q*, and *PHA1U* algorithms. The *I*, *Q*, and *U* Stokes spectra were fitted with the same model as utilized for the phase-averaged spectropolarimetric analysis, with the cross-calibration constants for DU2 and DU3 fixed to the values obtained for the phase-averaged analysis (see Table 4). The results of the phase-resolved spectropolarimetric analysis are summarized in Table 3, and confidence contours corresponding to each phase bin are shown in Figure 7.

A spectropolarimetric phase-averaged analysis done separately for the eclipse data did not find a significant polarization, with an upper limit to the PD of 25.1% at 99.73% confidence level. An intensity-resolved spectropolarimetric analysis performed on the combined data did not reveal a significant difference in polarization properties between different luminosity levels.

### 4. Discussion and Summary

XRP s are prime targets for X-ray polarimetric missions, where a high PD has been theoretically predicted because of the strong dependence of the primary radiation processes on the polarization of X-ray photons. The birefringence of highly magnetized plasma allows for the radiative transfer to be treated in terms of two normal polarization modes: the ordinary (O) and extraordinary (X) mode (Gnedin & Pavlov 1974). These two modes have different orientations in relation to the plane made up of the direction of the magnetic field and the momentum of photons. For O-mode photons, the electric vector oscillates mainly within the plane, while for X-mode photons the electric vector oscillations are mainly oriented perpendicular to the plane. Below the cyclotron energy the opacities of the polarization modes differ significantly where the opacity of the X-mode is largely reduced compared to that of the O-mode (Lai & Ho 2003), resulting in the predictions for PD as high as 80% (Meszaros et al. 1988; Caiazzo & Heyl 2021).

However, a significantly lower PD of only $\sim 2.3\%$ detected for Vela X-1 in the IXPE data is in line with recent measurements done for other accreting XRP s (Her X-1, Doroshenko et al. 2022; Cen X-3, Tsygankov et al. 2022; 4U 1626–67, Marshall et al. 2022), where similar, relatively low PDs have been reported. The X-ray polarization of accreting XRP s greatly depends on the structure of the emission region (which is unknown), and most theoretical models mentioned here do not account yet for the temperature structure of the NS atmosphere, assuming instead a uniform temperature in the spectral-forming region. In the case of the above-mentioned XRP s, the contradiction between the observed and the theoretically predicted values of the PD was explained with a model of the NSatmosphere overheated by the accretion process.

The key factor for the depolarized emission in this model is a conversion of modes at the so-called vacuum resonance. In strong magnetic fields, both the plasma and the vacuum are birefringent, where vacuum birefringence is a fundamental QED effect. Generally speaking, the two effects (plasma and vacuum birefringence) tend to work against each other, and at vacuum resonance, they cancel out (Mészáros & Ventura 1978). This leads to a transformation of the normal modes of radiation
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Polarization vectors of Vela X-1 from the results of the phase-resolved spectropolarimetric analysis of the combined data set. Contours at 68.3%, 95.45%, and 99.73% confidence are shown in blue, purple, and red, respectively.</figcaption></figure>

and a loss of the linear PD. The vacuum resonance occurs at a plasma density $\rho_V \approx 10^{-4} B_{\|2}^2 E_{\text{keV}}^2$ [g cm$^{-3}$] for a given photon energy $E$ (in keV) and local magnetic field strength $B_{12} = B/10^{12}$ G. This may result in a much smaller PD than normally predicted when considering the specific temperature structure of the atmospheres of accreting NSs. Doroshenko et al. (2022) have shown that a low PD of the X-ray radiation can be achieved if the point of vacuum resonance is located in an atmospheric transition layer with a strong temperature gradient. If the transition region is located at the border of the

overheated upper atmospheric layer and the cooler underlying atmosphere, the low PD occurs as a result of the fast mode conversion (Gnedin et al. 1978). For the specific atmospheric thickness of ~3 g cm$^{-2}$, corresponding to the Thomson optical depth around unity, a PD of the order of 10% can be achieved (Doroshenko et al. 2022). As lower PDs than previously predicted seem to be a staple of subcritical XRs, theoretical models may well have to take into account the specific temperature structure of the NS atmosphere. On the other hand, the average observed luminosity for Vela X-1 is
~4 × 10^35 erg s⁻¹, roughly 2 orders of magnitude lower than the observed luminosities of Her X-1 and Cen X-3. Thus, it is rather puzzling that this scenario suggests a similar thickness of the overheated layer for a much smaller accretion rate; however, the key quantity here may be the proton-stopping depth (Zel'dovich & Shakura 1969; Nelson et al. 1993; Zane et al. 2000; González-Caniulef et al. 2019).

