Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Comprehensive Radio Monitoring of the Black Hole X-ray Binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613 during its 2023$-$2024 Outburst

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper assembles 197 epochs of radio monitoring across seven facilities and 0.3–230 GHz to document the complete disk-jet cycle of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727 during its 2023–2024 outburst.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, well-documented radio dataset for a landmark BH LMXB outburst; the composite light curve is the soft spot, but the per-facility data release is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07798 v1 pith:2XRNEDK6 submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.HE

Andrew K. Hughes , Francesco Carotenuto , Thomas D. Russell , Alexandra J. Tetarenko , James C. A. Miller-Jones , Arash Bahramian , Joe S. Bright , Fraser J. Cowie
show 34 more authors
Rob Fender Mark A. Gurwell Jasvinderjit K. Khaulsay Anastasia Kirby Serena Jones Elodie Lescure Michael McCollough Richard M. Plotkin Ramprasad Rao Saeqa D. Vrtilek David R. A. Williams-Baldwin Callan M. Wood Gregory R. Sivakoff Diego Altamirano Piergiorgio Casella Stephane Corbel David R. DeBoer Melania Del Santo Constanza Echiburu-Trujillo Wael Farah Poshak Gandhi Karri I. I. Koljonen Thomas Maccarone James H. Matthews Sera B. Markoff Alexander W. Pollak David M. Russell Payaswini Saikia Noel Castro Segura Aarran W. Shaw Andrew Siemion Roberto Soria John A. Tomsick Jakob van den Eijnden
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinariesradiojetsaccretionstatesSwiftJ1727.8-1613outburstmonitoringsynchrotronspectrumspectralindexrelativisticejecta
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's load-bearing claim is that a ten-month, multi-frequency radio monitoring campaign (197 epochs, 0.3–230 GHz, seven facilities) coherently captures the complete jet evolution of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727 during its first recorded outburst. The compiled light curves show the canonical sequence: a hard-state compact jet near 100 mJy, a flux dip and then multiple bright ejection flares peaking near 839 mJy at 1.28 GHz, an optically thin soft-state decay in which the spectral index reached $\alpha \approx -1.86$, and a final re-brightening as the compact jet reformed in the hard state. The primary purpose is to release these radio light curves to the community so that observations at other wavelengths can be interpreted against a common timeline. If the composite dataset is internally consistent, it provides a benchmark example of jet disruption and reformation in a stellar-mass black hole.

What carries the argument

The central object is the composite multi-facility radio light curve spanning 0.3–230 GHz and 197 epochs, with the inter-band spectral index $\alpha$ (defined by $F_\nu \propto \nu^\alpha$) as the diagnostic that labels each accretion state. Because the source is highly variable, the paper computes $\alpha$ only from strictly simultaneous multi-frequency observations taken at a single facility, avoiding cross-telescope angular-scale biases. The light curve itself carries the argument: its shape (plateau, dip, flares, steep decay, re-brightening) is what identifies the quenching, ejection, and reformation of the jet.

What would settle it

Compare simultaneous single-epoch observations from two facilities with different flux calibrators; a reproducible offset larger than the reported statistical errors between them in a non-flaring epoch would show the composite light curve is not one coherent evolution. Alternatively, re-deriving a soft-state spectral index from strictly simultaneous within-facility bands alone and finding it disagrees with the paper's steepest value ($\alpha \approx -1.86$) would falsify the steep-spectrum claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that continuous collaborative radio monitoring captured a stellar-mass black hole completing a full accretion-state loop, with the radio flux density and spectral index tracing every stage: a partially self-absorbed compact jet with a flat spectrum ($\alpha \sim 0$) during the hard state, a pre-transition decline attributed to jet quenching, a sequence of discrete ejecta flares with rapidly evolving optically thick-to-thin spectra (including the $\sim 839$ mJy peak at 1.28 GHz on MJD 60231), a soft state dominated by optically thin ejecta whose spectral index varied between $-0.5$ and $-2$ and reached $-1.86 \pm 0.08$ on MJD 60293, and a final hard-state re-brightening with the compact jet re-established. The brightest flaring implies a minimum internal energy $E_{\min} \approx (0.6-2) \times 10^{40}$ erg, at the high end of the range inferred for other sources. The paper further claims that spectral indices steeper than $-1.5$ require electron power-law indices $p > 3$, pointing to an unresolved particle-acceleration problem for black hole jets.

