Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The First Measurement of Jet Collimation Profiles in an X-ray Binary: the Case of SS 433

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first measurement of jet collimation profiles in an X-ray binary, showing that SS 433's approaching jet follows a quasi-parabolic width profile and its opening angle drops from ~20° to ~3°.

desk verdict First XRB collimation profile is a real step forward, but the W∝r^0.74±0.02 exponent carries a zero-point systematic of order ±0.1 that the paper never faces. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28122 v2 pith:Q72DKO4W submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE

Xi Yan , Lang Cui , Zsolt Paragi , Sándor Frey This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SS433X-raybinaryjetcollimationVLBIcoreshiftopeninganglerelativisticjetsaccretingblackholes
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

Using archival VLBI data spanning 1995–2000, this paper reports the first direct measurement of a jet collimation profile in an X-ray binary. For SS 433, the approaching jet's deconvolved width follows a quasi-parabolic power law W ∝ r^{0.74±0.02} over ~3×10^14 to 8×10^15 cm, and the intrinsic opening angle declines from ~20° to ~3° with distance. These results establish that jet collimation, previously studied mainly in active galactic nuclei, also operates in stellar-mass accreting systems. The paper additionally derives a frequency-dependent core-shift relation Δr ∝ ν^{-1.1±0.3} consistent with synchrotron self-absorption. A sympathetic reader would care because this connects jet physics across black-hole mass scales and opens a new observational window on X-ray binaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deconvolved jet width W as a function of deprojected distance r, derived from Gaussian fits to transverse intensity profiles in VLBI images restored with a circular beam. The power-law index a in W ∝ r^a (with a = 0, 0.5, 1 corresponding to cylindrical, parabolic, and conical geometries) carries the argument, together with the intrinsic opening angle φ_open = 2 arctan(W sin θ_view / 2 r_proj). The kinematic precession model supplies θ_view at each epoch, and frequency-dependent core-shift measurements locate the binary center, allowing the projected distances to be deprojected.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the 2000 VLBI data by forward-modelling the jet as a precessing cone with the known kinematic parameters and convolving with the beam; if the observed width 'humps' and the final 3° opening angle are reproduced by the smearing alone, the progressive-collimation claim from that epoch collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We report the first measurement of jet collimation profiles in an X-ray binary, SS 433, using multi-epoch, multi-frequency VLBI imaging at 1.7, 5, 8.4, and 15 GHz. The approaching jet is well described by a quasi-parabolic width profile W ∝ r^{0.74±0.02} over deprojected distances of ~3×10^14–8×10^15 cm, and the intrinsic opening angle decreases gradually from ~20° to ~3° between 8×10^14 and 9×10^15 cm. The 2000 epoch shows oscillatory width features that preclude a single power-law fit, but still indicates an opening-angle decline. We also measure the core-shift relation Δr ∝ ν^{-1.1±0.3}, making SS 433 the first X-ray binary with constrained jet collimation, opening-angle evolution, and co

