Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Gone with the Wind: JWST-MIRI Unveils a Strong Outflow from the Quiescent Stellar-Mass Black Hole A0620-00

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST mid-infrared observations reveal that the mid-infrared excess of quiescent black hole A0620-00 comes from a warm wind that expels a substantial fraction of the donor star's mass supply.

desk verdict Solid new data that rules out a circumbinary disk, but the wind interpretation fails a simple quantitative check and the mass-loss claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23918 v1 pith:4FZM5ZPQ submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Zihao Zuo , Gabriele Cugno , Joseph Michail , Elena Gallo , David M. Russell , Richard M. Plotkin , Fan Zou , M. Cristina Baglio
show 10 more authors
Piergiorgio Casella Fraser J. Cowie Rob Fender Poshak Gandhi Sera Markoff Federico Vincentelli Fraser Lewis Jon M. Miller James C.A. Miller-Jones Alexandra Veledina
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinariesquiescentaccretionmid-infraredexcessthermalbremsstrahlungwindhydrogenrecombinationlinesA0620-00JWSTMIRImassoutflowrate
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

The paper sets out to explain the mid-infrared excess of A0620-00, a stellar-mass black hole accreting at about $10^{-9}$ of the Eddington rate. New JWST/MIRI spectra show that, after subtracting the companion star, the excess is a power law $F_\nu \propto \nu^{0.72\pm0.01}$ that varies by tens of percent on minute timescales, behavior that rules out a circumbinary disk. The authors identify a 7.5 $\mu$m hydrogen recombination feature and argue that both the continuum and the lines come from a warm (a few $\times 10^4$ K) wind via thermal bremsstrahlung. From the wind density and launch radius they estimate a mass-loss rate of roughly $10^{14}$-$10^{16}$ g/s, a few percent to more than half of the mass supply from the donor star. If accepted, this means quiescent black holes can expel most of their incoming mass in winds, which would explain their extremely low luminosities.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a photoionized, warm outflow: gas at densities near $10^{10}$-$10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, located between $10^4$ and $10^5$ gravitational radii from the black hole, emits a mid-infrared continuum through thermal bremsstrahlung (radiation produced when free electrons are deflected by ions) and also radiates hydrogen recombination lines, of which the 7.5 $\mu$m blend is the most prominent. The argument is carried by a simple spherical-wind mass-loss estimate, $\dot M = 4\pi r^2 n m_H v_w$, whose ingredients are the photoionization-derived density, an assumed launch radius, and a velocity cap of about 3,000 km/s set by the lack of measurable line broadening. The observed variability timescale of roughly one minute matches the wind dynamical time $r/v_w\approx15$-$170$ s, which the paper uses as independent support for the wind interpretation.

What would settle it

Take a high-resolution mid-infrared spectrum of the 7.5 $\mu$m lines: if their profiles are double-peaked (disk) rather than single-component wind, or if their widths require velocities well below the assumed 3,000 km/s cap, the wind model and its mass-loss estimate would be directly falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the long-disputed mid-infrared excess of A0620-00 is produced by a warm wind rather than by a circumbinary disk or a jet. The stellar-subtracted MIRI spectrum is well described by $F_\nu \propto \nu^{0.72\pm0.01}$ from 5 to 25 $\mu$m, with a blended hydrogen recombination feature at 7.5 $\mu$m; the line modeling indicates gas cool enough to leave helium largely neutral. The 40% flare at 15 $\mu$m and 25% achromatic variability across 5-12 $\mu$m appear on timescales of roughly a minute, far shorter than any circumbinary dynamical time, and the power-law slope is much shallower than the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of a disk. The paper argues that thermal bremsstrahlung from a wind of density $n\approx10^{10}$-$10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ launched at $10^4$-$10^5$ gravitational radii simultaneously produces the continuum and the recombination lines. Using $\dot M = 4\pi r^2 n m_H v_w$ with $v_w\lesssim 3{,}000$ km/s, the inferred outflow rate is $\lesssim 1.5\times10^{15}$-$10^{16}$ g/s, a few percent to more than half of the outer-disk accretion rate of $2.4\times10^{16}$ g/s, leading the authors to conclude that a substantial fraction of the donor star's mass supply is lost to the wind rather than accreted.

