Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 71 references

X-ray and optical decline of the intermediate mass black hole HLX-1

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In its post-2017 low state, the intermediate-mass black hole HLX-1 shows an X-ray luminosity lower than its optical/UV luminosity, requiring a reprocessing fraction above unity and therefore ruling out an irradiated accretion disk as the so

desk verdict New 2018–2022 data and a conservative f_irr>1 argument against irradiated-disk models make this a solid, useful paper, but far-UV ring contamination and the 18-count X-ray spectrum leave real room for doubt. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26137 v1 pith:73NX3NMJ submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Roberto Soria , Maya Garbaccio Gili , Francesco Massaro , Alister W. Graham , Luca Zampieri This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords intermediate-massblackholetidaldisruptioneventX-rayreprocessingaccretiondiskUV/opticaldeclineHLX-1ESO243-49outflowphotosphere
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 uses new 2018–2022 HST, Chandra, and Swift observations to show that HLX-1's X-ray flux has dropped by two orders of magnitude since its 2010 outburst peak while its optical/UV flux faded much more slowly, settling into a plateau. At late times the optical/UV component is brighter than the X-rays: converting the numbers into an X-ray reprocessing fraction gives f_irr ≈ 1.8–3.1, which is physically impossible for a passive disk. The authors therefore argue that the late-time blue/UV light cannot be X-rays reprocessed by an accretion disk; it must be self-luminous, most plausibly the cooling, expanding photosphere of a tidal disruption event outflow. They also identify the redder optical component as an old star cluster of a few million solar masses, and resolve a far-UV ring-like star-forming structure behind HLX-1. If correct, HLX-1 becomes a rare IMBH TDE seen from its X-ray-bright phase into its cooling-envelope phase.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the reprocessing fraction f_irr = L_opt/L_X: the geometric limit on how much X-ray luminosity a passive accretion disk can intercept and re-emit (~10^-3 to ~5×10^-2 in canonical models). Comparing the measured late-time blue/UV blackbody luminosity L_bb,h ≈ 1.5×10^40 erg/s to the measured X-ray luminosity L_X ≈ (4.9–8.6)×10^39 erg/s yields f_irr ≈ 1.8–3.1, an impossible value. The cooling-envelope interpretation is carried by the blackbody evolution: radius shrinking from ~1.4×10^13 cm to ~4.5×10^12 cm while temperature rises from ~26,000 K to ~32,000 K, the signature of a photosphere that is expanding and moving into hotter layers.

What would settle it

A future deep X-ray observation (or re-analysis of the 2022 Chandra data) that finds the true unabsorbed luminosity of HLX-1 to be ~100 times higher than reported would bring f_irr down to ~0.02 and revive the irradiated disk model. Conversely, a high spatial resolution UV observation that shows the blue component in a 0.1″ aperture to be substantially fainter than the 0.4″ measurement would indicate ring contamination and lower L_bb,h.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 2022 dataset exposes a stark contradiction with the irradiated-disk picture. With unabsorbed X-ray luminosity L_X ≈ (4.9–8.6)×10^39 erg/s and blue thermal component luminosity L_bb,h ≈ 1.5×10^40 erg/s, the required reprocessing fraction is f_irr ≈ 1.8–3.1, exceeding unity and violating energy conservation for a passive disk. To salvage irradiation one would need to underestimate the X-ray luminosity by a factor ~100, which the authors rule out as implausible. They conclude the optical/UV emission originates from a distinct self-luminous component: the shrinking, slightly heating photosphere (T ≈ 30,000 K) of an expanding TDE outflow, seen face-on through a low-d

