Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Peculiar radio-bright behaviour of the Galactic black hole transient 4U 1543-47 in the 2021-2023 outburst

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 black hole transient 4U 1543–47 shows a radio–X-ray correlation steeper than the canonical one and a ~0.9 dex radio brightness swing, which the authors attribute to a compact jet whose Lorentz factor varies between 1 and ~2.

desk verdict Useful dataset and an empirical slope, but the Lorentz-factor claim leans on one steep-spectrum epoch that looks like a flare, not a compact jet. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04917 v1 pith:6SI2RNMP submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.HE

X. Zhang , W. Yu , F. Carotenuto , S. E. Motta , R. Fender , J. C. A. Miller-Jones , T. D. Russell , A. Bahramian
show 3 more authors
P. Woudt A. K. Hughes G. R. Sivakoff
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinariescompactjetsradio/X-raycorrelationDopplerboostingLorentzfactor4U1543-47accretiondisc-jetcouplingMeerKATmonitoring
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

This paper reports on the 2021–2023 outburst of the Galactic black hole X-ray binary 4U 1543–47, which was monitored at radio wavelengths at roughly weekly cadence for about a year and a half while X-ray monitoring continued. In the hard spectral state, across about three orders of magnitude in X-ray luminosity, the quasi-simultaneous radio and X-ray luminosities follow $L_R \propto L_X^{0.82\pm0.09}$, steeper than the canonical $L_R \propto L_X^{0.6}$ relation for black hole X-ray binaries. At a given X-ray luminosity, the radio luminosity also spans about 0.9 dex in normalization, making the source unusually radio-bright among both black hole and neutron star transients. After checking with higher-resolution observations that the radio emission is not contaminated by discrete ejections, the authors interpret the brightness swing as Doppler boosting by a compact jet whose bulk Lorentz factor varies between roughly 1 and 2 in this nearly face-on system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the compact, continuously replenished synchrotron jet of the hard state, which emits a flat or slightly inverted radio spectrum. The identity that carries the argument is the Doppler-boosting relation $L_{\rm obs}=L_{\rm int}D^{n-\alpha_s}$, with $n=2$ for a continuous jet and $D=[\Gamma(1-(v/c)\cos\theta)]^{-1}$, together with the assumed standard correlation index $\beta=0.61$ used to define the radio normalization $N_R$. This machinery converts the measured $\sim0.9$ dex spread in $N_R$ at fixed X-ray luminosity into a range of bulk Lorentz factors, $\Gamma\approx1$ to $\sim2$, once a small inclination angle is assumed.