Load-bearing premise

The mass-loss conclusion rests on a model-derived wind density, an assumed launching radius, and the assumption that the wind surrounds the system almost completely; if the true wind is thinner, launched farther out, or only partial, the inferred outflow rate drops to a few percent of the accretion rate and the claim that most of the mass supply is expelled loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The long-standing Spitzer mid-infrared excess of A0620-00 is explained: the emission is a warm wind, not a circumbinary disk or a jet.
  • Quiescent black hole X-ray binaries may expel a substantial fraction (a few percent to more than half) of the mass supplied by the donor star, which would lower their radiative output and explain their sub-Eddington luminosities.
  • The minute-scale mid-infrared variability is a dynamical signature of the wind, with timescales of 15-170 seconds.
  • The same 7.5 $\mu$m hydrogen recombination feature seen in GRS 1915+105 and Cygnus X-1 suggests that warm winds are a common component of hard-state and quiescent black hole X-ray binaries.
  • The mid-infrared luminosity of a few $\times 10^{31}$ erg/s exceeds the average X-ray luminosity by about an order of magnitude, so the mid-infrared variability cannot be X-ray reprocessing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the wind interpretation holds, the quiescent accretion flow must be even less radiatively efficient than previously assumed, since a sizable part of the available mass never reaches the event horizon; this would favor inflow-outflow (ADIOS) models over pure advection-dominated flows for quiescent black holes.
  • A clear prediction is that the other quiescent black hole X-ray binary with a Spitzer mid-infrared excess, XTE J1118+480, should show the same rapid variability and hydrogen recombination lines if observed with JWST/MIRI.
  • The mass-loss estimate scales as $r^2 n$, so the weakest link is the density-radius combination; a future high-resolution mid-infrared spectrum that resolves the line profile would measure the wind velocity directly and break the degeneracy.
  • This wind picture also suggests that quiescent black holes could be surrounded by a reservoir of expelled gas that may re-fall or be recaptured on long timescales, potentially influencing the triggering of outbursts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST-MIRI imaging and low-resolution spectroscopy of the quiescent black hole X-ray binary A0620-00, together with coordinated radio, near-infrared, and optical observations. After subtracting a stellar template normalized to the ellipsoidal lower envelope, the authors find a mid-infrared excess that is well described by a power law F_nu ∝ nu^0.72±0.01, exhibits rapid (minute-scale) achromatic variability of ~25% in the LRS data and a 40% flare at 15 micron, and shows a prominent emission feature at 7.5 micron. The variability and the power-law shape are used to rule out a circumbinary disk as the origin of the excess. The 7.5 micron feature is modeled as a blend of hydrogen recombination lines, and the authors argue that the MIR continuum and lines both arise from a warm (a few 10^4 K) wind. From a photoionization estimate of the wind density they derive an order-of-magnitude mass-loss rate and conclude that a substantial fraction of the donor star's mass supply may be expelled in a wind rather than accreted, potentially explaining the extremely low quiescent luminosity.

