Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Discovery of a years-delayed radio flare from an unusually slow-evolved tidal disruption event

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the nuclear flare in SDSS J1115+0544 is a slow tidal disruption event, and that a radio brightening beginning about three years after the optical peak is powered by a sub-relativistic outflow launched roughly 1,150…

desk verdict New multi-telescope data show a real delayed radio brightening and the death of the turn-on AGN case, but the inferred outflow launch time rests on shaky two-epoch free-expansion extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08812 v1 pith:GY525PN2 submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Zhumao Zhang , Xinwen Shu , Lei Yang , Luming Sun , Hucheng Ding , Lin Yan , Ning Jiang , Fangxia An
show 14 more authors
Walter Silima Fabao Zhang Yogesh Chandola Zhongzu Wu Daizhong Liu Liming Dou Jianguo Wang Yibo Wang Chenwei Yang Di Li Tianyao Zhou Wenjie Zhang Fangkun Peng Tinggui Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsradiotransientslate-timeflareequipartitionanalysisaccretiondiskstatetransitionslow-evolvingTDELINERgalaxymulti-wavelengthmonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

SDSS J1115+0544 flared in UV, optical, and mid-infrared light in 2015, held a roughly constant brightness for about 500 days, and then faded back to its quiet level. This paper assembles nine years of multi-wavelength data to argue that the flare is a tidal disruption event, one of the slowest-rising and slowest-fading optical TDEs known. About three years after the optical peak, radio emission brightened late, reaching about 1.9 x $10^{39}$ erg/s at 5.5 GHz before declining steeply. The authors interpret the radio flare as an outflow launched about 1,150 days after peak, moving at less than about 0.1 times the speed of light and carrying more than about $10^{50}$ erg of kinetic energy. If correct, J1115+0544 becomes the first TDE with both a short-lived UV/optical plateau and a delayed radio flare, making it a key case for when accretion around a disrupted star launches outflows.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the synchrotron self-absorption spectrum of a radio-emitting outflow. The paper fits the evolving radio spectral energy distribution to track the peak flux density and peak frequency, then applies an equipartition analysis, which assumes comparable energy in magnetic fields and relativistic electrons, to derive the radius and kinetic energy of the emitting region. Extrapolating that radius back to zero assuming free expansion at constant velocity yields the outflow launch time; comparing that launch time with the optical and UV light curves ties the outflow ejection to the end of the plateau phase and to the drop in accretion rate.

What would settle it

Continued radio monitoring that resolves the source or tracks its spectral peak could settle the claim: if the equipartition radius grows slower than linearly with time, the outflow is decelerating and the inferred launch delay and velocity are wrong. Alternatively, a detection of X-ray brightening at the supposed state-transition epoch would directly test the proposed accretion-state trigger for the outflow launch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the nuclear outburst in J1115+0544, previously proposed to be a turn-on active galactic nucleus, is instead a tidal disruption event: the UV, optical, and mid-infrared emission rose, held a plateau for roughly 500 days, then decayed back to pre-flare levels over about five years, while broad Balmer lines disappeared. More than three years after the optical peak, radio emission brightened to about 1.9 x $10^{39}$ erg/s at 5.5 GHz. Using an equipartition analysis of the evolving radio spectra, the paper finds that the outflow powering the radio emission was launched about 1,150 days after the optical peak, with velocity $\beta$ below about 0.1 and kinetic energy above about $10^{50}$ erg. This delay and the accompanying steep radio decline argue against an off-axis jet launched at the time of disruption, and favor a genuinely delayed ejection of an outflow, possibly triggered by a state transition in the accretion disk as the accretion rate dropped.

