Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

An Ejection Event Captured by VLBI During the Outburst of Swift J1727.8$-$1613

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A six-hour VLBI observation caught the radio flare of black hole binary Swift J1727.8–1613 as plasma ejected at about 0.6c.

desk verdict Solid EVN observation of a bright Galactic BH transient, but the ejection speed and event claim rest on a hand-tuned model rather than a quantitative fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18817 v1 pith:N7Q6JV5E submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.HE

Hongmin Cao , Jun Yang , Sándor Frey , Callan M. Wood , James C. A. Miller-Jones , Krisztina É. Gabányi , Giulia Migliori , Marcello Giroletti
show 4 more authors
Lang Cui Tao An Xiaoyu Hong Weihua Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinaryVLBIradioflarejetejectionpropermotionaccretiondiskSwiftJ1727.8-1613
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 argues that a large-amplitude radio flare seen during a six-hour very long baseline interferometry observation of the Galactic black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8–1613 was caused by plasma ejected from the source. The visibility amplitudes on the longest intercontinental baselines oscillated in a way that matches a compact blob crossing the interferometer fringe pattern, or two symmetric blobs moving apart. From the timing of the oscillations the angular separation speed is about 30 milliarcseconds per day, which at the source distance corresponds to an apparent speed near 0.6 times the speed of light. If correct, this shows discrete ejecta were produced frequently during a four-day radio flare, meaning jet power estimated from sparse monitoring would be underestimated. The paper also links the ejection to a softening of the X-ray spectrum and to activity in the inner hot accretion disk.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the visibility amplitude versus time curve on the long Europe-to-South Africa baselines, where a moving blob crossing the fringe pattern produces periodic peaks separated by the fringe spacing lambda/B. The authors use the van Cittert–Zernike theorem to simulate the amplitude evolution for a two-component model (stationary core plus moving blob, or two symmetric blobs), and they fit a broken exponential to the short-baseline amplitude to extract rise and fall timescales. The oscillation period on the long baselines gives the proper motion; the final-hour linear increase of the fitted circular-Gaussian size gives the expansion speed. The apparent speed then converts to intrinsic speed and Doppler factor using the independently estimated viewing angle.

What would settle it

A second VLBI observation one or two days later that resolves the source into two components moving apart at a constant speed of about 30 mas per day would confirm the ejection; conversely, if the amplitude oscillation pattern is not reproduced with denser (u,v) coverage, or if a later epoch shows no steadily moving offset to the south, the ejection interpretation would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the radio flare observed with very long baseline interferometry on 2023 October 5 was an ejection event rather than intrinsic variability of the radio core. Two configurations fit the data: a stationary core plus one blob moving south, or two blobs moving symmetrically in opposite directions. In both cases the initial angular separation speed of the components is about 30 mas per day, corresponding to an apparent speed of about 0.6c given the 3.4 kpc distance. The paper finds that a model where the moving component's flux density rises and falls according to a broken exponential and the component separates at constant speed reproduces the observed oscillation on long baselines, while the final-hour linear expansion of the fitted Gaussian size indicates the size is dominated by component separation. It concludes that the ejection took place in the hard-intermediate state just after a radio quenching event, and that the source was in the rising phase of a larger four-day flare, so such ejections were frequent.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on attributing the oscillating visibility amplitudes on the long baselines to a compact blob moving across the interferometer fringes (or two symmetric blobs separating); if the oscillations came from intrinsic flux variability or a changing core structure, the derived proper motion and the ejection event would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ejection events were as frequent as this observation implies, single-epoch or daily-cadence radio monitoring will underestimate time-averaged jet power; continuous monitoring is needed.
  • The radio quenching leading the hard X-ray decline by roughly half a day places the disturbance near the inner edge of the hot accretion disk.
  • The disappearance of the type-C quasi-periodic oscillation and the drop in fractional rms just before the ejection strengthen the link between state transitions and transient jet ejections in black hole X-ray binaries.
  • The blob kinetic power of about 10^33 erg per second is orders of magnitude below the accretion power of about 10^39 erg per second, ruling out the jet as a major energy sink in this system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: The one-blob and two-blob scenarios are degenerate in visibility amplitude alone; future dual-frequency or polarimetric VLBI could break the degeneracy because the receding blob's flux ratio depends on spectral index and viewing angle.
  • Editorial extension: If the fitted-size oscillation reflects interference between two components rather than jet wobbling, the same technique could be applied to other bright X-ray binaries to detect ejections that imaging would miss.
  • Editorial extension: The paper's inference that the final-hour size expansion is dominated by component separation is directly testable by fitting two Gaussian components to the last few data slices rather than a single Gaussian.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 5 GHz EVN observations of the Galactic black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613 obtained during a 6-hour window immediately after a radio quenching event. The visibility amplitudes show a large flare, with oscillations on the long European-to-Hartebeesthoek baselines. The authors interpret these oscillations as evidence for an ejection event: either a single blob moving south from a stationary core or two symmetric blobs moving apart, with an initial angular separation speed of about 30 mas/d, corresponding to an apparent speed of about 0.6c. They fit single circular Gaussian models to 14 time slices, report an apparent linear size expansion in the final hour, estimate blob energetics using the Fender and Bright (2019) formalism, and discuss the relation to simultaneous X-ray monitoring. The paper concludes that ejection events were frequent during the larger 4-day radio flare and that continuous radio monitoring is needed to estimate jet power correctly.