Load-bearing premise

The optical/UV photometry assigned to HLX-1 is assumed to be uncontaminated by the nearby resolved far-UV ring structure; if part of that blue light belongs to the ring, the inferred plateau luminosity and the f_irr > 1 contradiction weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the post-2017 optical/UV plateau of HLX-1 is powered by a TDE outflow, not by the accretion disk's reprocessing of X-rays.
  • The X-ray light curve now attributed to HLX-1 is at least 90% galaxy background; HLX-1 itself is fainter, so previous claims of a plateau in its own X-ray emission need revision.
  • Pre-2017 outburst recurrence with increasing waiting times is consistent with radiation-pressure disk instability during TDE fallback decline, making partial TDE explanation unnecessary.
  • The host star cluster mass of a few ×10^6 M_sun is in the range predicted to harbor a ~10^4 M_sun IMBH.
  • The far-UV ring structure is a dwarf starburst or collisional ring galaxy, likely background, though an association cannot be fully excluded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the outflow photosphere interpretation holds, the observed optical line velocities (used to set HLX-1's distance) may be blueshifted, so the true systemic velocity could place HLX-1 with the background starburst dwarf rather than with ESO 243-49; this is a testable alternative to the standard association.
  • The f_irr > 1 contradiction depends on the 2022 photometry being entirely HLX-1's; a small contamination from the adjacent far-UV ring could reduce L_bb,h and lower f_irr. A dedicated high-resolution UV observation or a smaller-aperture measurement could settle this.
  • The same decoupling should be searched for in other late-time TDE candidates with low X-ray states, where an apparent optical plateau might similarly indicate an outflow rather than a disk.
  • The predicted temperature plateau near the hydrogen ionization threshold (20,000–40,000 K) offers a sharp observational test: if the UV photosphere cools below ~10,000 K or heats above ~50,000 K over the next decade, the outflow scenario is challenged.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new HST, Chandra, and Swift observations of the intermediate-mass black hole candidate HLX-1 from 2018–2022, extending earlier monitoring. In the current low X-ray state the 2022 Chandra spectrum is consistent with LX ≈ (4.9–8.6) × 10^39 erg/s, while the UV/optical SED is fit as the sum of a constant cool blackbody (interpreted as an old star cluster) and a declining hot blackbody with L_bb,h ≈ 1.5 × 10^40 erg/s in 2022. Because L_bb,h exceeds LX, the required reprocessing fraction f_irr = L_bb,h/LX ≈ 1.8–3.1 exceeds unity; the authors argue this rules out X-ray irradiation and requires a self-luminous component, which they identify with the cooling photosphere of a tidal disruption event outflow. The paper also resolves a far-UV ring near HLX-1 and suggests that the pre-2017 recurrent outbursts were radiation-pressure disk instabilities during TDE fallback rather than partial TDEs.