Load-bearing premise

The launch time of about 1,150 days comes from assuming the radio-emitting region has been expanding freely at constant speed since launch; if the outflow decelerates or the surrounding gas density is not smooth, the inferred delay, velocity, and kinetic energy all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Late-time radio monitoring of optical TDEs with plateau phases should become a standard strategy, since this source shows radio brightening can begin years after discovery.
  • The inferred outflow energetics place J1115+0544 among the more energetic non-relativistic TDE outflows, with an ejected mass lower limit near 0.07 to 0.11 solar masses.
  • The off-axis jet launched at disruption is disfavored for this source, so the radio flare is better read as a genuinely delayed ejection rather than delayed visibility of an early jet.
  • The coincidence between the outflow launch and the disappearance of the UV/optical plateau supports models in which a change in accretion rate triggers outflow ejection, analogous to state transitions in X-ray binaries.
  • If the delayed-outflow interpretation holds, J1115+0544 provides a direct observational clock linking outflow launching to the accretion-rate evolution of a tidal disruption event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: if the state-transition picture is right, other optical TDEs whose light curves exhibit plateaus should show delayed radio flares at comparable lags after their plateaus end, so a targeted radio survey of plateau TDEs would check this directly.
  • The paper's ejected-mass lower limit of about 0.1 solar masses, combined with the roughly 0.06 solar masses accreted in the UV/optical fit, implies the disrupted star was more massive than typical optical TDE debris, which could point to a partial disruption or an unusually massive star.
  • If equipartition is not exact, the inferred launch delay and energy shift systematically; a second-epoch very long baseline observation that directly resolves the radio source size would measure the expansion velocity and bypass the equipartition assumption.
  • The unusually slow rise and decline of J1115+0544 may indicate that debris circularization was inefficient, which could mean that plateau-bearing TDEs preferentially host delayed outflows, a connection the paper leaves implicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. SDSS J1115+0544 is a LINER galaxy that underwent a nuclear UV/optical/MIR outburst in 2015. The paper presents about 9 years of multi-wavelength monitoring and reports that, after a roughly 500-day plateau, the UV/optical/MIR emission returned to pre-outburst levels, supporting a TDE interpretation with unusually slow rise and decline timescales. It also reports a delayed radio brightening detected by VLA, GMRT, VLBA, and MeerKAT, with a 5.5 GHz luminosity up to about 1.9e39 erg/s about three years after the optical peak. Using an equipartition analysis of the radio SED, the authors infer an outflow launched about 1150 days after optical peak (the abstract quotes 1260 days), with velocity beta about 0.05-0.11 and kinetic energy greater than 1e50 erg, and they propose delayed outflow ejection from a disk state transition.