Load-bearing premise

The inference that the 2000 data show a genuine opening-angle decline from ~20° to ~3° assumes that the ~7 mas apparent broadening from the precessing jet's rotation over the sampled emission does not significantly bias the measured widths; if that smearing is underestimated, the 2000 opening angles and 'humps' would be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SS 433 becomes the first X-ray binary with a measured quasi-parabolic jet collimation profile, implying that the collimation processes seen in AGN jets also operate in stellar-mass accretors.
  • The opening-angle decrease from ~20° to ~3° provides direct evidence that the jet is progressively confined on scales of 10^14–10^16 cm, connecting to earlier indirect evidence from flux-density decay and magnetic-field orientation.
  • The core-shift relation Δr ∝ ν^{-1.1±0.3}, consistent with synchrotron self-absorption, offers a new tool to estimate magnetic-field strengths and particle densities in X-ray binary jets.
  • The contrasting profiles between 1995/1998 (quasi-parabolic), 1999 (roughly cylindrical on 40–270 mas), and 2000 (oscillatory) suggest that SS 433's jet collimation can vary on timescales of months, providing a rare testbed for jet–environment interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the quasi-parabolic index ~0.74 holds across epochs, it may indicate magnetic collimation (hoop stress) rather than external pressure confinement in this region, in line with the perpendicular magnetic-field orientation observed at <350 mas; comparing the index with AGN profiles could test whether the same physical mechanism scales with black-hole mass.
  • The 'humps' in the 2000 width profiles might be explained by precession smearing acting on an otherwise smooth jet; a testable extension is to forward-model a precessing conical jet convolved with the beam and check whether the residual oscillations disappear.
  • The core-shift relation could be combined with the collimation profile to estimate the jet's magnetic flux and total power, offering a new route to compare jet-launching models across mass scales.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival VLBI observations of SS 433 from 1995, 1998, and 2000 and measures deconvolved jet widths as a function of deprojected distance from the adopted binary center. The approaching jet in 1995/1998 is found to follow a quasi-parabolic profile W ∝ r^{0.74±0.02} over roughly 3×10^14–8×10^15 cm, while the receding jet follows W ∝ r^{0.46±0.23} with much larger scatter. The 2000 data show local oscillations that prevent a single power-law fit, but are used to claim a decline in intrinsic opening angle from ~20° to ~3°. The paper also measures frequency-dependent core positions at 1.7, 5, 8.4, and 15 GHz and derives a core-shift relation Δr ∝ ν^{-1.1±0.3}. The authors present these results as the first measurement of jet collimation, opening-angle evolution, and core-shift relation in an X-ray binary.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, this is a valuable first step: it provides a direct collimation profile for a Galactic XRB, enabling comparison with AGN collimation on different mass scales. The archival VLBI data are public, the analysis follows standard methods, and the figures clearly present the measurements. The opening-angle decline and the quasi-parabolic index are falsifiable predictions that can be tested with future high-frequency VLBI. The main scientific value is in the 1995/1998 profile and the opening-angle evolution; the core-shift relation is a secondary but interesting result. However, the current error budget is substantially underestimated: the power-law exponent is quoted to ±0.02 without propagating the core-position zero-point uncertainty, and the core-shift index is effectively constrained by only two points. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Table 2, §3.3.1, Figure 2] The fitted exponent 0.74±0.02 is derived from distances measured relative to an adopted binary position whose own uncertainty is 0.8–1.7 mas (Table 2). The fitted range is only ~4–100 mas, so an origin shift of −1.7 mas changes the innermost distances by ~20% while leaving the outermost distances nearly unchanged; in the log-log fit this can bias the slope by ~0.1–0.15. The quoted ±0.02 therefore reflects only the fit statistics and not the dominant systematic. The fit should be repeated with the origin treated as a nuisance parameter with a prior from Table 2, or the profile should be shown for extreme plausible origin shifts, and the systematic error added to the quoted exponent.
  2. [§2.2, footnote 9, Figure 2] The per-bin width uncertainties are assigned as Θ_maj/10 by construction rather than derived from the Gaussian fits or from a full propagation of deconvolution, binning, and alignment errors. Because these manual uncertainties enter directly into the power-law fit, the reported ±0.02 uncertainty on the exponent is not a meaningful statistical error. A systematic error budget is needed, including the effect of the adopted bin size and of the correlation between adjacent bins.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 4, Table 2] The core-shift power-law index ν^{-1.1±0.3} is effectively driven by the 1.7 and 5 GHz points, which have significant offsets, while the 8.4 and 15 GHz offsets are each consistent with zero at about 1σ. The claim that a core-shift relation has been 'constrained' is therefore overstated. The authors should report what the fit gives using only the two significant points, propagate the full covariance, or clearly state the relation as a tentative two-point constraint.
  4. [§3.3.2, §4.5, Figure 3] The 2000 data are used to claim a decrease in intrinsic opening angle from 20°±4° at ~10 mas to 3°±1° at ~112 mas. The paper's own estimate in §4.5 is that precession rotates the outer jet by ~3.5°, adding ~7 mas of apparent width, comparable to the 1.7 GHz beam. This effect is not corrected. Since correcting for rotation would reduce the outer widths, the qualitative collimation trend is not erased, but the quoted opening-angle values and the 'humps' could be affected. Rather than asserting that the effect is 'unlikely to significantly bias' the profile, the authors should quantify it by forward-modelling a precessing jet or by showing the opening-angle evolution after excluding or correcting the outermost bins.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / §3.3.1] The abstract says the approaching jet 'exhibits a well-constrained quasi-parabolic profile' without noting that this applies only to the 1995 and 1998 data; the 2000 data are not fitted. Consider making this explicit in the abstract.
  2. [§3.3.2] The opening-angle uncertainties (20°±4°, 3°±1°) are quoted without a clear derivation. State how these errors are propagated from the width, distance, and viewing-angle uncertainties.
  3. [Appendix A / §4.2] The 1999 1.4 GHz profile is measured relative to the brightness peak because the binary location cannot be determined at that frequency. The 'roughly cylindrical' fit is therefore not directly comparable to the other profiles, and the claim of 'diverse jet collimation behaviors' in §4.2 should be softened accordingly.
  4. [Figure 2] The figure uses many colors and symbols, and it is difficult to distinguish the individual epochs and frequencies. A table of the binned widths with their errors, or a larger figure, would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The fit line is shown as a black line; the caption does not state that the fit includes all four points or describe the fitting method. Add this information.
  6. [Throughout] There are a few typographical issues, e.g., 'for a early review' in the Introduction and the abbreviation 'FFA' inconsistently spelled. These are minor and do not affect the science.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the collimation profile and opening angles are empirical fits/derived quantities, not outputs built from the claimed result; the adopted kinematic center is an independent external VLBI constraint.

