Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Novel Method of Modeling Extended Emission of Compact Jets: Application to Swift J1727.8-1613

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the apparent jet/counterjet brightness asymmetry in Swift J1727.8-1613 is a light-travel effect: the receding jet is seen at an earlier, weaker epoch, and the jets move at about 0.3–0.4 times the speed of light.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new fitting method for resolved compact jets, but the beam convolution in the Swift J1727.8-1613 application is flawed and needs to be redone. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20962 v2 pith:T45CAJJ4 submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.HE

Andrzej A. Zdziarski , Callan M. Wood , Francesco Carotenuto This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords compactjetsX-raybinariessynchrotronself-absorptionBlandford-Königlmodeljet/counterjetasymmetrycoreshiftSwiftJ1727.8-1613magneticflux
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 develops a way to read a compact jet's physics directly from its resolved radio image: instead of using only the frequency-dependent core position, it fits the full spatial profile of flux density along the jet and counterjet with analytical formulae derived from the standard self-absorbed synchrotron model. Applied to Swift J1727.8-1613, the most resolved continuous jet from a stellar-mass black hole, the method yields jet velocities around 0.3–0.4c and implies that the magnetic field strength grew with time. The key finding is that the approaching jet is intrinsically stronger than the receding one even after Doppler factors are included, which the authors attribute to a rise in the radio flux combined with the light-travel delay that makes the receding jet appear at an earlier epoch. A sympathetic reader would care because the technique uses far more of the available information than core-shift methods and is proposed as a general tool for jets from both stellar-mass and supermassive black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the analytical brightness profile $$\frac{dF_\nu}{d|\xi|} = A_1 \$delta^{{1/2}}$ |\xi|^{1 + b/2} \left[1 - \exp\left(-A_2 \$delta^{{1+p/2}}$ |\xi|^{-bp/2 - b - 1}\right)\right],$$ which gives the flux density per unit angular separation along the jet in terms of the Doppler factor $\delta$, the magnetic-field spatial index $b$, the electron power-law index $p$, and two amplitudes $A_1$ and $A_2$ tied to the field strength and mass-flow rate. This profile is convolved with the telescope restoring beam before fitting, and the two jets are allowed to have different parameters so that a time-delay asymmetry can be represented. Fitting $A_1$ and $A_2$ and then inverting the model formulae yields the magnetic field, the effective mass-flow rate, the jet power components, equipartition and magnetization parameters, and the magnetic flux.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to observe Swift J1727.8-1613 with VLBA at two epochs separated by about the light-travel lag, roughly one day, while the radio flux is changing: the steady-state-plus-delay model predicts that the counterjet profile at the later epoch should match the approaching-jet profile at the earlier epoch after beam convolution, and that the asymmetry should track the derivative of the radio light curve. A persistent asymmetry in the opposite sense to the flux derivative, or an asymmetry that persists when the flux is flat, would falsify the time-delay interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the spatial distribution of synchrotron flux density along a compact jet can be modelled analytically and fitted to resolved images, and that doing so for Swift J1727.8-1613 reveals an intrinsic jet/counterjet asymmetry. The paper shows that no symmetric steady-state model can reproduce both the approaching and receding profiles: the approaching jet is flatter and stronger at large separations. Because the source's radio flux was rising on roughly a day timescale, matching the light-travel lag between the two jets, the asymmetry is interpreted as evolution of the same underlying jet seen at different epochs. The best-fit solutions give a bulk velocity of about 0.35–0.36c at the adopted inclination of 45 degrees, with the counterjet parameters corresponding to an earlier, weaker state. The inferred magnetic field at the jet base increased by a factor of tens between the counterjet and jet epochs, while the conserved magnetic flux threading the black hole stays well below the magnetically arrested disk limit.