Significance. If the wind interpretation survives quantitative scrutiny, this paper would resolve a long-standing puzzle about the Spitzer mid-infrared excess in A0620-00 and provide strong observational support for ADIOS-like outflow solutions in quiescent black hole X-ray binaries. The observational dataset is excellent: the coordinated multiwavelength campaign, the detection of rapid variability that robustly rules out a circumbinary disk, and the identification of hydrogen recombination lines in the MIR are significant contributions in their own right. The Bayesian model comparison, the careful stellar subtraction using lower-envelope normalization, and the explicit use of public modeling tools (NEBULAR, CLOUDY) are strengths. However, the central physical claim that the same wind produces both the MIR continuum and the recombination lines is not supported by a quantitative free-free calculation, and the mass-loss estimate inherits the uncertainty of a qualitative photoionization model. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusion and require revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph beginning "From the wind number density"] The paper does not check whether the wind parameters adopted to reproduce the recombination lines also produce the observed MIR continuum by thermal bremsstrahlung. Adopting n = 10^10-10^11 cm^-3, r = 5x10^9-5x10^10 cm, T = 2-4x10^4 K, and d = 1.5 kpc, the standard Wright & Barlow (1975) free-free wind formula gives F_nu(8 micron) ~ 10^-5 mJy, about four orders of magnitude below the observed stellar-subtracted LRS continuum of ~0.08 mJy at 8 micron. Matching the observed 5-25 micron power law with free-free emission would require a mass-loss rate roughly two orders of magnitude larger than the 2.4x10^16 g/s accretion rate quoted in Section 4. The statement that the same gas is "bound to emit thermal bremsstrahlung radiation" is correct in direction but not in magnitude, so the claim that thermal bremsstrahlung accounts for the MIR excess is quantitatively unsupported as written. The authors should either fit a wind model to the continuum, or decouple the mass-loss estimate from the bremsstrahlung interpretation and treat synchrotron emission as a serious candidate for the continuum, as the abstract explicitly allows.
  2. [Section 4, CLOUDY paragraph and mass-loss estimate] The wind number density n used to derive the mass-loss rate comes from a CLOUDY model that the authors themselves describe as qualitative, noting that "Since CLOUDY does not calculate the intrinsic emission from the gas cloud, we can not claim any rigorous quantitative agreement." The mass-loss rate Mdot = 4*pi*r^2*n*m_H*v_w scales directly as n r^2, so the derived mass-loss range is essentially a restatement of the assumed density and radius rather than an independent measurement. Moreover, the CLOUDY-inferred temperature range of 30,000-40,000 K conflicts with the NEBULAR constraint of <20,000 K quoted in Section 3.3; this discrepancy is not discussed. The conclusion that the system's low luminosity is due to a substantial fraction of the mass supply being expelled in a wind therefore rests on a circular and internally inconsistent chain, and the mass-loss fraction should be presented only as a very rough upper limit tied to the line-emitting gas, with the density, radius, covering factor, and geometry all treated as unconstrained parameters.
  3. [Section 4, final paragraph] The conclusion "the data presented in this work provide observational support to the notion that the highly sub-Eddington luminosities of quiescent black hole XRBs arise from the fact that a large fraction of the mass supply at large radii is actually lost to a wind" is stronger than the evidence presented. The variability and power-law continuum robustly rule out a circumbinary disk, but they do not by themselves discriminate between a wind and a self-absorbed synchrotron jet, and the quantitative free-free calculation in the first comment shows that the adopted wind parameters cannot account for the continuum. The paper should either present a wind model that simultaneously fits the continuum and the lines, or explicitly reframe the mass-loss fraction as a speculative upper limit that is contingent on the wind interpretation of the continuum. As written, the central claim of the paper goes beyond what the analysis demonstrates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] The unit label on the right-hand panel reads "15.0 m Flux [ Jy]"; this should presumably be "15.0 micron Flux [uJy]". Please correct the typo in the figure or its caption.
  2. [Section 3.2] The text says the maximal jet model "connects the measured flux densities at 6.5 GHz and 25 micron," but the marginal radio detection described in Section 2.7 is at 8.0 GHz. Please clarify which frequency is used and ensure consistency with the VLA data.
  3. [Section 4, mass-loss estimate] The notation "1.5x10^15-16 [1.5x10^14-15] g s^-1" is ambiguous; write the ranges explicitly (e.g., 1.5x10^15 to 1.5x10^16 g/s for n=10^11 cm^-3) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 2.8] The stellar model is referred to as "BT-Setll" in the text; the standard name is "BT-Settl." Please correct the typo.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and conclusions describe the outflow as "strong" based on an upper limit to the velocity and an assumed density. Given the unresolved line widths and the qualitative nature of the CLOUDY model, consider softening this to "candidate" or "potential" outflow unless a quantitative wind fit is added.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The mass-loss estimate is computed from the very density that was assumed so that CLOUDY would reproduce the 7.5 micron recombination lines, so the 'substantial wind' conclusion is partly forced by construction; the variability and power-law results remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (CLOUDY consistency check and 'wind mass loss rate' paragraph; footnote 8)]
    "The transmitted spectrum reproduces the hydrogen recombination lines observed in the LRS spectrum for number densities in the range n≈10^10−11 cm^-3 ... From the wind number density, we can derive an order of magnitude estimate for the wind mass loss rate, Ṁ=4πr2nmHvw ... this yields mass loss rates in the range <~1.5×10^15−16 g s^-1 for n=10^11 [10^10] cm^-3. ... these values correspond to a few percent up to more than 50% of the accretion rate ... Overall, the data presented in this work provide observational support to the notion that ..."

    The density n is not an independent measurement: it is the parameter for which CLOUDY, under the adopted outflow picture, reproduces the observed 7.5 micron recombination lines. The reported mass-loss rate is then obtained by inserting that same n into Mdot = 4πr² n mH vw with assumed r, v, and unity covering factor, so the 'inferred mass outflow rate' is algebraically forced by the input density and geometry. Using this Mdot as 'observational support' for the claim that a large fraction of the donor's mass supply is expelled closes the loop: the wind hypothesis supplies the density, and the density supplies the large mass-loss fraction.