full rationale

The paper is an observational measurement paper. The central claims are (i) a quasi-parabolic width profile W ∝ r^0.74±0.02 fitted to deconvolved VLBI jet widths from 1995/1998, (ii) opening angles computed from the measured widths via Eq. (1), and (iii) a core-shift relation fitted to four measured core positions. None of these is a 'prediction' in the sense of being derived from the result itself: the width data are independent measurements, the power law is presented as a fit with quoted statistical uncertainty, and the opening angle is a standard transformation of measured W and r, not a quantity used to define W. The kinematic center is adopted from Paragi et al. (1999), which has an overlapping author (Zsolt Paragi), but that earlier work is an independent, externally testable VLBI constraint based on the well-established SS 433 kinematic model; it is not an output of the present analysis, and the width measurements are not fitted to it beyond using it as the origin. The paper itself flags the 2000 width oscillations as precluding a robust profile fit and discusses the jet-rotation smearing caveat in Section 4.5, but these are systematic-uncertainty concerns, not circular reductions. The zero-point/core-position sensitivity raised by the skeptic is a legitimate systematic error concern, but it does not make the derivation circular: shifting the origin changes the fitted slope, but the slope is still an empirical fit to external data, not an input renamed as an output. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation. Therefore no significant circularity is present; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurements rest on externally supplied geometric and kinematic constants and on hand-chosen analysis thresholds; no new entities are invented and no free parameters are fitted to force the central claims.

free parameters (3)
  • Transverse profile detection threshold = 20×I_rms
    Measurements retained only if Gaussian amplitude exceeds 20× image rms; hand-chosen selection criterion that sets which distances contribute to the profile.
  • Jet-width bin size = Θ_maj/5
    Jet widths binned in steps of one-fifth of the beam major axis; hand-chosen smoothing scale that affects the scatter and shape of the width profile.
  • Assumed per-bin width uncertainty = Θ_maj/10
    Assumed per-bin uncertainty; conservative relative to the S/N estimate, but hand-assigned and directly sets the χ² of power-law fits, hence the quoted ±0.02 exponent error.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Kinematic precession model of SS 433: β=0.26, i=78.05°, ψ=20.92°, P=162.375 d (Eikenberry et al. 2001)
    Adopted via Eq. (2) to compute θ_view, which enters deprojected distances and opening angles (Eq. 1); errors in these parameters scale all quantitative opening angles.
  • domain assumption Distance to SS 433 of 5.5±0.2 kpc (Blundell & Bowler 2004)
    Used to convert mas to cm in Figures 2-5; a different distance changes absolute scales but not the power-law indices.
  • domain assumption The jet transverse brightness profile is a single Gaussian at all distances
    Required for the FWHM/deconvolution width (Section 2.2); non-Gaussian or limb-brightened profiles would bias W and hence opening angles.
  • domain assumption Optically thin components E1-E3 are stationary tracers whose relative shifts measure the core position
    Used in Section 3.1; if these components move or are not physically fixed, the tabulated core positions and the core-shift relation would be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The First Measurement of Jet Collimation Profiles in an X-ray Binary: the Case of SS 433." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q72DKO4W