Significance. If the f_irr > 1 result holds, it is a significant observational constraint on the late-time emission mechanism of HLX-1 and, by extension, on IMBH-TDE evolution. The analysis has notable strengths: the X-ray and optical measurements are independent; the authors deliberately adopt the highest plausible X-ray luminosity, which is conservative for testing the irradiation hypothesis; and the new Chandra/Swift decomposition cleanly separates HLX-1 from the galaxy background. The resolved far-UV ring is also a useful new result. However, the central claim rests on the attribution of all F140LP-band flux within a 0.4″ aperture to HLX-1 itself, and the paper does not currently demonstrate that this attribution is safe. Because the ring is bright and adjacent, this is a load-bearing issue for the main conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Table 2; §4.2, Fig. 9] The F140LP photometry of HLX-1 uses a 0.4″-radius aperture (Table 2), yet §4.2 and Fig. 9 place HLX-1 at the edge of a resolved far-UV ring whose total F140LP flux is (5.1±0.5)×10^-17 erg/cm2/s/Å, roughly 25 times the HLX-1 F140LP flux estimated from the 2022 AB magnitude (≈2×10^-18). The ring surface brightness at the HLX-1 position is not modeled or subtracted, and no smaller-aperture or PSF-subtraction cross-check is reported for F140LP. Since L_bb,h from the SED fit is the numerator in f_irr, any ring contribution inside the aperture directly weakens the f_irr > 1 contradiction. This must be quantified before the central claim can be accepted.
  2. [§5.1] The paper should demonstrate that the f_irr > 1 conclusion is robust to the F140LP contamination and to SED-fitting choices. Specifically, the authors should re-fit the 2018 and 2022 SEDs (a) excluding F140LP, (b) including a ring-contamination term or using a smaller aperture, and (c) varying the hot-component reddening within the fitted range. Because the 2022 hot-component luminosity is driven largely by the F140LP and F300X points, removing an overestimated F140LP datapoint could lower L_bb,h from 1.5×10^40 to values comparable to the adopted LX ≈ 8.6×10^39. If f_irr then drops below unity, the 'physically impossible' argument disappears, even though the ratio would remain above the canonical ~0.05. The manuscript currently does not provide this robustness test, so the starkest version of the claim is unverified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The text cites 'Section 3.3' for the X-ray luminosity of HLX-1; the relevant section is §3.2.
  2. [Fig. 11 caption and §5.2] Fig. 11's caption refers to 'parameters from Table 2', but the SED parameters are in Table 3. In §5.2, 'bolometric luminosity Tbb ≈ 2.6 × 10^39 erg/s' should be 'bolometric luminosity Lbb,c ≈ 2.6 × 10^39 erg/s'.
  3. [§4.2] When measuring the ring's net count rate, the text says the region does not include HLX-1's emission, but it does not state how the HLX-1 PSF was excluded. Please specify the exclusion radius and whether it is consistent with the 0.4″ aperture used in Table 2.
  4. [§2.2] The background subtraction method for F140LP is not explicitly described. The main text says annuli are acceptable for near-UV filters but only describes isophotal subtraction for red bands; since the far-UV ring is a structured source near HLX-1, the exact F140LP background choice should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the f_irr > 1 contradiction is a direct ratio of independent Chandra and HST measurements, not a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the post-2017 reprocessing contradiction f_irr = L_bb,h/L_X ≈ 1.8–3.1 (§5.1). The numerator comes from an HST SED fit (§4.1, Table 3) and the denominator from a Chandra spectral fit (§3.2), each using new 2022 data; neither is generated by the irradiated-disk model under test, and the paper deliberately adopts the maximum plausible X-ray luminosity (Scenario 2) to make the test conservative. The TDE interpretation is supported by external comparisons (Mummery et al. 2024; van Velzen et al. 2020, 2021; Guo & Qiao 2026), not by re-using fitted values as predictions. Self-citations (Soria et al. 2010, 2013, 2017) provide prior outburst context, BH mass, and earlier-epoch radii (Fig. 10) but do not enter the f_irr calculation. Manuscript-flagged limitations — low 2022 Chandra counts (§3.2), the 0.4″ F140LP aperture and adjacent far-UV ring (§4.2, Table 2), and speculation about beaming/obscuration (§5.1) — are observational and model-ambiguity caveats, not circular steps: none of them shows that L_bb,h or L_X is defined in terms of the other or fitted to the model being rejected. The potential ring contamination would weaken the strength of the contradiction if real, but that is a photometric systematic, not a self-referential derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, or fundamental entities are introduced. The 'expanding outflow photosphere' and 'polar funnel' are interpretive models composed of standard astrophysical ingredients, not entities with independent falsifiable handles. The central claims instead rest on assumed distance, a two-blackbody SED decomposition, low-count X-ray spectral modeling, and a qualitative analogy to TDE disk-instability simulations.