Load-bearing premise

The composite light curve is internally consistent, meaning flux measurements from telescopes with different calibrators, array configurations, and angular resolutions can be combined into a single evolution without large facility-dependent offsets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • X-ray, optical, and infrared teams can anchor their observations of this outburst to a common radio timeline, turning the reported state-transition dates into empirically grounded reference points.
  • The dataset provides a template for the community to keep releasing comprehensive radio light curves of future low-mass X-ray binary outbursts, just as the paper intends.
  • The steep soft-state spectral indices, if confirmed, show that simple optically thin synchrotron emission with standard cooling cannot explain the ejecta, motivating work on particle acceleration and jet-ISM interactions.
  • The reported minimum energy of roughly $10^{40}$ erg per flare gives a concrete energy budget for studies of jet feedback in the interstellar medium.
  • The multiple flares between MJD 60207 and 60249 support the reading that the source underwent more than one hard-to-soft transition rather than a single one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader might infer that the true 1.28 GHz flare peak could exceed 839 mJy, since the observing cadence sets only a lower bound on the peak flux density.
  • If future work quantifies absolute flux-scale offsets between facilities, the flare amplitudes and the soft-state spectral indices, including $\alpha \approx -1.86$, would need to be checked against those systematics before being used as physical constraints.
  • The steep-spectrum result, placed next to similar findings in active galaxies, suggests that a common particle-acceleration mechanism may operate across black hole mass scales; that connection is not made by the paper itself.
  • The same composite-light-curve approach could be applied to past outbursts where archival multi-facility data already exist, yielding uniform public datasets without requiring new observations.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper compiles roughly ten months of radio monitoring of the black hole low-mass X-ray binary Swift J1727.8−1613 from seven facilities (MeerKAT, e-MERLIN, ATA, VLA, ATCA, ALMA, SMA), spanning approximately 0.3-230 GHz. It presents integrated flux densities, per-observatory light curves, and inter-band spectral indices computed only from strictly simultaneous, same-observatory measurements. The authors describe a canonical disk-jet cycle: flat-spectrum compact jet rise, jet quenching with multiple discrete ejecta flares (peak 839.4 mJy at 1.28 GHz), optically thin soft-state decay with steep spectral indices (minimum α = -1.86 ± 0.08), and compact jet reformation near MJD 60385. The primary stated purpose is to provide a public data resource; the data and plotting scripts are released on GitHub and Zenodo.

Significance. If the data are as presented, this is a valuable community resource and a good precedent: it is one of the most comprehensively radio-monitored BH LMXB outbursts, with per-facility light curves and raw data tables. The methodological choice to restrict spectral indices to strictly simultaneous, single-observatory measurements is sound and avoids cross-array angular-scale biases. The paper is appropriately cautious in its interpretation and explicitly defers detailed modeling to future work. The data release with DOI and GitHub is reproducible and will enable multi-wavelength follow-up analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1, abstract, conclusion] The manuscript reports inconsistent epoch counts: the abstract states 197 epochs, the conclusion states 198 individual epochs, and §2.2 states that e-MERLIN observed 24 epochs (19 + 5) while Table 1 lists only 22 e-MERLIN entries across the same period. Because Table 1 is the primary data product, please reconcile these numbers and verify that the table contains every epoch represented in the text and figures.
  2. [§3.1.2] The text says the soft-state re-brightening 'peaked around 2024 January 14 (MJD 60322; ~30 mJy at 1.28 GHz)'. Table 1 lists the nearest MeerKAT 1.28 GHz values as 24.39 ± 0.02 mJy at MJD 60316.332 and 17.72 ± 0.02 mJy at MJD 60323.205, with no 30 mJy point present. Please correct the text or clarify which measurement is being referenced.
  3. [§3] The paper correctly warns that different telescopes probe different angular scales and that only statistical errors are reported, but it does not quantify the absolute flux-scale systematic errors of the seven facilities. Since Figures 3 and 4 present a composite multi-facility light curve, I request a brief statement or table of typical per-facility flux-scale uncertainties, or a cross-calibration comparison in overlapping frequency and time ranges, so that users can assign a systematic floor when combining the data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.1, §3.1, Figure 2 caption] The hard-to-soft transition date is written as '2024 October 5' but should be 2023 October 5 for MJD 60222; please fix this in all occurrences.
  2. [§2.2] 'Almost daily in September 2024' should read September 2023, because the campaign ran from 2023 August through 2024 March.
  3. [§2.7 and Table 1] The SMA central frequency is given as 225.5 GHz in §2.7 but 225.0 GHz in Table 1; please harmonize.
  4. [§3.1.1] 'Both the poly and monochromatic light curves' — 'poly' is unclear; consider 'multi-frequency' or 'polychromatic'.
  5. [Table 1/§3] Consider adding a note near the table or in §3 that the quoted uncertainties are statistical only and that absolute flux-scale uncertainties are of order several percent, so that users do not over-interpret the very small statistical errors (e.g., 0.02-0.03 mJy on bright MeerKAT points).
  6. [Reference list] The entries 'Russell et al. 2019a' and 'Russell et al. 2019b' are listed with identical journal, volume, page, and DOI (ApJ 883, 198); since both are cited in the text, please correct the duplicate or properly distinguish the two papers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a raw-data release whose derived quantities (spectral indices, E_min) use external formalisms and explicit caveats, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