@misc{pith2026260728122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The First Measurement of Jet Collimation Profiles in an X-ray Binary: the Case of SS 433},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q72DKO4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28122}
}
abstract

While significant progress has been achieved in active galactic nuclei (AGN), jet collimation profiles in X-ray binaries (XRBs) have not been directly measured. Here we report the first measurement of jet collimation profiles in an XRB using very long baseline interferometry data from SS 433. The approaching jet exhibits a well-constrained quasi-parabolic profile in the 1995 and 1998 data, whereas the prominent local oscillations present in the 2000 jet-width measurements preclude a robust characterization of the jet collimation profile. Nevertheless, the 2000 data suggest that the intrinsic jet opening angle decreases gradually from $\sim 20^\circ$ at 8$\times 10^{14}$ cm to $\sim 3^\circ$ at $9\times 10^{15}$ cm (deprojected), providing evidence for progressive jet collimation. The width and opening angle of the receding jet are also presented, although their interpretation is limited by the free--free absorption effect. In addition, we measure the frequency-dependent core positions at four bands and derive a core-shift relation. These results establish SS 433 as the first XRB in which jet collimation, opening-angle evolution, and core-shift relation are constrained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VLBI images of SS 433 obtained from different projects (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Deconvolved jet width (upper panel) and intrinsic jet opening angle (lower panel) as a function of deprojected distance from the central binary on the approaching and receding sides of SS 433, derived from 1995 and 1998 datasets. The lower horizontal axis shows the deprojected distance in mas, while the upper horizontal axis shows the corresponding distance in cm, adopting a source distance of 5.5 kpc (K. M. Blundel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Deconvolved jet width (upper panel) and intrinsic jet opening angle (lower panel) as a function of deprojected distance from the central binary on the approaching and receding sides of SS 433, derived from the three epochs in 2000. The jet viewing angle at each epoch is listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Approaching jet core position relative to the cen￾tral binary in R.A. as a function of frequency. The black solid line shows the best-fit power law. J1820+070, and Swift J1727.8–1613 (S. Prabu et al. 2023; C. M. Wood et al. 2025). In this work, we ex￾tend these studies…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Collimation profiles of both the approaching and receding jets in SS 433, obtained by combining measurements from 1995, 1998, and 2000 (see Figures 2 and 3). ing medium. Consistent with this picture, our VLBI observations reveal a substantially larger opening an￾gle of…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: CLEAN image of SS 433 observed with VLBA + VLA at 1.4 GHz. The image was restored using an elliptical Gaussian beam of 26.0 × 15.2 mas, oriented at a position angle of −12◦ . Contours start at 1.5 mJy beam−1 and increase by factors of √ 2. The jet viewing angle a…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Magnetic rigidity reveals the PeVatron acceleration region in SS433

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The radio-measured magnetic field in SS 433's inner jet declines as H^-0.5, so the jet retains enough magnetic rigidity at ~100 AU to accelerate protons to PeV energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    O., & Margon, B

    Abell, G. O., & Margon, B. 1979, Nature, 279, 701, doi: 10.1038/279701a0

    doi:10.1038/279701a0 1979

  2. [2]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 82, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0565-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0565-5 2018

  3. [3]

    2012, ApJL, 745, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    Asada, K., & Nakamura, M. 2012, ApJL, 745, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l28 2012

  4. [4]

    K., Kadler, M., Ros, E., et al

    Baczko, A. K., Kadler, M., Ros, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450898

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450898 2024

  5. [5]

    C., Sarazin, C

    Begelman, M. C., Sarazin, C. L., Hatchett, S. P., McKee, C. F., & Arons, J. 1980, ApJ, 238, 722, doi: 10.1086/158029

    doi:10.1086/158029 1980

  6. [6]

    M., & Bowler, M

    Blundell, K. M., & Bowler, M. G. 2004, ApJL, 616, L159, doi: 10.1086/426542

    doi:10.1086/426542 2004

  7. [7]