full rationale

The core observational findings are not circular: the measured stellar-subtracted MIR spectrum, the power-law slope α=0.72±0.01, the 40% 15-micron flare, the 25% achromatic LRS variability, and the rejection of blackbody/circumbinary-disk models all stand independently of the wind interpretation. The 7.5-micron line identification via NEBULAR is also based on atomic data and is not itself circular. The circular element is localized to the mass-loss step: CLOUDY is used to find n that reproduces the recombination lines assuming an outflow, and that same n is then inserted into Mdot = 4πr² n mH vw to produce a mass outflow rate that is presented as evidence for a substantial wind. Because Mdot is directly proportional to the assumed n and r², the conclusion that a large fraction of the mass supply is expelled is largely a restatement of the assumed density and launch radius rather than an independent measurement. The paper's footnote 8 explicitly concedes that the CLOUDY agreement is only qualitative. The additional claim that the same gas emits the MIR continuum via thermal bremsstrahlung is not checked quantitatively; that is a quantitative-support/correctness concern rather than a circularity, though it reinforces the fragility of the wind interpretation. Self-citations, notably Gandhi et al. (2025), are used for methodology and analogy, but they are not the load-bearing justification for A0620's mass-loss conclusion, so they do not independently raise the circularity score. On balance, the mass-loss 'prediction' reduces by construction to a fitted input, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical power-law description of the MIR excess is honest and low-cost, but the wind mass-loss conclusion imports several assumed parameters (density, radius, velocity, covering factor) and literature values. The line identification and CLOUDY consistency check are not formal fits. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • MIR power-law spectral index alpha = 0.72 ± 0.01
    Measured slope of the stellar-subtracted MIRI excess; empirical fit parameter, not a predicted value, and its error excludes systematics.
  • MIR power-law normalization log(C/mJy) = -0.41 ± 0.01
    Empirical normalization of F_nu = C * nu^alpha from the same fit; no physical model is attached to it.
  • Wind number density n = 1e10 to 1e11 cm^-3
    Chosen range for which CLOUDY reproduces the 7.5 micrometer recombination lines; this density is then used to compute the wind mass-loss rate.
  • Wind launching radius r = 1e4 to 1e5 gravitational radii (about 5e9 to 1e10 cm)
    Assumed range; Mdot scales as r^2, so this choice strongly affects the mass-loss conclusion.
  • Wind velocity upper limit v_w = less than about 3,000 km/s
    Taken from the LRS spectral resolution; used as an upper limit in the mass-loss estimate.
  • Wind covering factor f_c = 1 (implicit)
    The Mdot formula assumes a homogeneous wind with covering factor of order unity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The donor star's MIR contribution is represented by a BT-Settl template with T=4,500 K, log g=4.5, solar abundance, normalized to the V-band lower envelope at the orbital phase of the JWST observations.
    Normalization to the passive-state lower envelope is intended to avoid active-state contamination; it assumes the historical ellipsoidal model extrapolates to MIR and that the lower envelope is the true stellar flux.
  • domain assumption The 7.5 micrometer feature is dominated by H(6-5), H(8-6), and H(11-7) recombination lines, with 75%, 20%, and 5% contributions, rather than other spectral features.
    Determined with NEBULAR at the LRS resolution (R~90); the paper describes the modeling as 'not formally a fit' and relies on assumed helium abundance and temperature.
  • ad hoc to paper The CLOUDY illumination spectrum (4,500 K blackbody plus 10% X-ray luminosity with photon index Gamma=2) approximates the quiescent radiation field of A0620.
    Used only as a qualitative consistency check; the authors state they 'cannot claim any rigorous quantitative agreement.'
  • domain assumption The system parameters (black hole mass 6.6 Msun, orbital period 7.75 h, distance 1.5 kpc, E(B-V)=0.30) from the literature are correct.
    These set the gravitational radius scale, the launching radius range, and the dereddening; distance errors enter the luminosity and mass-loss estimates.
  • domain assumption The accretion rate at the outer disk edge is 2.4e16 g/s (Froning et al. 2011).
    Used as the denominator to conclude the wind removes 'a few percent up to more than 50%' of the mass supply.
  • domain assumption Any radio jet contributes at most the 'maximal jet' power law to the MIR, and the marginal 2.8-sigma VLA detection is either negligible or an upper-limit anchor.
    If a jet contributes substantially at 5-25 micrometers, the wind interpretation of the continuum weakens; the paper treats the jet scenario as 'completely arbitrary.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gone with the Wind: JWST-MIRI Unveils a Strong Outflow from the Quiescent Stellar-Mass Black Hole A0620-00." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4FZM5ZPQ