Significance. The direct observational data are valuable: the delayed radio brightening is established by independent telescopes, the long-term optical/UV decay is well documented, and the multi-epoch radio SED is a useful resource. If the inferred delayed launch time is robust, J1115+0544 would be an important object linking plateau-phase optical/UV TDEs with late-time radio outflows and would bear on disk state transitions in TDEs. The paper's strengths include the multi-telescope radio campaign, the careful light-curve modeling, and the explicit comparison with other delayed-radio TDEs. However, the headline physical quantities currently rest on a two-point linear extrapolation and fixed equipartition assumptions; the paper would be substantially strengthened by a quantitative robustness analysis, and at present those numbers are not yet secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 3 (right)] The outflow launch time t≈1150 days and velocity β=0.05–0.11 are derived by fitting a straight line through only two equipartition radii (at t≈1716 and 2825 days) and extrapolating to Req=0. This assumes constant-velocity free expansion, a hypothesis that cannot be tested with only two epochs. If the outflow decelerates, as the steep post-peak decline Fν∝t^-6.36 and the decreasing νp in Section 3.2 suggest, the Req(t) curve is sub-linear and the inferred launch time moves earlier, potentially close to the optical peak; in that case the delayed-ejection/state-transition interpretation and E_K>1e50 erg are not established. Please quantify the sensitivity to deceleration (e.g., Req∝t^m with m<1 or a decelerating blast-wave model), to the assumed p, and to the equipartition fraction, and state how t_launch, β, and E_K change.
  2. [Section 3.2] The synchrotron SED fits fix the electron power-law index to p=3 and assume equipartition. Because each epoch has only a handful of flux measurements, often with upper limits, p is not constrained by the data, and the equipartition radius and energy from the Barniol Duran et al. (2013) scaling relations depend on p and on the magnetic/electron energy fractions. The quoted uncertainties therefore capture only the SED-fit scatter, not the dominant systematic error. A sensitivity test with p in the range 2.5–3.5 and with equipartition fractions between about 0.1 and 1 should be reported, since these choices directly affect the inferred Req, β, and E_K.
  3. [Abstract vs. Section 5] The abstract quotes the outflow launch time as t≈1260 days, while the body, Section 4.2, and Section 5 give t≈1150 days. Because this number is the central physical claim of the paper, the contradiction must be resolved and the intended value stated consistently throughout the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The plateau duration is quoted as ~500 days in the abstract and ~490 days in Section 4.1, but the fitted segment boundaries tf=396.62 and td=737.82 imply a plateau of about 341 days; please define how the plateau duration is measured.
  2. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The symbol p is used both for the optical/UV power-law index (p=-0.47) and for the electron energy index (p=3); please rename one of them to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.2] The paper quotes both Fν∝t^-6.36 for the declining radio phase and, in Section 4.2, a post-peak decline described by t^-2.53; please clarify the exact fitting intervals and whether these refer to the same light-curve segment.
  4. [Section 2.4.2] The VLBA observation gives a deconvolved size of 1.48×0.94 mas and an upper limit of <1.58 pc; please state the assumed distance and how the angular-to-linear size conversion was made.
  5. [Section 3.3, Figure 4 (right)] The claim of a CNM density steepening at about 1.7e17 cm rests on the same two-point radius evolution and on the constant-velocity assumption; please state this dependence explicitly in the discussion of the density profile.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the delayed radio flare is a direct detection, and the equipartition outflow parameters use external scaling relations; the t≈1150 d launch time is a model-dependent extrapolation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central new result, the delayed radio brightening of SDSS J1115+0544, is a direct observational detection from VLA, VLBA, GMRT, and MeerKAT data, not a quantity predicted from the fitted optical/UV light-curve parameters. The outflow velocity, launch time, and kinetic energy are derived by applying the equipartition scaling relations of Barniol Duran et al. (2013) to the SED-fit peak flux and peak frequency, and the launch time is obtained by linearly extrapolating Req(t) to zero under an explicit free-expansion assumption. That inference is model-dependent and would be sensitive to deceleration, non-equipartition, or an inhomogeneous external density profile, but it is not circular: the output is not identical to any fitted input by construction. The TDE classification is supported by the new 9-year decay of the UV/optical and MIR emission reported in this paper, with prior spectroscopy from Wang et al. (2022) used as supporting evidence; although some co-authors overlap with that citation, the present paper's own multiwavelength light curves independently substantiate the short-lived flare interpretation. No step reduces a claimed prediction to an assumed parameter, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation in a way that forces the conclusions. The abstract/body discrepancy between t≈1260 and t≈1150 days is an internal consistency issue, not evidence of circularity, and the robustness of the launch-time extrapolation is better framed as a model-assumption risk than as a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 21 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted multi-parameter light-curve models (10 free parameters in the optical/UV model, plus MOSFiT and dust-echo parameters), a fixed electron index p=3, and the equipartition/free-expansion assumption used to convert radio SED fits into a radius, velocity, launch time, and kinetic energy. The observational facts (fading to baseline, delayed radio brightening) are robust, but the physical parameters quoted as results are model outputs rather than direct measurements.