free parameters (8)
  • Intrinsic reddening of hot component E(B−V)_h = 0.136 mag
    Fitted and linked across all five epochs in the two-blackbody SED fit; directly adjusts the dereddened hot-component luminosity used in the reprocessing argument (Table 3).
  • Intrinsic reddening of cold component E(B−V)_c = 0.005 mag
    Fitted and linked; shifts the assumed old cluster component.
  • Hot blackbody temperature T_bb,h (per epoch) = 26,100 → 32,000 K across 2010–2022
    Fit parameters describing the time-variable UV component; the increase in T and decrease in R drive the competing TDE/irradiation interpretations.
  • Hot blackbody normalisation N_bb,h (per epoch) = 6.63 → 1.60 × 10^-7
    Sets the hot-component luminosity and radius; fitted per epoch (Table 3).
  • Cold blackbody temperature T_bb,c = 4720 K
    Linked across epochs; assumed to represent an old star cluster.
  • Cold blackbody normalisation N_bb,c = 0.265 × 10^-7
    Linked across epochs.
  • 2022 X-ray intrinsic column density N_H = 5 × 10^20 cm^-2 (fixed)
    Chosen from previous upper limits in Scenario 2; the adopted 'maximum luminosity' result depends on this choice.
  • 2022 X-ray power-law photon index Γ = 0.8
    Free parameter in Scenario 2, which yields the adopted L_X = 8.6 × 10^39 erg/s; other scenarios give 4.9–7 × 10^39 erg/s.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption HLX-1 lies at the distance of ESO 243-49 (z=0.0224, dL=98 Mpc), inferred from one Hα line detected in 2009 and 2012 but absent in later spectra.
    All luminosities, Eddington ratios and the inferred BH mass scale assume this distance; the paper itself later floats a z≈0.0306 association (§5.1, §1).
  • domain assumption The five-epoch UV/optical/IR SED is adequately represented by two single-temperature blackbodies with one constant cold component.
    The hot-component luminosity L_bb,h is derived from this decomposition; no independent stellar-population fit is performed for the cold component (§4.1).
  • domain assumption The 2022 Chandra spectrum (≈18 net counts) can be interpreted with standard absorbed power-law/blackbody models; Scenario 2 with fixed N_H = 5×10^20 cm^-2 yields the adopted maximum L_X.
    The statistical ambiguity among the three scenarios is the main uncertainty in the reprocessing-fraction test (§3.2).
  • domain assumption For a standard irradiated disk in an X-ray binary geometry, the reprocessing fraction cannot exceed ≈0.05.
    Used to declare f_irr ≈ 1.8–3.1 unphysical; if the geometry or bolometric corrections were wildly different, the conclusion would change (§5.1).
  • domain assumption The hot optical/UV component is associated with HLX-1, not with the adjacent resolved far-UV ring structure.
    HLX-1 lies at the edge of the ring (§4.2, Fig. 9); contamination would reduce the inferred plateau luminosity.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiation-pressure disk-instability simulations for a ~10^4 M_sun BH can explain HLX-1's pre-2017 outburst recurrence without a fit to the observed light curve.
    The paper states the detailed application is left to follow-up work; the consistency argument is qualitative (§5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper A face-on low-density polar funnel allows direct X-ray visibility while the UV comes from an outflow photosphere.
    Introduced to reconcile simultaneous direct X-ray and outflow signatures; no independent evidence exists besides the low fitted N_H (§5.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray and optical decline of the intermediate mass black hole HLX-1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73NX3NMJ

@misc{pith2026260726137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray and optical decline of the intermediate mass black hole HLX-1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73NX3NMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26137}
}
read the original abstract