What would settle it

Very long baseline interferometry observations during a future hard-state reflare, repeated on timescales of days, would settle the question: if the radio-brightest epochs resolve into discrete components moving away from the core, or if the brightness changes come with spectral-index variations that a single Doppler-boosted core cannot reproduce, the variable-Lorentz-factor explanation is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using nineteen quasi-simultaneous radio/X-ray pairs from the hard state, the paper finds that 4U 1543–47 sits systematically above the radio/X-ray correlation of the general X-ray binary sample, with a fitted power-law index of $0.82\pm0.09$. Fitting the same data with the canonical index fixed at 0.61 gives radio normalizations that differ by $\sim0.9$ dex between the faintest and brightest epochs. The authors show that three high-resolution ATCA epochs reveal no additional jet components and flat radio spectra, so the measured flux is attributed to a single compact core jet. Relating the observed and intrinsic radio luminosities through the Doppler factor $L_{\rm obs}=L_{\rm int}D^{n-\alpha_s}$ with $n=2$ for a continuous jet, and taking a low jet inclination of about $15^\circ$, the highest-normalization epoch corresponds to $D\approx3$ and $\Gamma\approx1.9$. The conclusion is that the compact jet's Lorentz factor varies in the range between 1 and about 2 during the hard state, producing the peculiar radio-bright and variable behaviour.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the 1.28 GHz radio flux is emitted by a single unresolved compact core jet and that the roughly 0.9 dex spread in radio normalization at fixed X-ray luminosity is caused by Doppler boosting from a jet whose speed changes, rather than by unresolved discrete ejections, changes in intrinsic jet power, or changes in jet inclination; the Lorentz factors are derived from the same normalizations whose scatter they are meant to explain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single source can move by roughly a factor of eight in radio luminosity at fixed X-ray luminosity while remaining in the hard state, so one-epoch radio/X-ray points can misplace a source in the standard versus radio-quiet/outlier branches.
  • The correlation index steeper than 0.6 implies that the mapping between accretion flow luminosity and jet power is not universal; radiative efficiency or jet power injection must vary with accretion rate.
  • Compact jets in the hard state can have bulk Lorentz factors up to about 2, meaning relativistic beaming matters even for 'compact' jets and can affect measured fluxes and inferred jet powers.
  • The nearly face-on orientation of 4U 1543–47 is what makes the Lorentz-factor variation visible as a large normalization swing, so geometry should be considered when comparing radio loudness across sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fitted slope of $0.82\pm0.09$ may itself be biased by the same Doppler boosting, since the boosting factor varies from epoch to epoch; if the intrinsic jet power is more tightly coupled to X-ray luminosity, correcting for the inferred Lorentz factors could bring the slope closer to the canonical value.
  • If the variable-Lorentz-factor picture is right, black hole transients viewed at high inclination should show much less radio normalization scatter than 4U 1543–47, a prediction that can be tested with a sample of hard-state sources with known inclinations.
  • The nearly factor-of-eight radio swing provides a caution for population studies that use single-epoch radio/X-ray pairs to classify sources as radio-bright or radio-quiet, and suggests that classification should use the maximum or time-averaged radio luminosity.
  • Re-analyzing the same light curves with a full jet model that fits Lorentz factor, inclination, and intrinsic power simultaneously would separate the Doppler-boosting contribution from possible changes in jet power, something the two-normalization approach cannot do by itself.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports radio and X-ray monitoring of the black hole transient 4U 1543–47 across its 2021–2023 outburst, using MeerKAT L-band observations and ATCA 5.5/9 GHz snapshots together with Swift/XRT and NICER pointed X-ray spectra. For the hard state, the authors construct 19 quasi-simultaneous radio–X-ray pairs and fit log L_R = β(log L_X − 34) + N_R, obtaining β = 0.82 ± 0.09, steeper than the canonical ~0.6. They then fix β = 0.61, fit a per-epoch radio normalization N_R, and find a spread of ~0.9 dex between the lowest and highest normalizations. Interpreting this spread as Doppler boosting of a compact jet, they derive a variable Lorentz factor in the range 1–2. They argue against discrete-ejection contamination based on three ATCA epochs with 'rather flat' spectra.