Load-bearing premise

The jets are treated as steady-state flows during the observation, with the entire jet/counterjet difference caused by a time lag between epochs; if the asymmetry instead comes from intrinsic differences between the two sides, the inferred time evolution of the magnetic field would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Swift J1727.8-1613, the jets are slow, with bulk velocity roughly $0.3$–$0.4c$, slower than is often assumed for compact X-ray binary jets.
  • The magnetic field in the jet grew over the roughly one-day light-travel lag between counterjet and jet, while the magnetic flux stayed low; this hard-state jet is not magnetically arrested.
  • The counterjet profile is effectively a time-delayed image of the approaching jet, so a rising or falling radio light curve should control which side appears intrinsically brighter.
  • The method affords an independent route to magnetic field and power estimates that uses the whole spatial profile rather than a single core displacement, and it can be applied to extragalactic jets on parsec scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to observe Swift J1727.8-1613 again with very long baseline interferometry while the radio flux is changing: the time-delay model predicts that the asymmetry should reverse when the light curve turns from rising to falling.
  • With a dense series of images through one radio flare, one could attempt tomographic reconstruction of the evolving magnetic-field profile rather than treating each jet side as a separate steady state.
  • The method's analytical profile assumes self-similar electron reacceleration; the paper itself notes wiggles at large separations that indicate clumpy interstellar-medium interactions, so adding a clump-scattering term seems a testable refinement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 develops an analytical model, based on Blandford & Königl (1979), for the spatial profile dFν/d|ξ| of a compact jet (Eq. 6, Appendix A), convolves it with the VLBI restoring beam (Eq. 8), and fits the result to the 8.37 GHz jet and counterjet profiles of Swift J1727.8–1613 from Wood et al. (2024) using MCMC. Symmetric-jet fits fail clearly (Figs. 3–4), so the authors fit the two jets with independent parameters, finding the approaching jet intrinsically stronger and flatter. They attribute the asymmetry to the observed rise in radio flux combined with a light-travel time lag, derive β≈0.35 at i=45°, and infer B1, ṃeff, jet powers, and magnetic flux, concluding that the magnetic field increased with time and that the magnetic flux is well below the MAD limit.

Significance. If the quantitative results survive scrutiny, the method is a valuable complement to core-shift measurements: it uses the full one-dimensional brightness distribution, gives closed-form expressions for physical quantities (Appendix A), and is generally applicable to XRB and AGN jets. The derivation in Appendix A is complete, the forward-modeling logic is transparent, and the failure of symmetric fits is a robust qualitative result. However, the convolution step in Eq. (8) mis-treats the support of the jet emissivity for asymmetric jets, which can bias exactly the fitted parameter differences on which the central quantitative claim rests; in addition, the time-evolution interpretation is an assumption rather than a fitted result. These issues make the quantitative conclusions tentative pending revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (8)] The convolution is performed on dFν/d|x|, i.e., an even function of x, so the model adds to each side a mirror image of that jet's own emission. For a one-sided jet, the observed approaching-side profile should be ∫_0^∞ G(ξ−x) f_app(x) dx + ∫_0^∞ G(ξ+x) f_rec(x) dx, i.e., direct approaching emission plus physical beam leakage from the counterjet, with the analogous expression for the counterjet side. The current implementation instead adds ∫ G(ξ+x) f_app(x) dx to the approaching side and ∫ G(ξ+x) f_rec(x) dx to the receding side, replacing true cross-contamination with self-mirror terms. With σ_t = 1.06 mas and the fit starting at |ξ′|≈0.5–1 mas, the spurious term is a large fraction of the direct term, so the fitted p, A1, and A2 for the two jets can shift substantially. Since the intrinsic-asymmetry claim and the derived time evolution of B rest on the difference between the two fitted parameter sets, the fits must be redone with the correct one-sided convolution and cross-contamination before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.
  2. [Sections 5–7] The inference that the magnetic field increased with time is not directly fitted. The model treats the jet and counterjet as two independent steady-state solutions with different A1, A2, and p, and the time evolution is imposed post-hoc through the light-travel-time argument. As the authors themselves note in Section 6, a more realistic model would need to couple the time dependence and the time lags; an intrinsically asymmetric steady jet would produce the same type of fit. The abstract and conclusions should therefore state the time-evolution result as an interpretation with substantial systematic uncertainty, not as a direct finding.
  3. [Section 5, Table 2] The systematic uncertainty in the assumed core offset Δξ is not propagated into the derived quantities. The two adopted values, Δξ = 1.5 and 2.0 mas, yield B1_app = 3.3 G versus 9.0 G and ϕ_BH = 0.044 versus 0.12, among other changes. Quoting single numbers in Table 2 understates the model dependence; please present the derived physical quantities with the Δξ systematic included, or state explicitly that the values are conditional on Δξ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The caption's second sentence says 'Figure 7(a) compares the emitted spectra (before smoothing) with the data'; this should refer to Figure 7(b).
  2. [Section 5, MCMC] Convergence is judged by manual inspection that the walkers are 'no longer significantly evolving'; a quantitative convergence criterion (e.g., the Gelman–Rubin statistic) would be more reproducible.
  3. [Equations (6) and (A12)] In Eq. (6) the optical-depth exponent is written −bp/2−b−1, which corresponds to a=2 in Eq. (A12); please state a=2 explicitly in the main-text equation to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 3] The spectral index α = 0.19±0.07 used to fix b = 1.17 was measured four days before the VLBA observation; the paper should note the possible effect of spectral variability on the fixed value of b.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted parameters are forward-model outputs, and the derived physical quantities are obtained by closed-form inversion, not by construction from the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model: it adopts the Blandford-König (1979) / Königl (1981) synchrotron jet formalism, assumes a conical geometry, a power-law electron distribution, a magnetic-field profile B(z)=B1(|z|/z1)^{-b}, and mass-flux conservation, then derives an analytical spatial profile dF_nu/d|xi| (Eq. 6) with fitted constants A1, A2, p, and beta. The spectral index alpha=0.19 is an external input from Miller-Jones et al. (2023) used only to fix b=1.17 via Eq. (A7); it is not an output of the fit. The central claims—intrinsic jet/counterjet asymmetry, low jet velocity ~0.3-0.4c, and the inferred time evolution of the magnetic field—are obtained after the MCMC fit from the fitted parameters, and the physical quantities (B1, mdot_eff, Pi, PB, phi_BH) are computed by solving the closed-form equations (A15)-(A18) and (A26). None of these target quantities is fed back into the definition of the fitted parameters, so the results are not forced by construction. The interpretation of the asymmetry as due to time evolution plus light-travel lag is an explanatory step made after the fit, supported by the independent radio light curve (Hughes et al. 2025) and by the paper's explicit caveat that a more realistic model should include both time dependence and time lags; this weakens robustness but does not make the derivation circular. Self-citations to Zdziarski et al. (2019, 2022) supply the underlying theoretical formulation and order-unity constants, but those are published, parameter-free derivations reproduced in Appendix A, and they do not contain the fitted Swift J1727.8-1613 results. The beam-convolution treatment in Eq. (8), which convolves the symmetric |xi| profile over both signs of xi, is a potential modeling limitation that could bias the fitted asymmetry, but it is a question of model correctness rather than a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Overall, no circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction criterion was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on the Blandford-Koenigl framework, a few measured external inputs (spectral index, mass function), and the key ad hoc assumption that the asymmetry is a time-delay effect modeled by two steady states.