Significance. If the ejection interpretation is correct, this is a valuable short-timescale VLBI measurement of jet ejection in a bright Galactic X-ray binary, complementing the longer-term VLBI monitoring of Wood et al. (2024, 2025). The paper is careful in its data reduction, checks the calibrator stability, and provides slice-by-slice model fits with error estimates. The multi-wavelength context, including the simultaneous X-ray data and the timing relative to the VLA quenching, is useful. However, the central claim that the visibility oscillations constitute a moving blob (or two blobs) is not quantitatively established: the proper-motion estimate lacks uncertainties, the simulation is a hand-tuned consistency check rather than a fit, and no alternative no-motion model is tested. The derived speeds, Doppler factors, and energetics are all conditional on this interpretation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 2]
  2. [Section 4.2, Figs. 5 and 6]
  3. [Section 3 and Table 1]
  4. [Section 4.1, energetics paragraph]
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states that the data are 'consistent with an ejection event' and Section 5 says it is 'inferred to be caused by an ejection event.' Given the model degeneracy discussed in Section 4, I recommend softening these statements to 'can be interpreted as an ejection event' or 'is consistent with, but does not uniquely require, an ejection event.'
  2. [Section 4.1, paragraph on jet acceleration] The sentence 'However, if the jet did undergo acceleration. The minor flare could instead be attributed to an internal shock...' is incomplete and should be rewritten into a grammatically complete conditional statement.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states that only one IF (IF 5 at 4.927 GHz) and the baselines to Ef are shown, with data averaged over every 15 visibilities. Please clarify whether the plotted 'Hh baselines' are only Ef-Hh or an average over all European-Hh baselines, and specify the time averaging in the caption itself. A version showing multiple IFs and baselines would help demonstrate that the oscillation is not frequency- or baseline-specific.
  4. [Section 4.2, simulation start time] The simulation begins at the inferred ejection time of 12:15, which is before the start of the EVN observation at 12:30 and before the first data point used in the analysis. Please state the sensitivity of the simulated visibility curves to the assumed ejection time, especially because the first observed peak is described as tentative.
  5. [Table 1 and Table 2 notes] The notes state that when the fitted angular size is smaller than the resolution limit, the limit is used as an upper limit. Please state the numerical value of the resolution limit used for the European-only and European-plus-Hh arrays, so that the upper limits in Tables 1 and 2 can be interpreted.
  6. [Section 4.3, jet power underestimation] The statement that jet power 'may be (severely) underestimated' when monitoring is infrequent is qualitative. Please provide a quantitative illustration, for example a comparison of the flare amplitude and timescale seen by EVN with what a daily-cadence monitoring campaign would have measured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the ejection interpretation is model-dependent, but no derived quantity is defined in terms of an assumed input or reduced to a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an interpretation of observed Hh-baseline visibility-amplitude oscillations as fringe crossings of a moving blob or symmetrically separating blobs. The 30 mas/d proper motion is estimated directly from the observed ~1.5 h peak spacing and the standard relation lambda/B in Section 4.1, not from a fitted parameter of the model. The broken-exponential light-curve parameters in Eq. 1 are fitted to the short Jb-Ef baseline and then used as inputs to the forward simulation in Section 4.2, but the simulation is explicitly presented as a consistency check ('simulation indicates that the one-blob scenario is viable'), not as an independent derivation of the speed. External inputs such as the distance (Mata Sanchez et al. 2025), the viewing angle (Svoboda et al. 2024), and previous VLBI proper motions of the same source (Wood et al. 2024, 2025) are independent published measurements, not outputs of this paper's model. The paper includes explicit caveats that the simple model fits cannot represent the real structure due to missing intermediate baselines, and that alternative explanations (intrinsic flux variability, changing component flux ratios) are not uniquely excluded; these are limitations on the strength of the physical interpretation, not circular reasoning. No equation in the paper reduces to a previously assumed result by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore not circular.