@misc{pith2026250523918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gone with the Wind: JWST-MIRI Unveils a Strong Outflow from the Quiescent Stellar-Mass Black Hole A0620-00},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4FZM5ZPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23918}
}
abstract

We present new observations of the black hole X-ray binary A0620-00 using the Mid-Infrared Instrument on the James Webb Space Telescope, during a state where the X-ray luminosity is 9 orders of magnitude below Eddington, and coordinated with radio, near-infrared and optical observations. The goal is to understand the nature of the excess mid-infrared (MIR) emission originally detected by Spitzer red-ward of 8 $\mu$m. The stellar-subtracted MIR spectrum is well-modeled by a power law with a spectral index of $\alpha=0.72\pm0.01$, where the flux density scales with frequency as $F_\nu \propto \nu^{\alpha}$. The spectral characteristics, along with rapid variability--a 40% flux flare at 15$\mu$m and 25% achromatic variability in the 5-12 $\mu$m range--rule out a circumbinary disk as the source of the MIR excess. The Low Resolution Spectrometer reveals a prominent emission feature at 7.5 $\mu$m, resulting from the blend of three hydrogen recombination lines. While the contribution from partially self-absorbed synchrotron radiation cannot be ruled out, we argue that thermal bremsstrahlung from a warm (a few $10^4$ K) wind accounts for the MIR excess; the same outflow is responsible for the emission lines. The inferred mass outflow rate indicates that the system's low luminosity is due to a substantial fraction of the mass supplied by the donor star being expelled through a wind rather than accreted onto the black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: A map of the A0620 field in the F1500W filter during one of the dithers. A0620 (black circle) is near the center of the detector in this image. We detect six nearby sources visible in all four dithers, which we use to check for residual instrumental calibration errors. Right: Background-subtracted aperture photometry of all seven sources (line colors correspond to colored circles in left panel) in the field du… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized white-light (summed) photometry of A0620 in four LRS wavelength sub-bands during the two-dither sequence. Achromatic variability of ∼25% over the 10-minute sequence is de￾tected in all bands. To ensure a uniform background between the four dithers for a single filter, we first process the ensemble through the SkyMatch step in the Level 3 MIRI pipeline. Once complete, we run each dither separately through … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from the VLT polarimetry. Shown are the polar￾ization level (top panel) and angle (bottom panel) as a function of frequency. All values are corrected for instrumental and interstellar polarization effects, and are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: summarizes two decades of optical monitor￾ing of A0620 with the Faulkes Telescopes, in V, R, and i’ bands (cyan, red, and gray points). The light curves are folded on the orbital period of 7.7523377 hr using the updated ephemeris of Cherepashchuk et al. (2019); T0 = JD…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radio to optical SED of A0620, including new (MeerKAT, VLA, JWST, VLT, REM, and LCO, from March 2024) and archival data. Data are de-reddened if applicable. The solid dark gray curve traces the BT Settl stellar template for the donor star, normalized to the V-band flux…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar-subtracted MIRI data, fitted with a blackbody model (left) and a power-law model (right). The 15 µm data point errors account for the measured 40% variability. The red curves are drawn from the posterior distributions, with the solid black curve tracing the med…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fit the ∼ 7.5 micron line seen by MIRI LRS, using the NEBULAR package. This feature arises from the blend of the H(6-5), H(8-6), and H(11-7) recombination lines. The spectrum is highly sensitive to the assumed temperature; the lack of strongly ionized helium line indic…

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. Full citation record

  1. The Mid-infrared Emitting Jet in the Black Hole V404 Cygni in Quiescence

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Fast 21-micron flaring and a flat radio-to-mid-infrared spectrum show that the mid-infrared excess in the quiescent black hole binary V404 Cygni comes from a persistent relativistic jet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., Freytag , B., Schaffenberger , W., & Rajpurohit , A. S. 2013, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 24, 128

    2013

  2. [2]

    1998, The Messenger, 94, 1

    Appenzeller , I., Fricke , K., F \"u rtig , W., et al. 1998, The Messenger, 94, 1

    1998

  3. [3]

    C., Russell , D

    Baglio , M. C., Russell , D. M., Crespi , S., et al. 2020, , 905, 87

    2020

  4. [4]

    C., Saikia , P., Russell , D

    Baglio , M. C., Saikia , P., Russell , D. M., et al. 2022, , 930, 20

    2022

  5. [5]

    Begelman , M. C. 2012, , 420, 2912

    2012

  6. [6]

    M., Motta , S

    Belloni , T. M., Motta , S. E., & Mu \ n oz-Darias , T. 2011, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 39, 409