This paper is an observational data release; its central deliverable is the compiled multi-facility radio light curve of Swift J1727, consisting of directly measured flux densities and strictly simultaneous inter-band spectral indices. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The 10 GHz monochromatic light curve is rescaled using the paper's own inter-band spectral index measurements, but the text explicitly labels it as a qualitative description, excludes observations more than an order of magnitude from 10 GHz, and warns that spectral-index variability is an unaccounted systematic, so no forced conclusion follows. The E_min estimates adopt the Fender & Bright (2019) equipartition prescription and literature distances (3.7-5.5 kpc) as external, parameter-free inputs rather than as values tuned to produce a desired result. State-transition timestamps are taken from external Astronomer's Telegrams, and the self-citations that appear (Miller-Jones et al. 2023b localization, Wood et al. 2024/2025 imaging, Hughes et al. 2025 software) concern independent measurements or processing tools, not load-bearing support for the paper's central claim. The cross-facility angular-scale and absolute-flux-scale caveat is disclosed in Section 3 rather than disguised, and because the data are released with per-facility labels and statistical errors only, the composite light curve remains a legitimate observational product. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central deliverable, per-epoch radio flux densities, is observational data and requires no fitted parameters. The interpretive quantities inherit standard assumptions: equipartition for the E_min estimates, a literature distance range (3.7-5.5 kpc) from the two cited optical analyses, the Blandford-Koenigl compact jet paradigm, and the dynamically confirmed black hole nature. All are disclosed inputs from prior literature, none are tuned to produce a result.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Equipartition between particles and magnetic fields when estimating the minimum internal energy of flares
    Section 3.1.1: 'assuming equipartition of energy between particles and magnetic fields, we can estimate the minimum internal energy (E_min).' Standard but unverified assumption taken from Fender & Bright (2019); affects the energy estimate, and the authors acknowledge alternative methods give values orders of magnitude higher.
  • domain assumption Distance to Swift J1727 in the range 3.7-5.5 kpc
    Section 3.1.1: 'adopting distances of 3.7-5.5 kpc (Mata Sanchez et al. 2025; Burridge et al. 2025)'. Distance enters linearly into E_min; the two cited analyses differ by about 50%, and the paper does not re-derive the distance.
  • domain assumption Flat or inverted radio spectra indicate a partially self-absorbed compact jet (Blandford & Koenigl 1979), and flares indicate discrete jet ejecta
    Section 3.1.1 and Section 1: the reading of alpha ~ 0 as compact jet emission and of flares as discrete ejecta follows the standard BH LMXB framework (Fender et al. 2004). Load-bearing for the phenomenological narrative, not for the raw light curves.
  • domain assumption Swift J1727 is a stellar-mass black hole in a low-mass X-ray binary
    Section 1.1: the dynamical black hole confirmation from Mata Sanchez et al. (2025) is adopted. Needed for the accretion-state and jet interpretation; not needed for the light curve tables themselves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive Radio Monitoring of the Black Hole X-ray Binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613 during its 2023$-$2024 Outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XRNEDK6