Significance. The monitoring campaign is valuable: the hard-state coverage spans about three orders of magnitude in X-ray luminosity for a single source, with public data, quasi-simultaneous radio/X-ray pairs, and independent ATCA cross-checks. If the slope is robust, the paper adds a clear single-source example of a radio–X-ray correlation steeper than the canonical value, with implications for disc–jet coupling. The Lorentz factor interpretation, however, is the least supported part of the paper; it rests on identifying every radio measurement as compact-core emission and on attributing the full normalization scatter to beaming. The central interpretation therefore needs a robustness analysis before the paper can be accepted as published.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1 (MJD 59742)] The highest-radio-flux epoch, 2022 June 12, contradicts the flat-spectrum compact-jet assumption. MeerKAT measured S_1.28 = 29.886 ± 0.024 mJy at MJD 59742.9142, while ATCA 12.6 h earlier measured S_5.5 = 5.95 ± 0.06 mJy and S_9 = 4.68 ± 0.04 mJy, implying α(1.28–5.5) ≈ −1.1 and α(5.5–9) ≈ −0.49. This is an optically thin, steep spectrum rather than the flat/inverted spectrum expected from a compact jet. The statement in Section 3.2 that 'the spectral indices were rather flat' is therefore not supported for this epoch. Because this epoch has the highest MeerKAT flux, it is likely the main driver of the claimed 0.9-dex normalization spread and of the derived Γ ≈ 1.9. The authors should refit after removing or down-weighting this epoch and discuss the spectral inconsistency; if this is an unresolved discrete ejection, converting the L-band flux to 5 GHz with the in-band MeerKAT index would overestimate the core luminosity by roughly a factor of five.
  2. [Section 3.2] The Lorentz-factor inference is underdetermined as presented. The normalization N_R is fitted per epoch with the slope fixed to 0.61, and the spread of those fitted values is then converted into Doppler factors using L_obs = L_int D^{n−α_s}. This procedure assumes that the lowest-normalization pair is intrinsically unboosted and that all of the scatter is beaming, with no independent constraint on intrinsic jet-power variations or unresolved components. The paper mentions varying inclination angle or precession as alternatives but does not test them. The claim of a variable Lorentz factor in the range 1–2 needs either independent evidence (e.g., variability timescales, resolved jet kinematics, or a model that excludes intrinsic power changes) or a more cautious statement of what the data can and cannot constrain.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 2] The 0.82 ± 0.09 slope is derived from 19 selected quasi-simultaneous pairs, with non-detections excluded and an ad hoc 0.3-dex systematic added to both coordinates. The paper should specify exactly which epochs enter the fit and how the 19 pairs were selected. The fit should also be repeated without the MJD 59742 epoch to test whether the steeper-than-canonical slope and the large normalization spread are driven by a single high-flux point; this is a necessary robustness check because that epoch is spectrally inconsistent with the compact-jet assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption has a typo, 'nomalisations' should be 'normalizations', and the caption refers to 'red dotted lines' while the text in Section 3.2 refers to 'parallel red dotted lines' and 'red dashed lines'; please make the notation consistent.
  2. [Section 2.1.2 and Table 1] The ATCA 2022 June 12 observation is quoted as MJD 59742.57 ± 0.18 in the text but as MJD 59742.39 in Table 1; please reconcile the two values.
  3. [Table 2] Table 2 would be easier to use in a machine-readable format; the current rendering has irregular spacing and some uncertainty entries are difficult to parse.
  4. [References and Section 3.2] The reference 'Zhang et al. 2024, to submit' is used for the superluminal ejection and the system inclination; since the Lorentz factor interpretation depends on the inclination, this unpublished work should be cited with a preprint number or the dependence should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Lorentz-factor range 1–2 is the fitted 0.9-dex radio normalization scatter restated via the Doppler model, with the jet inclination deferred to an unpublished self-citation; the 0.82 ± 0.09 slope itself is an independent, non-circular fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, 'Clues to a variable Lorentz factor of the compact jets', radio-normalization fitting paragraph.]
    "The radio/X-ray luminosity pair with the lowest normalization N_R is∼28.182±0.040, probably indicative of the intrinsic luminosity of the 4U 1543−47 in hard state; the highest normalization N_R reached 29.072±0.004, differs from the lowest by∼0.9 dex ... the pair with the highest normalization (i.e., boosted most under the form of D^{n−α_s}) has a Doppler factor of∼3 with Lorentz factor of∼1.9 (∼0.85 c; corresponds to the highest Lorentz factor of all pairs)"

    The Lorentz-factor range 1–2 is not an independent measurement; it is derived from the spread of N_R values fitted for each data pair with the slope fixed at 0.61. By the paper's own relation L_obs = L_int D^{n−α_s} (n=2), with the lowest pair assigned D=1 and called the 'intrinsic luminosity', the fitted 0.9-dex spread deterministically sets D_max ≈ 3 and Γ ≈ 1.9 at the assumed small inclination. The claimed finding is thus the fitted normalization scatter restated in other units: ΔN_R = (n−α_s) log₁₀ D_max, so any set with this fitted spread yields the same Γ range under the model.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Conclusions, final paragraph.]
    "Since the source is found with a nearly face-on jet inclination angle from the measurements of proper motion of discrete jet ejections (detailed in a separate paper Zhang et al. 2024), the radio bright behaviour and large scattering in the radio luminosity of the radio emission can be explained by a variable Lorentz factor, in the range between 1 and∼ 2, of the compact jet emission with a small jet inclination angle of 4U 1543−47."