free parameters (15)
  • b (magnetic field power-law index) = 1.17
    Chosen to reproduce the observed spectral index alpha=0.19 (Section 5, Eq. A7).
  • p_app (electron index, approaching jet) = 1.30 (Delta xi=1.5 mas) / 1.45 (Delta xi=2.0 mas)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • p_rec (electron index, receding jet) = 1.52 (Delta xi=1.5) / 1.33 (Delta xi=2.0)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • A1_app (normalization, approaching jet) = 74 mJy/mas (Delta xi=1.5) / 37 (Delta xi=2.0)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • A1_rec (normalization, receding jet) = 260 mJy/mas (Delta xi=1.5) / 280 (Delta xi=2.0)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • A2_app (optical depth scale, approaching) = 0.94 (Delta xi=1.5) / 2.6 (Delta xi=2.0)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • A2_rec (optical depth scale, receding) = 0.11 (Delta xi=1.5) / 0.06 (Delta xi=2.0)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • beta (jet velocity in units of c) = 0.35 (Delta xi=1.5) / 0.36 (Delta xi=2.0)
    Fitted by MCMC (Table 1); increases with assumed inclination.
  • i (inclination) = 45 deg (assumed)
    Assumed from Section 2 constraints; other values tested.
  • theta (half-opening angle) = 0.5 deg (assumed upper limit)
    From W24; affects scaling of derived quantities.
  • D (distance) = 4 kpc (assumed)
    Within the 3.4-5.5 kpc range of MS25 and Burridge et al. (2025).
  • M1 (black hole mass) = 8.2 solar masses (assumed)
    From mass function with f, M2=0.2, i=45 deg.
  • gamma_min, gamma_max = 10, 1e4 (assumed)
    Adopted particle energies.
  • f_e (1+2n+/np) = 1 (assumed)
    All accelerated ions/positrons; may be as low as 0.01.
  • Delta xi (core offset from BH) = 1.5 or 2.0 mas (assumed range)
    From core shift measurement and scaling (Section 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Conical jet with constant velocity and continuous electron reacceleration (Blandford & Koenigl 1979)
    The model in Section 4 and Appendix A assumes energy losses are compensated by reacceleration.
  • standard math Synchrotron emission is treated with the delta-function approximation at the characteristic frequency (Eq. A8)
    Common approximation in compact jet modeling.
  • domain assumption The spectral index alpha=0.19 measured on 2023 August 26 is valid for the VLBA observation on August 30
    Used to fix b=1.17; the source may vary on day timescales.
  • ad hoc to paper The jet/counterjet asymmetry is entirely due to light travel time; each jet is modeled as steady state with distinct parameters
    Section 6: authors acknowledge a full time-dependent model is not used and parameters are tentative.
  • standard math Standard synchrotron self-absorption radiative transfer formula (Eqs. A9-A10)
    From Zdziarski et al. (2019) and synchrotron theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Method of Modeling Extended Emission of Compact Jets: Application to Swift J1727.8-1613." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T45CAJJ4