@misc{pith2026250607798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive Radio Monitoring of the Black Hole X-ray Binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613 during its 2023$-$2024 Outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XRNEDK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07798}
}
abstract

This work presents comprehensive multi-frequency radio monitoring of the black hole low-mass X-ray binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613, which underwent its first recorded outburst after its discovery in August 2023. Through a considerable community effort, we have coalesced the data from multiple, distinct observing programs; the light curves include ${\sim} 10$ months and 197 epochs of monitoring from 7 radio facilities with observing frequencies ranging from (approximately) 0.3$-$230GHz. The primary purpose of this work is to provide the broader astronomical community with these light curves to assist with the interpretation of other observing campaigns, particularly non-radio observing frequencies. We discuss the phenomenological evolution of the source, which included: (i) multiple radio flares consistent with the launching of discrete jet ejections, the brightest of which reached $\sim$ 1 Jy; (ii) temporally evolving radio spectral indices ($\alpha$), reaching values steeper than expected for optically-thin synchrotron emission ($\alpha {<} -1$) and emission with significant radiative cooling ($\alpha < -1.5$). We have published a digital copy of the data and intend for this work to set a precedent for the community to continue releasing comprehensive radio light curves of future low-mass X-ray binary outbursts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representation of the radio coverage during the 2023–2024 monitoring campaign of Swift J1727. The MAXI/GSC 2–20 keV rate (top panel); The hardness ratio calculated with using the 2–6 keV and 6–20 keV sub-bands (middle panel); The coverage from each radio facility (bottom panel). When calculating the hardness ratio, we average together adjacent observations until both bands are detected at 3σ; as a result, the top an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray hardness intensity diagram of Swift J1727 when it was detectable by MAXI/GSC. The marker colours correspond to the scaled 10 GHz radio flux densities, linearly interpolated (in time) to the MAXI/GSC observing epochs. The colour bar has been capped at 1 Jy to show the radio evolution more clearly. We highlight the observations where the source was first identified to undergo a hard-to-soft (green diamond, MJD 6… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The full radio light curves of Swift J1727.8 −1613 during its 2023–2024 outburst: (top panel) the integrated flux density evolution. Each marker corresponds to a different telescope, and the marker colours correspond to the observing frequency. To ease visualization, we have saturated the colour axis at 30 GHz; the saturation only affects observation taken with ALMA or the SMA. (bottom panel) the inter-band spectral… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A zoomed-in view of the radio flaring: (top panel) multi-frequency, multi-facility light curves where the markers follow the same scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radio light curves as seen by MeerKAT (top panel) and e-MERLIN (bottom panel). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

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 Accretion-Ejection Connection in the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-year multi-wavelength campaign shows tightly correlated radio, X-ray, and optical emission from MAXI J1820, with repeating hard-state re-brightenings that resemble irradiated disk-instability flares.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., et al

    Bahramian, A., Tremou, E., Tetarenko, A. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accde1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accde1 2023

  2. [2]

    R., & Heavens, A

    Ballard, K. R., & Heavens, A. F. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.1.89

    doi:10.1093/mnras/259.1.89 1992

  3. [3]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  4. [4]

    R., Matthews, J

    Bell, A. R., Matthews, J. H., & Blundell, K. M. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1805

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1805 2019

  5. [5]

    Belloni, T., M´ endez, M., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W. H. G., & Dieters, S. 1999, ApJL, 519, L159, doi: 10.1086/312130

    doi:10.1086/312130 1999

  6. [6]

    Belloni, T. M. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, ed. T. Belloni, Vol. 794 (Berlin: Springer Verlag), 53, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-83

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-83 2010

  7. [7]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  8. [8]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 187, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 112.02

    1995

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    S., et al

    Bright, J. S., et al. 2020, Nature Astron., 4, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al

    Bright, J. S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 986, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    P., McCollough, M., et al

    Brocksopp, C., Fender, R. P., McCollough, M., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 765, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05230.x

    2002

  4. [12]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

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

    2025

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Carotenuto, F., Fender, R., Tetarenko, A. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.16624, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.16624

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    J., & Corbel, S

    Carotenuto, F., Tetarenko, A. J., & Corbel, S. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac329