    The conversion of the fitted Doppler factor (~3) into the quoted Lorentz factor (~1.9) requires assuming a small jet inclination angle, and that angle is not measured in this paper: it is deferred to Zhang et al. 2024 ('to submit'), an unpublished companion paper with overlapping authorship. Since D = Γ^{−1}[1−(v/c)cosθ]^{−1} depends on θ, the specific Γ value rests on a self-citation that is not yet externally verifiable. The dependence is partial rather than total: within the allowed range θ ≲ 19.7° the implied Γ stays in the qualitative 1–2 band, so the self-citation is load-bearing for the precision of the claim, not for the existence of beaming.

full rationale

The empirical slope 0.82 ± 0.09 in the hard state is a direct ODR fit to 19 quasi-simultaneous MeerKAT and NICER/Swift measurements across ~3 decades in X-ray luminosity; it does not reduce to its inputs and is not circular. The circularity is confined to the interpretation of that correlation's scatter in Section 3.2. There the authors fit N_R for each data pair with the slope fixed at 0.61, take the 0.9-dex spread of those fitted normalizations as the dynamical range of the radio jet, and convert that same spread into a Doppler factor (≈3) and Lorentz factor (≈1.9) via L_obs = L_int D^{n−α_s} with n=2 and with the lowest pair assumed to be the unbeamed intrinsic luminosity. Because ΔN_R = (n−α_s) log₁₀ D_max by the paper's own formulas, the claimed Γ ∈ [1, 2] is the fitted normalization spread re-expressed under the model; the alternative that the scatter is intrinsic jet-power variation or unresolved discrete ejections is acknowledged but not tested. The D→Γ conversion additionally requires the jet inclination, which is taken from Zhang et al. 2024 ('to submit'), an unpublished companion paper by overlapping authors — load-bearing for the specific Γ ≈ 1.9 value. Separately (a correctness concern, not circularity): the highest-normalization epoch MJD 59742 has S₁.₂₈ = 29.9 mJy at MeerKAT against S₅.₅ = 5.95 mJy at ATCA 12.6 h earlier, implying a steep cross-band index ≈ −1.1 that contradicts the 'rather flat' compact-jet premise used for the 1.28→5 GHz conversion; if that epoch were an ejection, the 0.9-dex spread and the Γ range would both shrink, and the three ATCA epochs cannot certify the other 16 epochs. These caveats reinforce the partial circularity but do not by themselves create it. Verdict: the slope stands as independent content; the headline Lorentz-factor claim is partially forced by construction and by an unpublished self-citation — score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's observational core rests on standard astrophysical assumptions, one fitted slope, and a per-epoch normalization array. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The main burden is that the Lorentz factor range is derived from the fitted normalization spread, so the ledger counts N_R as a free parameter rather than an independent constraint.

free parameters (3)
  • Power-law slope beta = 0.82 +/- 0.09
    Fitted by ODR to 19 quasi-simultaneous hard-state radio/X-ray pairs; this is the central measured quantity, not an ad hoc input.
  • Per-epoch radio normalization N_R = spread about 28.18 to 29.07 dex
    Fitted for each data pair with slope fixed to 0.61; the 0.9 dex spread is later converted into Doppler factors and a Lorentz factor range, so the Gamma claim depends on this fitted quantity.
  • Added systematic uncertainty = 0.3 dex
    A hand-chosen addition to radio and X-ray luminosity errors to account for non-simultaneity and cross-instrument systematics; it affects the fitted slope uncertainty and scatter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 1.28 GHz radio flux traces a single compact core jet with no significant contamination by discrete ejections.
    Section 3.2; ATCA observations at three epochs found no extra components, but not all radio-bright epochs were imaged at high resolution, and unresolved ejecta could mimic radio brightness.
  • standard math A Doppler boosting relation L_obs = L_int D^(n-alpha_s) with n=2 and the measured spectral index describes the compact jet emission.
    Section 3.2; standard jet theory from Fender 2006, but the model parameters are assumed, not measured for this jet.
  • domain assumption The radio and X-ray observations within one day are quasi-simultaneous and the 0.3 dex systematic accounts for the mismatch.
    Section 3.2; rapid intraday radio variability would add scatter and could change the fitted slope and normalization spread.
  • domain assumption The distance to the source is 5 kpc, from Gaia parallax with a low-mass XRB prior.
    Section 1.1 and 3.2; the authors also show results for 7.5 kpc. Slope is distance-independent, but absolute radio brightness and the comparison with the sample depend on distance.
  • domain assumption The canonical radio/X-ray slope of 0.61 is the correct baseline for measuring the source's radio normalization spread.
    Section 3.2; if the source's intrinsic slope were 0.82 rather than 0.61, the per-pair normalizations and the resulting Lorentz factor range would change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Peculiar radio-bright behaviour of the Galactic black hole transient 4U 1543-47 in the 2021-2023 outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SI2RNMP