free parameters (21)
  • Lpeak = log Lpeak = 44.23(+0.66,-0.41) erg/s
    Peak UV/optical luminosity in the four-segment light-curve model fitted by MCMC in Section 3.1.
  • tp = -9.23(+1.94,-1.41) days
    Phase of optical peak relative to MJD 57170, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • sigma = 56.81(+1.57,-1.23) days
    Gaussian width of the pre-peak rise, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • tau1 = 72.21(+36.48,-22.25) days
    First decline timescale, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • p_lightcurve = -0.47(+0.07,-0.11)
    Power-law slope of the initial decay, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • tf = 396.62(+19.39,-17.46) days
    Start time of the plateau, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • td = 737.82(+87.02,-31.42) days
    End time of the plateau, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • tau2 = 841.70(+85.86,-101.26) days
    Late decay timescale, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • T_bb = log T = 4.37(+0.22,-0.13) K
    Assumed constant blackbody temperature, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • Av = 0.88(+0.32,-0.32) mag
    V-band extinction, fitted in Section 3.1.
  • M_BH_MOSFiT = log(MBH/Msun) = 7.50(+0.14,-0.17)
    Black hole mass from the MOSFiT fit to UV/optical light curves in Section 3.1.
  • M_star_MOSFiT = 1.4(+0.3,-0.2) Msun
    Disrupted stellar mass from the MOSFiT fit in Section 3.1.
  • b_MOSFiT = 0.98(+0.07,-0.08)
    Scaled impact parameter from the MOSFiT fit, indicating near-full disruption in Section 3.1.
  • t_viscous = 30.5(+16.4,-19.7) days
    Viscous timescale inferred from MOSFiT and used to interpret the slow evolution in Section 4.1.
  • r_in_dust = < 9.5e16 cm (upper limit)
    Dust inner radius from the MIR echo fit in Section 3.1.
  • r_out_dust = 1.2(+0.2,-0.2) e18 cm
    Dust outer radius from the MIR echo fit in Section 3.1.
  • a0_dust = ~1 micron (upper end of prior 0.01 to 1 micron)
    Dust grain size from the MIR echo fit in Section 3.1.
  • n_dust = 6.6(+6.0,-2.4) e-11 cm^-3
    Dust density from the MIR echo fit in Section 3.1.
  • p_sync = 3 (fixed)
    Electron energy index fixed in the synchrotron SED fits because of limited data, Section 3.2.
  • phi_conical = 30 degrees (assumed half-opening angle)
    Conical outflow geometry assumed for comparison in the equipartition analysis, Section 3.3.
  • radio SED normalization and break frequencies (F0, nu_m, nu_a per epoch) = Best-fit values from MCMC, shown in Figure 3
    Fitted per epoch to derive Fp and nu_p used in the equipartition analysis.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Radio emission is synchrotron self-absorbed emission from a single expanding outflow.
    SED fits in Section 3.2 assume this model; no resolved extended emission is detected, so alternative origins are not directly imaged.
  • domain assumption Equipartition between magnetic field and relativistic electrons holds.
    Section 3.3 uses Barniol Duran et al. 2013 scaling relations; if equipartition does not hold, the inferred kinetic energy and radius change.
  • domain assumption The outflow expands freely at constant velocity between the two radius epochs.
    Section 3.3 extrapolates a linear Req(t) fit to Req=0 to derive the launch time and velocity; deceleration would shift the inferred launch epoch.
  • domain assumption The electron energy distribution index p = 3.
    Section 3.2 fixes p=3 because of limited data; this affects both SED peak parameters and equipartition results.
  • domain assumption The UV/optical continuum is a blackbody with constant temperature over the flare.
    Section 3.1 fits a constant-T blackbody; the MOSFiT model itself cannot reproduce the plateau, so the fitted bolometric light curve is model dependent.
  • domain assumption The MIR emission is a dust echo of the UV/optical flare.
    Section 3.1 applies Lu et al. 2016 and Sun et al. 2020 dust-echo models; if a pre-existing AGN heats the dust, the inferred dust properties and echo energy change.
  • domain assumption The black hole mass of log(MBH/Msun) = 7.29 from Yan19 is reliable.
    Used to compute Eddington ratios, fallback timescales, and densities in Section 4; not remeasured here.
  • domain assumption The radio flare is not unrelated AGN radio variability in the LINER nucleus.
    The paper interprets the delayed radio brightening as a TDE outflow; the LINER nature means an AGN origin is not excluded and is not quantitatively modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of a years-delayed radio flare from an unusually slow-evolved tidal disruption event." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GY525PN2