@misc{pith2026250420962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Method of Modeling Extended Emission of Compact Jets: Application to Swift J1727.8-1613},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T45CAJJ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20962}
}
abstract

Flat radio spectra of compact jets launched by both supermassive and stellar-mass black holes are explained by an interplay of self-absorbed synchrotron emission up to some distance along the jet and optically thin synchrotron at larger distances (Blandford & Konigl 1979). Their spatial structure is usually studied using core shifts, in which the position of the peak (core) of the emission depends on the frequency. Here, we propose a novel method to fit the spatial dependence of the flux density at a given frequency of the jet and counterjet (when observed) using the theoretical spatial dependencies, which we provide as simple analytical formulae. We apply our method to the spatial structure of the jets in the luminous hard spectral state of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613. It was the most resolved continuous jet from an X-ray binary ever observed. We find that the observed approaching jet is significantly intrinsically stronger than the receding one, which we attribute to an increase in the emission of both jets with time (observationally confirmed), together with the light travel effect, causing the receding jet to be observed at an earlier epoch than the approaching one. The jets are relatively slow, with the velocity $\sim(0.3$-$0.4)c$. Our findings imply that the magnetic field strength increased with time. Also, the magnetic flux is much lower than in jets launched by `Magnetically Arrested Disks'. Our method is general, and we propose that it be applied to jets launched by stellar-mass and supermassive black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20962 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) M1(i) from the mass function assuming the up￾per limit on f and M2 = 0.78M⊙ and the lower limit on f and M2 = 0.2M⊙, shown by the upper and lower blue curves, respec￾tively. (b) The solid and dashed red curves give the upper limit on i(D) from the angular velocity of the fastest knot observed by Wood et al. (2025) for the best fit of µ and their limits, respectively, see Equation (3). The blue solid curves give … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The emission profiles at 8.37 GHz of the jet and coun￾terjet (W24) adopting the zero point of W24, determined by fitting a Gaussian to central data. The horizontal black line corresponds to the noise level. (a) The angular separation from the center of the core is plotted linearly. (b) The angular separation is in the logarith￾mic scale, with the red and blue points corresponding, respectively, to the approaching an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The emission profiles of the jet (red) and counterjet (blue) compared to our model assuming symmetric jets and ∆ξ = 0. We required the model to reproduce the range of |ξ| ≲ 1, in which case the approaching jet model completely misses the profile at |ξ| ≳ 2. For clarity, the error bars are not shown. 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 1 2 5 10 20 50 ÈΞÈ @masD d F͐d ÈΞÈ @mJymasD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The emission profiles of the jet (red) and counterjet (blue) compared with our model assuming symmetric jets and ∆ξ = 1.5 mas, i = 45◦ and β = 0.35. We found that any symmetric model fitting the counterjet misses the jet profile for any ∆ξ. 5. RESULTS Here, we assume b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radio light curve compiled from different measure￾ments (Hughes & et al. 2025), including those reported in W24. The VLBA observation is shown by the black cross with an error bar. The measurements at 5–9 GHz, 3 GHz, and 1.3–1.5 GHz are shown by red open squares, g…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The model emission profiles of the jet (red) and coun￾terjet (blue) for ∆ξ = 1.5 mas, and with the same parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The profiles fitted to separations of |ξ ′ | ≤ 4 and 6 mas for the jet and counterjet, respectively (shown by the vertical dot￾dashed lines) for ∆ξ = 1.5 mas (top), and ∆ξ = 2.0 mas (bottom). We allow for different parameters of the jet and counterjet, see [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlations between the main parameters calculated by MCMC. The median values and the ≈ 1σ uncertainties are shown by the middle and surrounding dashed lines, respectively. The corresponding numerical values are given by the posterior distributions. (a) The fit with ∆…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (b) The fit with ∆ξ = 2.0 mas . Reid, M. J., & Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0c Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 Sironi, L., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 54…