@misc{pith2026250104917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Peculiar radio-bright behaviour of the Galactic black hole transient 4U 1543-47 in the 2021-2023 outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SI2RNMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04917}
}
abstract

Correlated behaviours between the radio emission and the X-ray emission in Galactic black hole X-ray binaries (BH XRBs) in the X-ray hard state are crucial to the understanding of disc-jet coupling of accreting black holes. The BH transient 4U 1543-47 went into outburst in 2021 following ~19 years of quiescence. We followed it up with ~weekly cadence with MeerKAT for about one year and a half until it faded into quiescence. Multi-epoch quasi-simultaneous MeerKAT and X-ray observations allowed us to trace the compact jet emission and its X-ray emission. In its hard spectral state across three orders of magnitude of X-ray luminosities above ~10$^{34}$ ergs/s, we found the correlation between radio and X-ray emission had a power-law index of 0.82$\pm$0.09, steeper than the canonical value of ~0.6 for BH XRBs. In addition, the radio vs. X-ray correlation shows a large range of the power-law normalization, with the maximum significantly larger than that obtained for most BH XRBs, indicating it can be particularly radio-bright and variable in the X-ray binary sample. The radio emission is unlikely diluted by discrete jet components. The observed peculiar radio-bright and variable behaviours provide the evidence for the relativistic effects of a variable Lorentz factor in the range between 1 and ~2 of the compact jet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The radio and X-ray multi-instrument light curves. First panel: MAXI 2–10 keV one-day-averaged light curve (shown with black filled circles) and BAT 15–50 keV one-day-averaged light curve (shown with gray filled circles) of 4U 1543−47 throughout the 2021–2023 outburst. Second panel: Hardness ratio calculated as BAT 15–50 keV intensity over MAXI 2–10 keV intensity. Third panel: NICER (gray filled circles) and Swift/X… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The radio/X-ray luminosity behaviours for a sample of BH XRBs (black filled circles) and NS XRBs (black filled squares) as collected in Bahramian et al. (2018). The gray dashed line shows the power-law fit ( 𝐿𝑅 ∝ 𝐿 0.61 𝑋 ) for ‘radio-loud’ track quiescent/hard state BHs collected in Bahramian et al. (2018). The hard state radio and X-ray luminosity measurements of 4U 1543−47 are overplotted, using distances of 5 kp… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    Atri P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3116A 489, 3116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2335 2019

  4. [4]

    Bahramian A., et al., 2018, Radio/X-ray correlation database for X-ray binaries , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1252036 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1252036

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1252036 2018

  5. [5]

    Bahramian A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accde1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948L...7B 948, L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accde1 2023

  6. [6]

    M., 2010, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries

    Belloni T. M., 2010, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries . Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, p. 53, @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 2010

  7. [7]

    M., Motta S

    Belloni T. M., Motta S. E., 2016, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science Library] 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_2 , p. 61–97

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_2 2016

  8. [8]

    D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    Blandford R. D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    Briggs D. S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    1995

  2. [10]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 , 4, 697–703

    Bright J. S., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 , 4, 697–703

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Brocksopp C., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.331..765B 331, 765

    2002

  4. [12]

    CASA Team et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134k4501C 134, 114501

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Carotenuto F., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504..444C 504, 444

    doi

  6. [14]

    Carotenuto F., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505L..58C 505, L58

    doi

  7. [15]