The low PD may also be a result of the strong variations of the PD and PA with energy (see Figure 3), considering the evident ~90° difference in the PA below and above 3.5 keV. However, a complete and detailed analysis of the complicated energy dependence of the polarization properties of Vela X-1 is out of the scope of this Letter and is subject to future, more extensive work.

Finally, we can speculate that the observed small PD is a result of strong variations of the PA with the pulsar phase. The observed pulse profile has a very complicated shape, which is related either to the complex structure of the surface magnetic field or to the presence of a number of different components (see Tsygankov et al. 2022 for discussion). The present photon statistics allowed us to obtain significant detection of polarization in 9 out of 12 phase bins, while to resolve the variations of the PA, we likely needed many more bins.

The Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) is a joint US and Italian mission. The US contribution is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and led and managed by its Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), with industry partner Ball Aerospace (contract NNM15AA18C). The Italian contribution is supported by the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, ASI) through contract ASI-OHBI-2017-12-I.0, agreements ASI-INAF-2017-12-H0 and ASI-INFN-2017.13-H0, and its Space Science Data Center (SSDC) with agreements ASI-INAF-2022-14-HH.0 and ASI-INFN 2021-43-HH.0, and by the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF) and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) in Italy. This research used data products provided by the IXPE Team (MSFC, SSDC, INAF, and INFN) and distributed with additional software tools by the High-Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

We acknowledge support from the RSF grant 19-12-00423 (SST), the Academy of Finland grants 333112, 349144, 349373, and 349906 (JP, SST), the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) travel grant 57525212 (VD, VFS), and the German Research Foundation (DFG) grant WE 1312/53-1 (VFS).

Facilities: IXPE.

Software: astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013, 2018), XSPEC (Arnaud 1996), IXPEOBSSIM (Baldini et al. 2022).

## ORCID iDs

Sofia V. Forsblom https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9167-2790

Juri Poutanen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0983-0049

Sergey S. Tsygankov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9679-0793

Matteo Bachetti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4576-9337

Alessandro Di Marco https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0331-3259

Victor Doroshenko https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-1105

Jeremy Heyl https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9739-367X

Fabio La Monaca https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8916-4156

Christian Malacaria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0380-0041

Herman L. Marshall https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6492-1293

Fabio Muleri https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3331-3794

Alexander A. Mushtukov https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-419X

Maura Pilia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7397-8091

Daniele Rogantini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5359-9497

Valery F. Suleimanov https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3733-7267

Roberto Taverna https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1768-618X

Fei Xie https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0105-5826

Iván Agudo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3777-6182

Lucio A. Antonelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5037-9034

Luca Baldini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9785-7726

Wayne H. Baumgartner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5106-0463

Ronaldo Bellazzini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2469-7063

Stefano Bianchi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4622-4240

Stephen D. Bongiorno https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0901-2097

Raffaella Bonino https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4264-1215

Alessandro Brez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9460-1821

Niccolò Bucciantini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-1392

Fiamma Capitanio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6384-3027

Simone Castellano https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1111-4292

Elisabetta Cavazzuti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7150-9638

Chien-Ting Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4945-5079

Stefano Ciprini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0712-2479

Enrico Costa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4925-8523

Alessandra De Rosa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5668-6863

Ettore Del Monte https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3013-6334

Laura Di Gesu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5614-5028

Niccolò Di Lalla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7574-1298

Immacolata Donnarumma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4700-4549

Michal Dovčiak https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0079-1239

Steven R. Ehlert https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4420-2838

Teruaki Enoto https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1244-3100

Yuri Evangelista https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6096-6710

Sergio Fabiani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1533-0283

Riccardo Ferrazzoli https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1074-8605

Javier A. Garcia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3828-2448

Shuichi Gunji https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-2445

Wataru Iwakiri https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0207-9010

Svetlana G. Jorstad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6158-1708

Philip Kaaret https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-0637

Vladimir Karas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5760-0459

Jeffery J. Kolodziejczak https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0110-6136

Henric Krawczynski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1084-6507

Luca Latronico https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0984-1856

Ioannis Liodakis https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9200-4006

Simone Maldera https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0698-4421

Alberto Manfreda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0998-4953

Frédéric Marin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4952-0835

Andrea Marinucci https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2055-4946

Alan P. Marscher https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7396-3332

Giorgio Matt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-0916

Tsunefumi Mizuno https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7263-0296
Michela Negro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6548-5622

Chi-Yung Ng https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5847-2612

Stephen L. O'Dell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1868-8056

Nicola Omodei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5448-7577

Chiara Oppedisano https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6194-4601

Alessandro Papitto https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6289-7413

George G. Pavlov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7481-5259

Abel L. Peirson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6292-1911

Matteo Perri https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3613-4409

Melissa Pesce-Rollins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1790-8018

Pierre-Olivier Petrucci https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6061-3480