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

The central inference depends on external measurements (distance, viewing angle, polarization-based jet orientation) and on the standard Fender and Bright energy formalism. The only quantity fitted directly to the data is the broken exponential flare model, which is then used as input to the simulation and energetics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Flare peak flux Smax = 235 mJy
    Visually identified from the Jb-Ef visibility amplitude curve and used in the broken exponential model, in the simulation, and in blob energetics.
  • Flare peak time tmax = 16:45 UTC
    Visually identified from the light curve; defines the break in the exponential model.
  • Rise timescale tau_rise = 0.112 +/- 0.001 days
    Fitted to the Jb-Ef visibility amplitudes with a broken exponential; used to estimate blob kinetic power and to set simulation parameters.
  • Fall timescale tau_fall = 0.059 +/- 0.002 days
    Fitted to the same light curve; used in the simulation.
  • Simulation component fluxes and FWHMs = varied (e.g., 40 mJy and 0.5 mas, 15 mJy and 1.0 mas, etc.)
    Chosen by hand in the toy simulation to reproduce the observed visibility amplitude behavior; not constrained by a formal fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The source distance is 3.4 +/- 0.3 kpc (Mata Sanchez et al. 2025).
    Used to convert angular proper motion to apparent speed; the paper notes a new parallax is being measured and the distance is uncertain.
  • domain assumption The jet viewing angle is 30-50 degrees (Svoboda et al. 2024).
    Used to derive intrinsic blob speed and Doppler factor; based on X-ray polarization measurements.
  • domain assumption The jet is oriented north-south on the sky.
    Inferred from optical and IR polarization angles and prior VLBI imaging; required for the interpretation of the Hartebeesthoek baseline oscillations as due to a north-south moving blob.
  • domain assumption The Fender and Bright (2019) parameterization of blob energetics is valid for this source.
    Used to estimate blob brightness temperature, energy, and kinetic power; assumes a single expanding blob and equipartition conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper The visibility amplitude oscillations on the Hartebeesthoek baselines are caused by a moving blob or symmetric blobs, not by other variability.
    This is the key interpretive assumption that links the data to an ejection event; the simulation only shows consistency, not uniqueness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Ejection Event Captured by VLBI During the Outburst of Swift J1727.8$-$1613." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N7Q6JV5E

@misc{pith2026250618817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Ejection Event Captured by VLBI During the Outburst of Swift J1727.8$-$1613},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N7Q6JV5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18817}
}
abstract