    Casella P., Pe’er A., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/l63 , 703, L63–L66

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Livio M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...491..312C 491, 312

    Chen W., Shrader C. R., Livio M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...491..312C 491, 312

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Tzioumis A

    Corbel S., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Nowak M., McIntyre V., Durouchoux P., Sood R., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359..251C 359, 251

    2000

  10. [18]

    A., Fender R

    Corbel S., Nowak M. A., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Markoff S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...400.1007C 400, 1007

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Tomsick J

    Corbel S., Fender R. P., Tomsick J. A., Tzioumis A. K., Tingay S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617.1272C 617, 1272

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Fender R

    Corbel S., Coriat M., Brocksopp C., Tzioumis A. K., Fender R. P., Tomsick J. A., Buxton M. M., Bailyn C. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2500C 428, 2500

    2013 doi

  13. [23]

    F., Rodr \' guez L

    Dhawan V., Mirabel I. F., Rodr \' guez L. F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543..373D 543, 373

    2000 doi

  14. [24]

    A., Steiner J

    Dong Y., Garc \' a J. A., Steiner J. F., Gou L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4409D 493, 4409

    2020 doi

  15. [25]

    Espinasse M., Fender R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4122E 473, 4122

    2018 doi

  16. [26]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

    Evans P. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

    2007 doi

  17. [29]

    39, Compact stellar X-ray sources

    Fender R., 2006, in , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. Cambridge University Press, pp 381--419, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303339

    2006 doi arXiv

  18. [30]

    P., Garrington S

    Fender R. P., Garrington S. T., McKay D. J., Muxlow T. W. B., Pooley G. G., Spencer R. E., Stirling A. M., Waltman E. B., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02364.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..865F 304, 865

    1999

  19. [31]

    P., Pooley G

    Fender R. P., Pooley G. G., Durouchoux P., Tilanus R. P. J., Brocksopp C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03219.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.312..853F 312, 853

    2000

  20. [32]

    P., Belloni T

    Fender R. P., Belloni T. M., Gallo E., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x , 355, 1105–1118

    2004

  21. [33]

    P., Gallo E., Russell D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16754.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1425F 406, 1425

    Fender R. P., Gallo E., Russell D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16754.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1425F 406, 1425

    2010

  22. [34]

    Fender R., et al., 2017, ThunderKAT: The MeerKAT Large Survey Project for Image-Plane Radio Transients ( @eprint arXiv 1711.04132 )

    2017 arXiv

  23. [36]

    P., Fender R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20899.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..590G 423, 590

    Gallo E., Miller B. P., Fender R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20899.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..590G 423, 590

    2012

  24. [37]

    Gallo E., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1599 , 445, 290–300

    2014 doi

  25. [38]

    Gallo E., Degenaar N., van den Eijnden J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478L.132G 478, L132

    2018 doi

  26. [39]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  27. [40]

    C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W

    Gendreau K. C., et al., 2016, in den Herder J.-W. A., Takahashi T., Bautz M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. p. 99051H, @doi 10.1117/12.2231304

    2016 doi

  28. [41]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.116H 594, A116

    2016 doi

  29. [42]

    C., Hunstead R

    Hannikainen D. C., Hunstead R. W., Campbell-Wilson D., Sood R. K., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...337..460H 337, 460

    1998

  30. [43]

    A., Wilson R

    Harmon B. A., Wilson R. B., Finger M. H., Paciesas W. S., Rubin B. C., Fishman G. J., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992IAUC.5510....2H 5510, 2

    1992

  31. [44]

    A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06918.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343L..59H 343, L59

    Heinz S., Sunyaev R. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06918.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343L..59H 343, L59

    2003

  32. [45]

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

    2020

  33. [46]

    M., Rupen M

    Hjellming R. M., Rupen M. P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1038/375464a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.375..464H 375, 464

    1995 doi

  34. [47]

    Homan J., Wijnands R., van der Klis M., Belloni T., van Paradijs J., Klein-Wolt M., Fender R., M \'e ndez M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJS..132..377H 132, 377

    2001 doi

  35. [48]