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. Testing the Lense-Thirring Precession Origin of the QPO in Swift J1727.8$-$1613

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The corona radius from spectral fits in Swift J1727.8-1613 tracks the QPO frequency with the Lense-Thirring precession slope, supporting that model for this source.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Atri , P., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., et al. 2020, , 493, L81, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa010

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa010 2020

  2. [2]

    M., Press , W

    Bardeen , J. M., Press , W. H., & Teukolsky , S. A. 1972, , 178, 347, 10.1086/151796

    doi:10.1086/151796 1972

  3. [3]

    2024, , 977, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9277

    Barnier , S., & Done , C. 2024, , 977, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9277

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9277 2024

  4. [4]

    S., & Ruzmaikin , A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S., & Ruzmaikin , A. A. 1974, , 28, 45, 10.1007/BF00642237

    doi:10.1007/bf00642237 1974

  5. [5]

    D., & K\" o nigl , A

    Blandford , R. D., & K\" o nigl , A. 1979, , 232, 34, 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  6. [6]

    J., Miller-Jones , J

    Burridge , B. J., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06448, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06448

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06448 2025

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Carotenuto , F., Fender , R., Tetarenko , A. J., et al. 2024, , 533, 4188, 10.1093/mnras/stae2049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2049 2024

  8. [8]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy , A

    Davis , S. W., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2020, , 58, 407, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905 2020

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    2003, , 342, 1041, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06614.x

    Done , C., & Gierli \'n ski , M. 2003, , 342, 1041, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06614.x

    2003

  2. [10]

    2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done , C., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Kubota , A. 2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Belloni , T

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

    2004

  4. [12]

    P., Pooley , G

    Fender , R. P., Pooley , G. G., Durouchoux , P., Tilanus , R. P. J., & Brocksopp , C. 2000, , 312, 853, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03219.x

    2000

  5. [13]

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

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

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, , 684, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    Fortin , F., Kalsi , A., Garc \' a , F., Simaz-Bunzel , A., & Chaty , S. 2024, , 684, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Alexander , P., Pooley , G

    Hardcastle , M. J., Alexander , P., Pooley , G. G., & Riley , J. M. 1998, , 296, 445, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01480.x

    1998

  8. [16]

    A., Craig , W

    Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2006, , 636, 316, 10.1086/497954

    Heinz , S. 2006, , 636, 316, 10.1086/497954

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Johnston , K

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

    1988 doi

  11. [19]

    K., & et al

    Hughes , A. K., & et al. 2025, , submitted

    2025

  12. [20]

    2024, , 968, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    Ingram , A., Bollemeijer , N., Veledina , A., et al. 2024, , 968, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Marscher , A

    Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., Lister , M. L., et al. 2005, , 130, 1418, 10.1086/444593

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    1981, , 243, 700, 10.1086/158638

    K\" o nigl , A. 1981, , 243, 700, 10.1086/158638

    1981 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Homan , D

    Lister , M. L., Homan , D. C., Hovatta , T., et al. 2019, , 874, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08ee

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03834, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03834

    Liu , H.-X., Xu , Y.-J., Zhang , S.-N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03834, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03834

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lobanov , A. P. 1998, , 330, 79. astro-ph/9712132

    1998 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Maccarone , T. J. 2003, , 409, 697, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    Mata S \'a nchez , D., Torres , M. A. P., Casares , J., et al. 2025, , 693, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451960

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2009, , 61, 999, 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    Matsuoka , M., Kawasaki , K., Ueno , S., et al. 2009, , 61, 999, 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Cooper , A

    Matthews , J. H., Cooper , A. J., Rhodes , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10802, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10802

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    A., Zi \'o kowski , J., Torres , M

    Miko ajewska , J., Zdziarski , A. A., Zi \'o kowski , J., Torres , M. A. P., & Casares , J. 2022, , 930, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6099