    2011

  7. [7]

    M., Shaw , A

    Bernardini , F., Russell , D. M., Shaw , A. W., et al. 2016, , 818, L5

    2016

  8. [8]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1701.02434

    Betancourt , M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1701.02434

    arXiv 2017

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Begelman , M

    Blandford , R. D., & Begelman , M. C. 1999, , 303, L1

    1999

  2. [10]

    2004, , 349, 68

    ---. 2004, , 349, 68

    2004

  3. [11]

    D., & K \"o nigl , A

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

    1979

  4. [12]

    M., & Freudling , W

    Bramich , D. M., & Freudling , W. 2012, , 424, 1584

    2012

  5. [13]

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

    1995

  6. [14]

    M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F

    Brown , T. M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F. B., et al. 2013, , 125, 1031

    2013

  7. [15]

    G., Bailyn , C

    Cantrell , A. G., Bailyn , C. D., McClintock , J. E., & Orosz , J. A. 2008, , 673, L159

    2008

  8. [16]

    G., Bailyn , C

    Cantrell , A. G., Bailyn , C. D., Orosz , J. A., et al. 2010, , 710, 1127

    2010

  9. [17]

    2022, , 134, 114501

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501

    2022

  10. [18]

    M., Katysheva , N

    Cherepashchuk , A. M., Katysheva , N. A., Khruzina , T. S., et al. 2019, , 490, 3287

    2019

  11. [19]

    2017, , 464, 4146

    Cikota , A., Patat , F., Cikota , S., & Faran , T. 2017, , 464, 4146

    2017

  12. [20]

    Corbel , S., & Fender , R. P. 2002, , 573, L35

    2002

  13. [21]

    M., Chincarini , G., et al

    Covino , S., Zerbi , F. M., Chincarini , G., et al. 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 543

    2004

  14. [22]

    L., Plotkin , R

    dePolo , D. L., Plotkin , R. M., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2022, , 516, 4640

    2022

  15. [23]

    F., & Rodr \' guez , L

    Dhawan , V., Mirabel , I. F., & Rodr \' guez , L. F. 2000, , 543, 373

    2000

  16. [24]

    S., Marsh , T

    Dhillon , V. S., Marsh , T. R., Stevenson , M. J., et al. 2007, , 378, 825

    2007

  17. [25]

    D., Miller-Jones , J

    Din c er , T., Bailyn , C. D., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Buxton , M., & MacDonald , R. K. D. 2018, , 852, 4

    2018

  18. [26]

    2007, , 15, 1

    Done , C., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Kubota , A. 2007, , 15, 1

    2007

  19. [27]

    M., & Lasota , J

    Dubus , G., Hameury , J. M., & Lasota , J. P. 2001, , 373, 251

    2001

  20. [28]

    Eastman , J., Siverd , R., & Gaudi , B. S. 2010, , 122, 935

    2010

  21. [29]

    Fender , R. P. 2001, , 322, 31

    2001

  22. [30]

    P., Gallo , E., & Jonker , P

    Fender , R. P., Gallo , E., & Jonker , P. G. 2003, , 343, L99

    2003

  23. [31]

    P., Homan , J., & Belloni , T

    Fender , R. P., Homan , J., & Belloni , T. M. 2009, , 396, 1370

    2009

  24. [32]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137

    2013

  25. [33]

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

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

    2013

  26. [34]

    S., Cantrell, A

    Froning, C. S., Cantrell, A. G., MacCarone, T. J., et al. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 743, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/26

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Miller-Jones , J

    Gallo , E., Fender , R. P., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2006, , 370, 1351

    2006

  28. [36]

    2007, , 670, 600

    Gallo , E., Migliari , S., Markoff , S., et al. 2007, , 670, 600

    2007

  29. [37]

    M., et al

    Gallo , E., Teague , R., Plotkin , R. M., et al. 2019, , 488, 191

    2019

  30. [38]

    W., Russell , D

    Gandhi , P., Blain , A. W., Russell , D. M., et al. 2011, , 740, L13

    2011

  31. [39]

    S., Byrom , J., et al

    Gandhi , P., Borowski , E. S., Byrom , J., et al. 2025, , 537, 1385

    2025

  32. [40]

    2012, Computational Optimization and Applications, arXiv:2204.09626

    Gao , F., & Han , L. 2012, Computational Optimization and Applications, arXiv:2204.09626

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J., Russell , D

    Goodwin , A. J., Russell , D. M., Galloway , D. K., et al. 2020, , 498, 3429

    2020

  34. [42]