    L., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1522J 97, 1522

    Jonas J. L., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1522J 97, 1522

    2009

  36. [49]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15717.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1255J 401, 1255

    Jonker P. G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15717.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1255J 401, 1255

    2010

  37. [50]

    Kitamoto S., Miyamoto S., Tsunemi H., Makishima K., Nakagawa M., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PASJ...36..799K 36, 799

    1984

  38. [51]

    A., Giacconi R., Gursky H., Kellogg E

    Matilsky T. A., Giacconi R., Gursky H., Kellogg E. M., Tananbaum H. D., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...174L..53M 174, L53

    1972 doi

  39. [52]

    Matsuoka M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASJ...61..999M 61, 999

    2009 doi

  40. [53]

    P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R

    McMullin J. P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R. A., Hill F., Bell D. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 127

    2007

  41. [54]

    Merloni A., Heinz S., di Matteo T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1057M 345, 1057

    2003

  42. [55]

    Meyer-Hofmeister E., Meyer F., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322423 , 562, A142

    2014 doi

  43. [56]

    M., Remillard R

    Miller J. M., Remillard R. A., 2002, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002IAUC.7920....2M 7920, 2

    2002

  44. [58]

    F., Rodr \' guez L

    Mirabel I. F., Rodr \' guez L. F., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1038/371046a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Natur.371...46M 371, 46

    1994 doi

  45. [59]

    M., Motta S

    Monageng I. M., Motta S. E., Fender R., Yu W., Woudt P. A., Tremou E., Miller-Jones J. C. A., van der Horst A. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5776M 501, 5776

    2021 doi

  46. [60]

    E., Casella P., Fender R

    Motta S. E., Casella P., Fender R. P., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1440 , 478, 5159–5173

    2018 doi

  47. [61]

    Negoro H., et al., 2021a, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14701....1N 14701, 1

  48. [62]

    Negoro H., et al., 2021b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14708....1N 14708, 1

  49. [63]

    A., 2003, in A Massive Star Odyssey: From Main Sequence to Supernova

    Orosz J. A., 2003, in A Massive Star Odyssey: From Main Sequence to Supernova. p. 365 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209041 )

    2003 arXiv

  50. [64]

    A., Polisensky E

    Orosz J. A., Polisensky E. J., Bailyn C. D., Tourtellotte S. W., McClintock J. E., Remillard R. A., 2002, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 15.11

    2002

  51. [65]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , 44, 49–92

    2006 arXiv

  52. [66]

    Ritter H., Kolb U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...404..301R 404, 301

    2003 doi

  53. [67]

    C., Tomsick J

    Rodriguez J., Bel M. C., Tomsick J. A., Corbel S., Brocksopp C., Paizis A., Shaw S. E., Bodaghee A., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/511819 , 655, L97–L100

    2007 doi

  54. [68]

    D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1745R 450, 1745

    Russell T. D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1745R 450, 1745

    2015 doi

  55. [69]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36 , 883, 198

    Russell T. D., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36 , 883, 198

    2019 doi

  56. [70]

    W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...34S 907, 34

    Shaw A. W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...34S 907, 34

    2021 doi

  57. [71]

    Soleri P., Fender R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18303.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.2269S 413, 2269

    2011

  58. [72]

    M., Spencer R

    Stirling A. M., Spencer R. E., de la Force C. J., Garrett M. A., Fender R. P., Ogley R. N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04821.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.327.1273S 327, 1273

    2001

  59. [73]

    Yan Z., Yu W., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/87 , 805, 87

    2015 doi

  60. [74]

    Zhang X., Yu W., Fender R., Woudt P., Miller-Jones J., Motta S., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14878....1Z 14878, 1

    2021

  61. [75]

    E., Fender R., Woudt P., Miller-Jones J

    Zhang X., Yu W., Motta S. E., Fender R., Woudt P., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Sivakoff G. R., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.1258Z 510, 1258

    doi

  62. [76]

    Zhang X., Yu W., Fender R., Woudt P., Miller-Jones J., Motta S., 2022b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15157....1Z 15157, 1

Pith tools

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