We observed a newly-discovered Galactic black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613 with the European Very Long Baseline Interferometry Network (EVN) at 5 GHz. The observation was conducted immediately following a radio quenching event detected by the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). The visibility amplitude evolution over time reveals a large-amplitude radio flare and is consistent with an ejection event. The data can be interpreted either as a stationary component (i.e., the radio core) and a moving blob, or as two blobs moving away from the core symmetrically in opposite directions. The initial angular separation speed of the two components was estimated to 30 mas d^{-1}. We respectively fitted a single circular Gaussian model component to each of 14 sliced visibility datasets. For the case of including only European baselines, during the final hour of the EVN observation, the fitted sizes exhibited linear expansion, indicating that the measured sizes were dominated by the angular separation of the two components. The 6-h EVN observation took place in a rising phase of an even larger 4-day-long radio flare, implying that the ejection events were quite frequent and therefore continuous radio monitoring is necessary to correctly estimate the power of the transient jet. Combined with X-ray monitoring data, the radio quenching and subsequent flares/ejections were likely driven by instabilities in the inner hot accretion disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The (u, v) coverage of the EVN experiment ob￾serving Swift J1727.8−1613. The intra-European baselines are clustered at the center, while the longer baselines be￾tween the European antennas and Hh are roughly aligned along the north–south direction. The (u, v) points belonging to the Jb–Ef, Mc–O8 and Ef–Hh baselines are highlighted by magenta, blue, and red colors, respectively. board the International Space Station … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visibility amplitude versus observing time. The three vertical dashed lines in the upper panel indicate the approximate peak positions of the visibility amplitudes of Swift J1727.8−1613 on the Hh baselines (red curve). For the convenience of display, the plot is made with the baselines to the most sensitive Ef antenna, and only one IF (IF 5 at 4.927 GHz) is shown, with the data points further averaged over every 15 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The modelfit images of Swift J1727.8−1613 and the fitted angular size versus observing time. The two images were made using intra-European baselines only. The first contours are at ±5σ (left panel) and ±3σ (middle panel) image rms noise levels, respectively, and the positive contours increase by a factor of 2. The peak brightness and image rms noise level values are 138.8 and 2.6 mJy beam−1 for the left panel, and 6… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The rise and fall timescales of the visibility am￾plitude. In the upper panel, the open circles are visibility amplitudes from IF 5, with the data further averaged over ev￾ery 15 and 30 visibilities for the Jb–Ef (magenta) and Mc–O8 (blue) baselines, respectively, to i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The simulated evolution of the visibility amplitude over time. The amplitudes at three points in the visibility plane, i.e., (0, 5) Mλ, (0, 10) Mλ, and (0, 110) Mλ, are selected to represent two short baselines and one long baseline. The model consists of two component…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The simulated evolution of the visibility amplitude over time. The amplitudes at three points in the visibility plane, i.e., (0, 5) Mλ, (0, 10) Mλ, and (0, 110) Mλ, are selected to represent two short baselines and one long baseline. The model consists of two component…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The X-ray photon flux, radio flux density, and X-ray hardness variations over time. The beginning and the end of the EVN observing period are shown by the two ver￾tical red dashed lines. The X-ray data are taken from the MAXI archive (Matsuoka et al. 2009). The radio f…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The angular sizes are shown in Fig

    T able 2.The source parameters of Swift J1727.8−1613 with European and Hh antennas Slice Time [d]S ν [mJy]θ[mas] Slice Time [d]S ν [mJy]θ[mas] 1 0.55451 66±16 0.90±0.15 8 0.67361 186±28 1.12±0.10 2 0.57222 81±18 0.83±0.12 9 0.69652 233±37 1.07±0.10 3 0.59166 85±24 1.10±0.21 10 0.70798 200±39 0.95±0.12 4 0.60312 100±13 1.11±0.07 11 0.73368 127±31 1.00±0.17...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 675, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346522

    Avakyan, A., Neumann, M., Zainab, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346522

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346522 2023

  3. [3]

    J., & Conway, J

    Beasley, A. J., & Conway, J. E. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 82, Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the VLBA, ed. J. A

    1995

  4. [4]

    M., & Motta, S

    Belloni, T. M., & Motta, S. E. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Latest Developments, ed. C. Bambi, 61, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4 2

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

  5. [5]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16273, 1

    Bollemeijer, N., Uttley, P., Buisson, D., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16273, 1

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    S., Fender, R

    Bright, J. S., Fender, R. P., Motta, S. E., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 2020