    D., Sloan , G

    Gordon , K. D., Sloan , G. C., Garcia Marin , M., et al. 2025, , 169, 6

    2025

  35. [43]

    2000, , 44, 131

    Hellier , C. 2000, , 44, 131

    2000

  36. [44]

    W., & Foreman-Mackey , D

    Hogg , D. W., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, , 236, 11

    2018

  37. [45]

    K., Cowie , F

    Hughes , A. K., Cowie , F. J., Heywood , I., & Hugo , B. 2025, polkat: Semi-automate full polarization of MeerKAT observations , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2502.026, ,

    2025

  38. [46]

    V., Perkins , S., Merry , B., Mauch , T., & Smirnov , O

    Hugo , B. V., Perkins , S., Merry , B., Mauch , T., & Smirnov , O. M. 2022, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 532, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXX, ed. J. E. Ruiz , F. Pierfedereci , & P. Teuben , 541

    2022

  39. [47]

    I., Haswell , C

    Hynes , R. I., Haswell , C. A., Cui , W., et al. 2003, , 345, 292

    2003

  40. [48]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1

    Jonas , J., & MeerKAT Team . 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1

    2016

  41. [49]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2291091

    1995

  42. [50]

    J., & Wieringa , M

    Kemball , A. J., & Wieringa , M. H. 2000, Measurement Set definition version 2.0 , NRAO report, January 21, 2000, 52 pages, ,

    2000

  43. [51]

    2015, , 127, 623

    Kendrew , S., Scheithauer , S., Bouchet , P., et al. 2015, , 127, 623

    2015

  44. [52]

    V., et al

    Kravtsov , V., Veledina , A., Berdyugin , A. V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07592

    2024

  45. [53]

    M., Sochat , V., & Bauer , M

    Kurtzer , G. M., Sochat , V., & Bauer , M. W. 2017, PLoS ONE, 12, e0177459

    2017

  46. [54]

    2001, , 45, 449

    Lasota , J.-P. 2001, , 45, 449

    2001

  47. [55]

    2018, Robotic Telescope, Student Research and Education Proceedings, 1, 237

    Lewis , F. 2018, Robotic Telescope, Student Research and Education Proceedings, 1, 237

    2018

  48. [56]

    M., & Fender , R

    Lewis , F., Roche , P., Russell , D. M., & Fender , R. P. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1010, A Population Explosion: The Nature & Evolution of X-ray Binaries in Diverse Environments, ed. R. M. Bandyopadhyay , S. Wachter , D. Gelino , & C. R. G...

    2008

  49. [57]

    Liska , M. T. P., Kaaz , N., Chatterjee , K., Emami , R., & Musoke , G. 2024, , 966, 47

    2024

  50. [58]

    M., et al

    L \'o pez Fern \'a ndez , R., Cid Fernandes , R., Gonz \'a lez Delgado , R. M., et al. 2016, , 458, 184

    2016

  51. [59]

    2022, , 517, 5853

    Lucchini , M., Ceccobello , C., Markoff , S., et al. 2022, , 517, 5853

    2022

  52. [60]

    Lucy , L. B. 2016, , 588, A19

    2016

  53. [61]

    2013, , 429, L20

    Malzac , J. 2013, , 429, L20

    2013

  54. [62]

    A., & Wilms , J

    Markoff , S., Nowak , M. A., & Wilms , J. 2005, , 635, 1203

    2005

  55. [63]

    A., Gallo , E., et al

    Markoff , S., Nowak , M. A., Gallo , E., et al. 2015, , 812, L25

    2015

  56. [64]

    M., Kaastra , J

    Miller , J. M., Kaastra , J. S., Miller , M. C., et al. 2015, , 526, 542

    2015

  57. [65]

    2016, , 534, 75

    Mu \ n oz-Darias , T., Casares , J., Mata S \'a nchez , D., et al. 2016, , 534, 75

    2016

  58. [66]

    P., & Mauerhan , J

    Muno , M. P., & Mauerhan , J. 2006, , 648, L135

    2006

  59. [67]

    Narayan , R., Barret , D., & McClintock , J. E. 1997, , 482, 448

    1997

  60. [68]

    1995, , 452, 710

    Narayan , R., & Yi , I. 1995, , 452, 710

    1995

  61. [69]

    R., & Lester , J

    Neilson , H. R., & Lester , J. B. 2008, , 684, 569

    2008

  62. [70]

    R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al

    Offringa , A. R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al. 2014, , 444, 606

    2014

  63. [71]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Pirard , J.-F., Kissler-Patig , M., Moorwood , A., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 1763--1772