    M., Laing, R., Lee, S., & Richards, A

    Blundell, K. M., Laing, R., Lee, S., & Richards, A. 2018, ApJL, 867, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae890

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae890 2018

  8. [8]

    Podsiadlowski, P., & Rupen, M. P. 2001, ApJL, 562, L79, doi: 10.1086/324573

    doi:10.1086/324573 2001

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2021, A&A, 647, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039612

    Boccardi, B., Perucho, M., Casadio, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039612

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    V., & Fabrika, S

    Borisov, N. V., & Fabrika, S. N. 1987, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 13, 200

    1987

  3. [11]

    1996, A&A, 312, 306

    Brinkmann, W., Aschenbach, B., & Kawai, N. 1996, A&A, 312, 306

    1996

  4. [12]

    2007, A&A, 463, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065570

    Burwitz, V. 2007, A&A, 463, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065570

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Dodin, A

    Cherepashchuk, A. M., Dodin, A. V., & Postnov, K. A. 2025, Physics Uspekhi, 68, 1042, doi: 10.3367/UFNe.2025.05.039904

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    F., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Dhawan, V., Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 2000, ApJ, 543, 373, doi: 10.1086/317088 D ´ ıaz Trigo, M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Migliari, S.,

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    W., & Tzioumis, T

    Broderick, J. W., & Tzioumis, T. 2013, Nature, 504, 260, doi: 10.1038/nature12672

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Holdaway, M., Goss, W

    Dubner, G. M., Holdaway, M., Goss, W. M., & Mirabel, I. F. 1998, AJ, 116, 1842, doi: 10.1086/300537

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Cameron, P

    Eikenberry, S. S., Cameron, P. B., Fierce, B. W., et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 1027, doi: 10.1086/323380

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    C., & Rees, M

    Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 13P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.1.13P

    1979 doi

  11. [19]

    2004, Astrophys

    Fabrika, S. 2004, Astrophys. Space Phys. Res., 12, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603390

    2004 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2014, SSRv, 183, 323, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0069-z

    Fender, R., & Gallo, E. 2014, SSRv, 183, 323, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0069-z

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Garc ´ ıa, F., Combi, J

    Fogantini, F. A., Garc ´ ıa, F., Combi, J. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243951

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Gandhi, P., & Boorman, P. G. 2026, An intrinsic decline of accretion activity in GRS 1915+105, https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06200

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0431-2

    Giovannini, G., Savolainen, T., Orienti, M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0431-2

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, AIPS, the VLA, and the VLBA, ed. A. Heck (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 109–125, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8 7

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    2011, Nature, 477, 185, doi: 10.1038/nature10387

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Kino, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 477, 185, doi: 10.1038/nature10387

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/15

    Haga, T., Doi, A., Murata, Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/15

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1981a, ApJL, 246, L141, doi: 10.1086/183571

    doi

  20. [28]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1981b, Nature, 290, 100, doi: 10.1038/290100a0

    doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1988, ApJ, 328, 600, doi: 10.1086/166318

    1988 doi

  22. [30]

    Mioduszewski, A. J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1322

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 47, 195, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2014.47.5.195

    Kim, J.-Y., & Trippe, S. 2014, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 47, 195, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2014.47.5.195

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    Konigl, A. 1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    1981 doi

  25. [33]

    1994, PASJ, 46, L147, doi: 10.1093/pasj/46.4.L147

    Kotani, T., Kawai, N., Aoki, T., et al. 1994, PASJ, 46, L147, doi: 10.1093/pasj/46.4.L147

    1994 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Krichbaum, T

    Lee, S.-S., Lobanov, A. P., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/159 LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, nwaf496, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf496

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    1984, ARA&A, 22, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002451

    Margon, B. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002451

    1984

  28. [36]

    C., et al

    Marino, A., Rea, N., Zelati, F. C., et al. 2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17869, 1

    2026

  29. [37]

    L., Canizares, C

    Marshall, H. L., Canizares, C. R., Hillwig, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/75

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    L., Canizares, C

    Marshall, H. L., Canizares, C. R., & Schulz, N. S. 2002, ApJ, 564, 941, doi: 10.1086/324398