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab864 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab864 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts215

    Corbel, S., Coriat, M., Brocksopp, C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts215

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Corbel, S., & Fender, R. P. 2002, ApJL, 573, L35, doi: 10.1086/341870

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Tzioumis, A

    Corbel, S., Fender, R. P., Tzioumis, A. K., et al. 2002, Science, 298, 196, doi: 10.1126/science.1075857

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 677, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18433.x

    Coriat, M., Corbel, S., Prat, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 677, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18433.x

    2011

  12. [21]

    A., Miller, J

    Draghis, P. A., Miller, J. M., Homan, J., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16219, 1

    2023

  13. [22]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab88b6

    Espinasse, M., Corbel, S., Kaaret, P., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab88b6

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, ed

    Fender, R. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, ed. T. Belloni, Vol. 794 (Berlin: Springer Verlag), 115, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-85

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2000

    Fender, R., & Bright, J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2000

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, L76, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz145

    Fender, R., Bright, J., Mooley, K., & Miller-Jones, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, L76, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz145

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    1999a, ApJL, 519, L165, doi: 10.1086/312128

    Fender, R., Corbel, S., Tzioumis, T., et al. 1999a, ApJL, 519, L165, doi: 10.1086/312128

    doi

  18. [27]

    A., Corbel, S., et al

    Fender, R., Woudt, P. A., Corbel, S., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 13, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0013

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    P., Belloni, T

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

    2004

  20. [29]

    P., Garrington, S

    Fender, R. P., Garrington, S. T., McKay, D. J., et al. 1999b, MNRAS, 304, 865, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02364.x

    1999

  21. [30]

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

    Fender, R. P., Homan, J., & Belloni, T. M. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1370, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14841.x

    2009

  22. [31]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, L132, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly083

    Gallo, E., Degenaar, N., & van den Eijnden, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, L132, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly083

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    P., & Pooley, G

    Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., & Pooley, G. G. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 60, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06791.x

    2003

  24. [33]

    2016, Astronomy and Geophysics, 57, 3.28, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atw101

    Garrington, S., & Beswick, R. 2016, Astronomy and Geophysics, 57, 3.28, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atw101

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    J., & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Croston, J. H. 2020, NewAR, 88, 101539, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539

    2020

  28. [37]

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

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

    2020

  29. [38]

    J., Baker, A

    Heywood, I., Jarvis, M. J., Baker, A. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1250

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Hale, C

    Heywood, I., Jarvis, M. J., Hale, C. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3021

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    M., & Johnston, K

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

    1988 doi

  32. [41]

    M., & Rupen, M

    Hjellming, R. M., & Rupen, M. P. 1995, Nature, 375, 464, doi: 10.1038/375464a0

    1995 doi

  33. [42]

    2005, Ap&SS, 300, 107, doi: 10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4 30

    Homan, J., & Belloni, T. 2005, Ap&SS, 300, 107, doi: 10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4 30

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    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

  35. [44]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  36. [45]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    Kalemci, E., Kara, E., & Tomsick, J. A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 9, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 100-1

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    A., & Swift Team

    Kennea, J. A., & Swift Team. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 34540, 1

    2023

  39. [48]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., Russell, D. M., Fern´ andez-Ontiveros, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/139

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    A., Holland, S

    Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/14

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    2002, Nature, 417, 125, doi: 10.1038/417125a

    Livio, M. 2002, Nature, 417, 125, doi: 10.1038/417125a

    2002 doi

  44. [53]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)

    2011

  45. [54]

    J., Osler, A., Miller-Jones, J

    Maccarone, T. J., Osler, A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa120 Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Muller, S., & Casey, S. 2014, A&A, 563, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322633 Mata S´ anchez, D., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Armas ...