  7. [7]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

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

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06448 2025

  8. [8]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab864 12

    Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab864 12

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab864 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    D., et al

    Caballero-Garcia, M. D., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16208, 1

    2023

  2. [10]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Lightman, A

    Eardley, D. M., Lightman, A. P., & Shapiro, S. L. 1975, ApJL, 199, L153, doi: 10.1086/181871

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1730

    Egron, E., Pellizzoni, A., Giroletti, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1730

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed

    Fender, R. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Vol. 39 (Cambridge University Press), 381–419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303339

    2006 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

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

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

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2003

  10. [18]

    285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed

    Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck, 109, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8 7

    doi

  11. [19]

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

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

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    1977, ApJ, 214, 840, doi: 10.1086/155314

    Ichimaru, S. 1977, ApJ, 214, 840, doi: 10.1086/155314

    1977 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3faf

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

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Motta, S

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

    2019

  15. [23]

    M., Pogrebenko, S

    Keimpema, A., Kettenis, M. M., Pogrebenko, S. V., et al. 2015, Experimental Astronomy, 39, 259, doi: 10.1007/s10686-015-9446-1

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    A., & Swift Team

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

    2023

  17. [25]

    Y., Kellermann, K

    Kovalev, Y. Y., Kellermann, K. I., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2473, doi: 10.1086/497430

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Veledina, A., et al

    Kravtsov, V., Nitindala, A. P., Veledina, A., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16245, 1

    2023

  19. [27]

    P., Krichbaum, T

    Lee, S.-S., Lobanov, A. P., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/159

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06574

    Liao, J., Chang, N., Cui, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06574

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics Mata S´ anchez, D., Torres, M. A. P., Casares, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451960

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

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

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Sivakoff, G. R., Altamirano, D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 468, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20326.x

    2012

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    E., Rodriguez, J., Jourdain, E., et al

    Motta, S. E., Rodriguez, J., Jourdain, E., et al. 2021, NewAR, 93, 101618, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101618

    2021

  27. [35]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16206, 1

    Nakajima, M., Negoro, H., Serino, M., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16206, 1

    2023

  28. [36]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16205, 1

    Negoro, H., Serino, M., Nakajima, M., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16205, 1

    2023

  29. [37]

    L., Dichiara, S., Gropp, J

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

    2023

  30. [38]

    J., Belloni, T., et al

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

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    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 Podgorn´ y, J., Svoboda, J., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450566

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51, doi: 10.1086/174038

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C., Pearson, T

    Shepherd, M. C., Pearson, T. J., & Taylor, G. B. 1994, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 26, 987–989

    1994

  35. [43]

    F., et al

    Svoboda, J., Dovˇ ciak, M., Steiner, J. F., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad402e

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2004, in European VLBI Network on New Developments in VLBI Science and Technology, ed

    Szomoru, A., Biggs, A., Garrett, M., et al. 2004, in European VLBI Network on New Developments in VLBI Science and Technology, ed. R. Bachiller, F. Colomer, J. F. Desmurs, & P. de Vicente, 257–260, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0412686

    2004 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tsybulev, P. G. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16289, 1

    2023

  38. [46]

    1999, ApJS, 120, 95, doi: 10.1086/313170

    Valtaoja, E., L¨ ahteenm¨ aki, A., Ter¨ asranta, H., & Lainela, M. 1999, ApJS, 120, 95, doi: 10.1086/313170

    1999 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Dovˇ ciak, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0781

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Gurwell, M., McCollough, M., & Rao, R

    Vrtilek, S. D., Gurwell, M., McCollough, M., & Rao, R. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16230, 1

    2023

  41. [49]

    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 13

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

    Wood, C. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 70, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad939

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Miller-Jones, J

    Wood, C. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6572 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03073, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03073

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2010, MNRAS, 409, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00948.x

    Yang, J., Brocksopp, C., Corbel, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00948.x

    2010

  45. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad111

    Yang, J., Garc ´ ıa, F., del Palacio, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad111

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504

    You, B., Cao, X., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae835

    Yu, W., Bu, Q.-C., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae835

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.