@misc{pith2026250108812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of a years-delayed radio flare from an unusually slow-evolved tidal disruption event},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GY525PN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08812}
}
read the original abstract

SDSS J1115+0544 is a unique low-ionization nuclear emission-line region (LINER) galaxy with energetic ultraviolet (UV), optical and mid-infrared outbursts occurring in its nucleus. We present the results from an analysis of multi-wavelength photometric and radio follow-up observations covering a period of ~9 years since its discovery. We find that following a luminosity plateau of ~500 days, the UV/optical emission has decayed back to the pre-outburst level, suggesting that the nuclear outburst might be caused by a stellar tidal disruption event (TDE). In this case, SDSS J1115+0544 could be an unusually slow-evolved optical TDE with longest rise and decline time-scales ever found. Three years later than the optical peak, a delayed radio brightening was found with a 5.5 GHz luminosity as high as ~1.9x10^39 erg/s. Using a standard equipartition analysis, we find the outflow powering the radio emission was launched at t~1260 days with a velocity of beta<~0.1 and kinetic energy of E_K~>10^50 erg. The delayed radio brightening coupled with the disappearing plateau in the UV/optical light curves is consistent with the scenario involving delayed ejection of an outflow from a state transition in the disk. SDSS J1115+0544 is the first TDE displaying both a short-lived UV/optical plateau emission and a late-time radio brightening. Future radio observations of these TDEs in the post-plateau decay phase will help to establish the connection between outflow launching and changes in accretion rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curves of J1115+0544 in different bands. Left panel: The upper panel shows the host-subtracted, dust extinction-corrected optical/UV light curves obtained from CRTS, ATLAS, and Swift/UVOT. For comparison, we also show the radio light curve at 5.5 GHz, taken from the VLA and MeerKAT observations. Since MeerKAT does not have the C-band receiver, we extrapolated the radio flux to 5.5 GHz based on the best-fit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The radio luminosity evolution at 5.5 GHz for J1115+0544 (red). Also shown for comparison are the light curves of the jetted TDEs Sw J1644+57 (Berger et al. 2012; Zauderer et al. 2013; Eftekhari et al. 2018; Cendes et al. 2021b) and AT2022cmc (Andreoni et al. 2022), and other thermal TDEs with late-time radio brightening: iPTF16fnl from Horesh et al. (2021b), ASASSN-15oi from Horesh et al. (2021a); Hajela et al. (20… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Radio SED and its evolution over four epochs, using the data from VLA, GMRT, VLBA and MeerKAT observations. For the nondetections, the corresponding 3σ upper limits on flux density are shown. The solid line represents the best-fit SED for each epoch, and the shaded region denotes the 1σ error range of model realizations in MCMC fittings. Right panel: The evolution of equipartition radius of the radio-emi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left Panel: Outflow velocity and kinetic energy of J1115+0544 for the spherical case and collimated conical case. Vertical dashed line is shown to distinguish whether the outflow is relativistic or non-relativistic. For comparison, we include the jetted TDE Sw J1644+57…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The correlation between the black hole mass (MBH) and the rest-frame rise time-scales (t1/2,rise, upper panel) and decline time-scales (t1/2,decline, lower panel) for J1115+0544 (red) and other optical TDEs (Yao et al. 2023). The MBH for J1115+0544 is inferred using th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AT2019ijn: a fast-rising, slow-decaying blue optical transient with exceptionally bright radio emission

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AT2019ijn combines LFBOT-like fast optical rise and blue color with slow decay and radio luminosity peaking late at 2e31 erg/s/Hz, best fit as an off-axis jetted IMBH TDE.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  2. [2]

    D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Wieringa, M

    Alexander, K. D., Wieringa, M. H., Berger, E., Saxton, R. D., & Komossa, S. 2017, ApJ, 837, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192 2017

  4. [4]

    M., Mooley, K

    Anderson, M. M., Mooley, K. P., Hallinan, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b 2020

  5. [5]

    W., Perley, D

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 430, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Co...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    Beniamini, P., Piran, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1950 2023

  7. [7]