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    Casares, J., & Torres, M. A. P. 2024, A&A, 682, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348754 Mata S´ anchez, D., Torres, M. A. P., Casares, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451960

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

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

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    E., & Remillard, R

    McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A. 2006, Black hole binaries, Vol. 39 (Cambridge University Press), 157–213

    2006

  49. [58]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 4893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1393

    Mereminskiy, I., Lutovinov, A., Molkov, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1393

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    A., Miller-Jones, J

    Migliari, S., Tomsick, J. A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/117

    2010 doi

  51. [60]

    A., et al

    Migliori, G., Corbel, S., Tomsick, J. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1864

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    2011, PASJ, 63, S623, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S623

    Mihara, T., Nakajima, M., Sugizaki, M., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, S623, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S623

    2011 doi

  53. [62]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Tetarenko, A. J., Sivakoff, G. R., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 374, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    F., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 1994, Nature, 371, 46, doi: 10.1038/371046a0

    1994 doi

  55. [64]

    2018, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting (EVN 2018), 152

    Moldon, J. 2018, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting (EVN 2018), 152

    2018

  56. [65]

    Offringa, A. R. 2010, AOFlagger: RFI Software. http://ascl.net/1010.017

    2010

  57. [66]

    G., & Roberts, J

    Pacholczyk, A. G., & Roberts, J. A. 1971, Physics Today, 24, 57, doi: 10.1063/1.3022939

    1971 doi

  58. [67]

    L., Dichiara, S., Gropp, J

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

    2023

  59. [68]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca

    Peng, J.-Q., Zhang, S., Shui, Q.-C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    M., Polisensky, E., Clarke, T

    Peters, W. M., Polisensky, E., Clarke, T. E., Giacintucci, S., & Kassim, N. E. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16279, 1

    2023

  61. [70]

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

    Plotkin, R. M., Gallo, E., & Jonker, P. G. 2013, ApJ, 773, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/59

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16541, 1

    Podgorny, J., Svoboda, J., & Dovciak, M. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16541, 1

    2024

  63. [72]

    M., Hyman, S

    Polisensky, E., Lane, W. M., Hyman, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 60, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/60

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 39, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.656907

    2021

  65. [74]

    P., Miller-Jones, J

    Rushton, A. P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Curran, P. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx526

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    M., Fender, R

    Russell, D. M., Fender, R. P., Hynes, R. I., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1334, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10756.x

    2006

  67. [76]

    M., Maitra, D., Dunn, R

    Russell, D. M., Maitra, D., Dunn, R. J. H., & Markoff, S. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1759, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16547.x

    2010

  68. [77]

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

    Russell, D. M., Markoff, S., Casella, P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts377

    2013 doi

  69. [78]

    D., Carotenuto, F., Miller-Jones, J

    Russell, T. D., Carotenuto, F., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16552, 1

    2024

  70. [79]

    D., Soria, R., Miller-Jones, J

    Russell, T. D., Soria, R., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2498

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    D., Tetarenko, A

    Russell, T. D., Tetarenko, A. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36 —. 2019b, ApJ, 883, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36

    doi

  72. [81]

    D., Lucchini, M., Tetarenko, A

    Russell, T. D., Lucchini, M., Tetarenko, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2650 31 S´ anchez-Sierras, J., & Mu˜ noz-Darias, T. 2020, A&A, 640, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038406

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 433, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    M., Zurita, C., et al

    Shahbaz, T., Russell, D. M., Zurita, C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2696, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1212

    2013 doi

  75. [84]

    L., Lightman, A

    Shapiro, S. L., Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1976, ApJ, 204, 187, doi: 10.1086/154162

    1976 doi

  76. [85]

    F., et al

    Svoboda, J., Dovˇ ciak, M., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.04689, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.04689

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [86]

    M., et al

    Tananbaum, H., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E. M., et al. 1972, ApJL, 174, L143, doi: 10.1086/180968

    1972 doi

  78. [87]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., & Sivakoff, G. R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3151

    2018 doi

  79. [88]

    J., Sivakoff, G

    Tetarenko, A. J., Sivakoff, G. R., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1048

    2017 doi

  80. [89]

    Gladstone, J. C. 2016, ApJS, 222, 15, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    S., & Price, R

    Thorne, K. S., & Price, R. H. 1975, ApJL, 195, L101, doi: 10.1086/181720 van der Laan, H. 1966, Nature, 211, 1131, doi: 10.1038/2111131a0

    1975 doi

  82. [91]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

    Wood, C. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Homan, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1479

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

    Wood, C. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12370, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12370 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03073, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03073

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16276, 1

    Yu, W. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16276, 1

    2023

Pith tools

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