    2004

  64. [72]

    M., Bahramian , A., Miller-Jones , J

    Plotkin , R. M., Bahramian , A., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2021, , 503, 3784

    2021

  65. [73]

    M., Gallo , E., Jonker , P

    Plotkin , R. M., Gallo , E., Jonker , P. G., et al. 2016, , 456, 2707

    2016

  66. [74]

    P., Begelman , M

    Ponti , G., Fender , R. P., Begelman , M. C., et al. 2012, , 422, L11

    2012

  67. [75]

    2014, , 183, 61

    Poutanen , J., & Veledina , A. 2014, , 183, 61

    2014

  68. [76]

    C., Heinz , S., et al

    Rahoui , F., Lee , J. C., Heinz , S., et al. 2011, , 736, 63

    2011

  69. [77]

    J., Smirnov , O., & Heywood , I

    Ramaila , A. J., Smirnov , O., & Heywood , I. 2023, breizorro: Image masking tool , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2305.009, ,

    2023

  70. [78]

    A., & McClintock , J

    Remillard , R. A., & McClintock , J. E. 2006, , 44, 49

    2006

  71. [79]

    M., Qasim , A

    Russell , D. M., Qasim , A. A., Bernardini , F., et al. 2018, , 852, 90

    2018

  72. [80]

    M., Shahbaz , T., Lewis , F., & Gallo , E

    Russell , D. M., Shahbaz , T., Lewis , F., & Gallo , E. 2016, , 463, 2680

    2016

  73. [81]

    M., Markoff, S., Casella, P., et al

    Russell, D. M., Markoff, S., Casella, P., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 815

    2013

  74. [82]

    M., Bramich , D

    Russell , D. M., Bramich , D. M., Lewis , F., et al. 2019, Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 278

    2019

  75. [83]

    2016, , 128, 114001

    Schirmer , M. 2016, , 128, 114001

    2016

  76. [84]

    M., Zurita , C., et al

    Shahbaz , T., Russell , D. M., Zurita , C., et al. 2013, , 434, 2696

    2013

  77. [85]

    2017, , 55, 213

    Sharma , S. 2017, , 55, 213

    2017

  78. [86]

    2016, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 46, 5

    Shugarov , S., Katysheva , N., Chochol , D., et al. 2016, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 46, 5

    2016

  79. [87]

    Stetson , P. B. 1987, , 99, 191

    1987

  80. [88]

    1990, , 102, 932

    ---. 1990, , 102, 932

    1990

  81. [89]

    M., Spencer , R

    Stirling , A. M., Spencer , R. E., de la Force , C. J., et al. 2001, , 327, 1273

    2001

  82. [90]

    E., Sandquist , E

    Taam , R. E., Sandquist , E. L., & Dubus , G. 2003, , 592, 1124

    2003

  83. [91]

    E., & Spruit , H

    Taam , R. E., & Spruit , H. C. 2001, , 561, 329

    2001

  84. [92]

    L., Denneau , L., Flewelling , H., et al

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Flewelling , H., et al. 2018, , 867, 105

    2018

  85. [93]

    van Grunsven , T. F. J., Jonker , P. G., Verbunt , F. W. M., & Robinson , E. L. 2017, , 472, 1907

    2017

  86. [94]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 3196

    Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., & Vurm, I. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 3196

    2013

  87. [95]

    M., Miller-Jones , J

    Wood , C. M., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., et al. 2024, , 971, L9

    2024

  88. [96]

    E., & Barlow , M

    Wright , A. E., & Barlow , M. J. 1975, , 170, 41

    1975

  89. [97]

    S., Rieke , G

    Wright , G. S., Rieke , G. H., Glasse , A., et al. 2023, , 135, 048003

    2023

  90. [98]

    2014, , 52, 529

    Yuan , F., & Narayan , R. 2014, , 52, 529

    2014

  91. [99]

    M., Chincarini , G., Ghisellini , G., et al

    Zerbi , R. M., Chincarini , G., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2001, Astronomische Nachrichten, 322, 275

    2001

  92. [100]

    2023, , 525, 1498

    Zhao , Y., Gandhi , P., Dashwood Brown , C., et al. 2023, , 525, 1498

    2023

  93. [101]

    2022, , 925, 83

    Zheng , W.-M., Wu , Q., Wu , J., et al. 2022, , 925, 83

    2022

  94. [102]

    2003, , 582, 369

    Zurita , C., Casares , J., & Shahbaz , T. 2003, , 582, 369

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.