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Blundell , K. M., & Duffy , P. 2004, , 603, L21, 10.1086/382954

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

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

    2006

  25. [33]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Sivakoff , G. R., Bahramian , A., & Russell , T. D. 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, 16211, 1

    2023

  26. [34]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., Orosz , J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, 10.1126/science.abb3363

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Riley , J

    Mullin , L. M., Riley , J. M., & Hardcastle , M. J. 2008, , 390, 595, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13534.x

    2008

  28. [36]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 55, L69, 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Dichiara , S., Gropp , J

    Page , K. L., Dichiara , S., Gropp , J. D., et al. 2023, GRB Circular, 34537, 1

    2023

  30. [38]

    J., Belloni , T., et al

    Paragi , Z., van der Horst , A. J., Belloni , T., et al. 2013, , 432, 1319, 10.1093/mnras/stt545

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, , 686, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450566

    Podgorn \'y , J., Svoboda , J., Dov c iak , M., et al. 2024, , 686, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450566

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    2015, , 453, 4070, 10.1093/mnras/stv1657

    ---. 2015, , 453, 4070, 10.1093/mnras/stv1657

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

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

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    B., Kovalev , Y

    Pushkarev , A. B., Kovalev , Y. Y., Lister , M. L., & Savolainen , T. 2009, , 507, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913422

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    J., McClintock , J

    Reid , M. J., McClintock , J. E., Steiner , J. F., et al. 2014, , 796, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/2

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    J., & Miller-Jones , J

    Reid , M. J., & Miller-Jones , J. C. A. 2023, , 959, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0c

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    2013, , 771, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    Sironi , L., Spitkovsky , A., & Arons , J. 2013, , 771, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Spencer , R

    Stirling , A. M., Spencer , R. E., de la Force , C. J., et al. 2001, , 327, 1273, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04821.x

    2001

  40. [49]

    C., & Narayan , R

    Tchekhovskoy , A., McKinney , J. C., & Narayan , R. 2009, , 699, 1789, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1789

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  42. [51]

    J., Casella , P., Miller-Jones , J

    Tetarenko , A. J., Casella , P., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2021, , 504, 3862, 10.1093/mnras/stab820

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    E., Sivakoff , G

    Tetarenko , B. E., Sivakoff , G. R., Heinke , C. O., & Gladstone , J. C. 2016, , 222, 15, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    2023, , 958, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    Veledina , A., Muleri , F., Dov c iak , M., et al. 2023, , 958, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    Wang , J. C. L., Sulkanen , M. E., & Lovelace , R. V. E. 1992, , 390, 46, 10.1086/171258

    1992 doi

  46. [55]

    C., Soffitta , P., Baldini , L., et al

    Weisskopf , M. C., Soffitta , P., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    M., Miller-Jones , J

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

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03073

    ---. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03073. 2503.03073

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

    A., McClintock , J

    Wu , J., Orosz , J. A., McClintock , J. E., et al. 2016, , 825, 46, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/46

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    M., Zhang , B.-B., & Mao , J

    Yuan , Z., Wang , J., Worrall , D. M., Zhang , B.-B., & Mao , J. 2018, , 239, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaed3b

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    2014, , 510, 126, 10.1038/nature13399

    Zamaninasab , M., Clausen-Brown , E., Savolainen , T., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2014, , 510, 126, 10.1038/nature13399

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

    A., & Heinz , S

    Zdziarski , A. A., & Heinz , S. 2024, , 967, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4550

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    A., Lubi \'n ski , P., & Sikora , M

    Zdziarski , A. A., Lubi \'n ski , P., & Sikora , M. 2012, , 423, 663, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20903.x

    2012

  54. [63]

    A., Sikora , M., Pjanka , P., & Tchekhovskoy , A

    Zdziarski , A. A., Sikora , M., Pjanka , P., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2015, , 451, 927, 10.1093/mnras/stv986

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    A., Stawarz , ., & Sikora , M

    Zdziarski , A. A., Stawarz , ., & Sikora , M. 2019, , 485, 1210, 10.1093/mnras/stz475

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    A., Tetarenko , A

    Zdziarski , A. A., Tetarenko , A. J., & Sikora , M. 2022, , 925, 189, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac38a9

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

    T., Done , C., & Smith , D

    \.Z ycki , P. T., Done , C., & Smith , D. A. 1999, , 309, 561, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.