    G., et al

    Berger, E., Zauderer, A., Pooley, G. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  8. [8]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 1374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1246

    Bonnerot, C., & Lu, W. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1246

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1246 2020

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Cendes, Y., Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 919, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a

    doi

  2. [10]

    2021b, ApJ, 908, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    Cendes, Y., Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., & Polisensky, E. 2021b, ApJ, 908, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    doi

  3. [11]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 —. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558d

    Chen, J.-H., Dou, L.-M., & Shen, R.-F. 2022, ApJ, 928, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558d

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S

    Cornwell, T. J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 647, doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2008.2005290

    2008

  6. [14]

    B., Shu, X

    Dai, B. B., Shu, X. W., Jiang, N., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab97ac

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    T., Brisken, W

    Deller, A. T., Brisken, W. F., Phillips, C. J., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 275, doi: 10.1086/658907

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

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

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

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Alexander, K. D. 2018, ApJ, 854, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8e0

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Belloni, T

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

    2004

  12. [20]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Generozov, A., Mimica, P., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2439

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Giannios, D., & Metzger, B. D. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2102, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x

    2011

  16. [24]

    M., Widmann, F., et al

    Gillessen, S., Plewa, P. M., Widmann, F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4f8

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac333

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Alexander, K

    Goodwin, A. J., Alexander, K. D., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 522, 5084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1258

    doi

  19. [27]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3127

    doi

  20. [28]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2003

  21. [29]

    285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed

    Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck, 109, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8 7

    doi

  22. [30]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/166

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2015, ApJ, 809, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/166

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19019, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.19019

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 The radio emission of J1115+0544 13

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 The radio emission of J1115+0544 13

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.003

    Heywood, I. 2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.003

    2020

  27. [35]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Horesh, A., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2021a, Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    doi

  28. [36]

    2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    Horesh, A., Sfaradi, I., Fender, R., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    doi

  29. [37]

    2016, ApJL, 828, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L14

    Jiang, N., Dou, L., Wang, T., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L14

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Mou, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, ApJS, 252, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Dou, L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Kong, X., et al. 2022, ApJL, 939, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, ApJL, 971, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe1

    Liu, C., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe1

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Evans, N. J. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw307

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Lu, W., Matsumoto, T., & Matzner, C. D. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1770

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, A&A, 647, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039681

    Malyali, A., Rau, A., Merloni, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039681

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Matsumoto, T., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1182

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Matsumoto, T., Piran, T., & Krolik, J. H. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac382

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2018, Science, 361, 482, doi: 10.1126/science.aao4669

    Mattila, S., P´ erez-Torres, M., Efstathiou, A., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 482, doi: 10.1126/science.aao4669

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  45. [53]

    D., & Stone, N

    Metzger, B. D., & Stone, N. C. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1394

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3742

    Mou, G., Wang, T., Wang, W., & Yang, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3742

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2261

    Mou, G., & Wang, W. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2261

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    R., & Smirnov, O

    Offringa, A. R., & Smirnov, O. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1547

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, A&A, 532, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117104

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  52. [60]

    Broderick, A. E. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv954

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    Sfaradi, I., Beniamini, P., Horesh, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Shepherd, M. C. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 125, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. G. Hunt & H. Payne, 77

    1997

  55. [63]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z

    Shu, X., Zhang, W., Li, S., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03782

    2023 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f2c

    Sun, L., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f2c

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Teboul, O., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJL, 957, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037 van Velzen, S., Mendez, A. J., Krolik, J. H., & Gorjian, V. 2016, ApJ, 829, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/19 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1...

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, ApJS, 258, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6

    Wang, Y., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    G., Levan, A

    Wen, S., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da3

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1976

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074b

    Yan, L., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074b

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y., Ravi, V., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/152

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 425, doi: 10.1038/nature10366

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1d61

    Zhang, F., Shu, X., Yang, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1d61

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08012

    Zhuang, J., Shen, R.-F., Mou, G., & Lu, W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08012

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.