    2002 doi

  31. [39]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Blundell, K. M., Rupen, M. P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 368, doi: 10.1086/379706

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Fender, R. P., & Nakar, E. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1432, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10092.x

    2006

  33. [41]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Migliari, S., Fender, R. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1141, doi: 10.1086/589144 12

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Rupen, M. P., Fender, R. P., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1087, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11381.x

    2007

  35. [43]

    G., & Waltman, E

    Pooley, G. G., & Waltman, E. B. 2001, ApJ, 553, 766, doi: 10.1086/320965

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17865, 1

    Motta, S., Fender, R., X-KAT Collaboration, et al. 2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17865, 1

    2026

  37. [45]

    H., Algaba, J

    Ng, Z. H., Algaba, J. C., & Abidin, Z. Z. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1268

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Lockhart, T

    Niell, A. E., Lockhart, T. G., & Preston, R. A. 1981, ApJ, 250, 248, doi: 10.1086/159369

    1981 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac97e5

    Okino, H., Akiyama, K., Asada, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac97e5

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    C., et al

    Paragi, Z., Fejes, I., Vermeulen, R. C., et al. 2002, in Proceedings of the 6th EVN Symposium, ed. E. Ros, R. W. Porcas, A. P. Lobanov, & J. A. Zensus, 263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207061

    2002 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    C., et al

    Paragi, Z., Fejes, I., Vermeulen, R. C., et al. 2003, in New Views on Microquasars, ed. P. Durouchoux, Y. Fuchs, & J. Rodriguez, 261, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0208125

    2003 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    C., Fejes, I., et al

    Paragi, Z., Vermeulen, R. C., Fejes, I., et al. 1999, A&A, 348, 910, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907169

    1999 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    C., & Spencer, R

    Paragi, Z., Vermeulen, R. C., & Spencer, R. 2012, arXiv: High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118458868

    2012

  44. [52]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6ee

    Park, J., Hada, K., Nakamura, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6ee

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Prabu, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2570

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Prabu, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02828-3

    2026 doi

  47. [55]

    1997, ApJ, 483, 868, doi: 10.1086/304274

    Safi-Harb, S., & ¨Ogelman, H. 1997, ApJ, 483, 868, doi: 10.1086/304274

    1997 doi

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    B., & Sanduleak, N

    Stephenson, C. B., & Sanduleak, N. 1977, ApJS, 33, 459, doi: 10.1086/190437

    1977 doi

  50. [58]

    2004, MNRAS, 354, 1239, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08285.x

    Paragi, Z. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1239, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08285.x

    2004

  51. [59]

    2026, A&A, 707, A278, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557726

    Sunyaev, R., Khabibullin, I., Churazov, E., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A278, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557726

    2026 doi

  52. [60]

    2025, ApJL, 993, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0e73

    Tsuji, N., Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0e73

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Spencer, R. E. 1987, Nature, 328, 309, doi: 10.1038/328309a0

    1987 doi

  54. [62]

    C., Schilizzi, R

    Vermeulen, R. C., Schilizzi, R. T., Spencer, R. E., Romney, J. D., & Fejes, I. 1993, A&A, 270, 177

    1993

  55. [63]

    2019, A&A, 623, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834746

    Perraut, K. 2019, A&A, 623, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834746

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2814

    Wang, Y., & M´ endez, M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2814

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    G., Stewart, G

    Watson, M. G., Stewart, G. C., Brinkmann, W., & King, A. R. 1986, MNRAS, 222, 261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/222.2.261

    1986 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

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

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

    Wood, C. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc9b3

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    Yan, X., Cui, L., & Ho, L. C. 2025a, ApJ, 983, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc003

    doi

  61. [69]

    P., & Shen, Z.-Q

    Yan, X., Lu, R.-S., Jiang, W., Krichbaum, T. P., & Shen, Z.-Q. 2023, ApJ, 957, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf8c1

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2025b, ApJ, 991, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf84c

    Yan, X., Cui, L., Hada, K., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 991, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf84c

    doi

  63. [71]

    2026, ApJL, 1006, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae80c8

    Yan, X., Cui, L., Jiang, W., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1006, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae80c8

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.