Andrea Possenti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5902-3731

Simonetta Puccetti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2734-7835

Brian D. Ramsey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1548-1524

John Rankin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9774-0560

Ajay Ratheesh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0411-4243

Oliver J. Roberts https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7150-9061

Roger W. Romani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6711-3286

Carmelo Sgrò https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5676-6214

Patrick Slane https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6986-6756

Paolo Soffitta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7781-4104

Gloria Spandre https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0802-3453

Rashid A. Sunyaev https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2764-7192

Douglas A. Swartz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2954-4461

Toru Tamagawa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-6263

Fabrizio Tavecchio https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0256-0995

Allyn F. Tennant https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9443-6774

Nicholas E. Thomas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0411-4606

Francesco Tombesi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6562-8654

Alessio Trois https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3180-6002

Roberto Turolla https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3977-8760

Jacco Vink https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4708-4219

Martin C. Weisskopf https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5270-4240

Kinwah Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7568-8765

Silvia Zane https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5326-880X

## References

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Proc. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 17

Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, A. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Di Lalla, N., et al. 2022, SoftX, 19, 101194

Caiazzo, I., & Heyl, J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 109

Chodil, G., Mark, H., Rodrigues, R., Seward, F. D., & Swift, C. D. 1967, ApJ, 150, 57

Di Marco, A., Soffitta, P., Costa, E., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 143

Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2022, NatAs, 6, 1433

Fürst, F., Pottschmidt, K., Wilms, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 133

Gnedin, Y. N., & Pavlov, G. G. 1974, JETP, 38, 903

Gnedin, Y. N., Pavlov, G. G., & Shibanov, Y. A. 1978, SvAL, 4, 117

González-Caniulef, D., Zane, S., Turolla, R., & Wu, K. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 599

Ji, L., Staubert, R., Ducci, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3797

Kendziorra, E., Mony, B., Kretschmar, P., et al. 1992, in Proc. Yamada Conf. XXVIII, Frontiers Science Series, ed. Y. Tanaka & K. Koyama (Tokyo: Universal Academy Press), 51

Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, APh, 68, 45

Kretschmar, P., El Mellah, I., Martínez-Núñez, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A95

Kretschmar, P., Pan, H. C., Kendziorra, E., et al. 1996, A&AS, 120, 175

Kretschmar, P., Pan, H. C., Kendziorra, E., et al. 1997, A&A, 325, 623

Kreykenbohm, I., Wilms, J., Kretschmar, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 511

La Parola, V., Cusumano, G., Segreto, A., & D'Ai, A. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 185

Lai, D., & Ho, W. C. 2003, PhRvL, 91, 071101

Maier, D., Tenzer, C., & Santangelo, A. 2014, PASP, 126, 459

Makishima, K., & Mihara, T. 1992, in Proc. Yamada Conf. 23, XXVIII, Frontiers Science Series, ed. Y. Tanaka & K. Koyama (Tokyo: Universal Academy Press), 23

Marshall, H. L., Ng, M., Rogantini, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 70

McClintock, J. E., Rappaport, S., Joss, P. C., et al. 1976, ApJL, 206, L99

Meszaros, P., Novick, R., Szentgyorgyi, A., Chanan, G. A., & Weisskopf, M. C. 1988, ApJ, 324, 1056

Mészáros, P., & Ventura, J. 1978, PhRvL, 41, 1544

Mikhaley, V. 2018, A&A, 615, A54

Mushtukov, A., & Tsygankov, S. 2022, arXiv:2204.14185

Nagase, F., Hayakawa, S., Sato, N., Masai, K., & Inoue, H. 1986, PASJ, 38, 547

Nelson, R. W., Salpeter, E. E., & Wasserman, I. 1993, ApJ, 418, 874

Quaintrell, H., Norton, A. J., Ash, T. D. C., et al. 2003, A&A, 401, 313

Serkowski, K. 1958, AcA, 8, 135

Simmons, J. F. L., & Stewart, B. G. 1985, A&A, 142, 100

Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 208

Staubert, R., Kreykenbohm, I., Kretschmar, P., et al. 1992, in ESA Spec. Publ. 552, V INTEGRAL Workshop, the INTEGRAL Universe, ed. V. Schoenfelder, G. Lichti, & C. Winkler, 259

Tsygankov, S. S., Doroshenko, V., Poutanen, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 941, L14

Ulmer, M. P., Baity, W. A., Wheaton, W. A., & Peterson, L. E. 1972, ApJL, 178, L121

van Kerkwijk, M. H., van Paradijk, J., Zuiderwijk, E. J., et al. 1995, A&A, 303, 483

Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., & O'Dell, S. L. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7732, 77320E

Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, JATIS, 8, 026002

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

Zane, S., Turolla, R., & Treves, A. 2000, ApJ, 537, 387

Zel'dovich, Y. B., & Shakura, N. I. 1969, SvA, 13, 175