HLX-1 is a prominent intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) candidate, historically exhibiting recurrent X-ray outbursts with spectral state transitions analogous to those observed in stellar-mass black holes. Here, we present new Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra, and Swift observations from 2018-2022 to characterise the late-time flux decline. HLX-1 has persisted in a low X-ray luminosity state (L_X ~ a few x 10^{39} erg/s) since the end of its last outburst in 2017. We observe a significant decoupling between the X-ray and optical/UV emission: while the X-rays have faded by at least two orders of magnitude from peak outburst luminosity (in 2010) to the current low state, the optical/UV flux has declined much more slowly over the same time. This results in an X-ray/optical luminosity ratio inconsistent with X-ray reprocessing in a standard accretion disk, as this would require an unphysical reprocessing fraction >100% at late times. Instead, we find that the optical/UV evolution is well-fitted by a cooling, expanding photosphere (T ~ 30,000 K), similar to the late-stage evolution seen in tidal disruption events (TDEs). The redder component of the optical emission is instead consistent with the old stellar population of a massive star cluster (IMBH host). The pre-2017 X-ray bursting phase is consistent with simulations of disk instabilities in TDE evolution: this strengthens the scenario of HLX-1 as an IMBH TDE. Furthermore, our observations resolve the morphology and flux of the mysterious far-UV emitter, seen in projection next to HLX-1, into a ring-like star-forming structure. We re-assess the possibility that HLX-1 and its host star cluster are physically associated with this starburst dwarf, perhaps via a high-speed collision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Red datapoints: Swift/XRT light-curve, rebinned to a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 2.5. The centroid of the source extraction radius was fixed at the position of HLX-1; however, as a consequence of the large size of the XRT PSF, the X-ray flux is dominated by diffuse emission from ESO 243-49 for count rates ≲10−3 ct s−1 . Dashed blue lines mark the epochs of the five HST observations. Dot-dashed green lines mark … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Chandra/ACIS map in the 0.3–7.0 keV band, from the stacked 2010 plus 2022 data, with Gaussian-smoothed contour levels. HLX-1 is the upper (point-like) source. Dashed white circles represent the composite background region used for the spectral extraction of HLX-1. Middle: 0.3–1.2 keV map, from the same data; the contours are those for the full energy band. Right: 1.2–7.0 keV map, with full-band contours. In al… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Unfolded SED of the UV/optical/IR band, from the HST observations, fitted with a double thermal model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Unfolded broad-band SED of HLX-1, including the five HST observations (magenta datapoints for 2010, red for 2012, orange for 2013, green for 2018 and blue for 2022) and the two Chandra observations (magenta datapoints for 2010, blue for 2022). The HST data have been mo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the best-fitting blackbody temper￾ature, radius and luminosity of the UV/optical blackbody component, as a function of time of observation. (See also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: HST/ACS image in the far-UV F140LP band (centered at λ ≈ 1500 Å), built from a stack of all five observations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the characteristic radii inferred for HLX-1 with those measured in thermal TDEs, as a function of BH mass (plot adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the luminosity density of the best-fitting, constant, cool blackbody component in our model (red line; parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Larger field around ESO 243-49 (≈15′ × 10′ ) from the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys Data Release 10 (A. Dey et al. 2019), with heliocentric recession speeds cz (km s −1 ) labelled next to some of the likely galaxy members of Abell 2877 (values from NED and E. M. Malumut…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top panel: stacked Swift/UVOT image in the uvw2 band (centered at λ ≈ 2000 Å), also showing excess emission between HLX-1 and the nucleus of ESO 243-49, con￾sistent with the flux measured from the HST/ACS F140LP image. Moreover, the image highlights the presence of a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., & van Velzen, S

    Alush, Y., Stone, N. C., & van Velzen, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.24696, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.24696

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24696 2025

  2. [2]

    N., & Struck-Marcell, C

    Appleton, P. N., & Struck-Marcell, C. 1996, FCPh, 16, 111

    1996

  3. [3]

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

    1996

  4. [4]

    F., & de Jong, R

    Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212, doi: 10.1086/319728

    doi:10.1086/319728 2001

  5. [5]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289, doi: 10.1086/378847

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  6. [6]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/135

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/135 2014

  7. [7]

    Blackburn, J. K. 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, 367

    1995

  8. [8]

    S., Holoien, T

    Brown, J. S., Holoien, T. W.-S., Auchettl, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx033

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx033 2017

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2399

    Bu, D.-F., Qiao, E., Yang, X.-H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2399

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, AJ, 164, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac73f0

    Calamida, A., Bajaj, V., Mack, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac73f0

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Caldwell, N., & Rose, J. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 492, doi: 10.1086/118271

    1997 doi

  4. [12]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfda Comerón, S., Salo, H., Peletier, R

    Chen, J.-H., & Shen, R.-F. 2018, ApJ, 867, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfda Comerón, S., Salo, H., Peletier, R. F., & Mentz, J. 2016, A&A, 593, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629292

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Bildsten, L

    Cunningham, T., Wolf, W. M., & Bildsten, L. 2015, ApJ, 803, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/76

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    C., & Miller, M

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., & Miller, M. C. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 812, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L39

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Narayan, R., Zhu, Y., et al

    Davis, S. W., Narayan, R., Zhu, Y., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/111

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    1999, MNRAS, 303, 139, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02212.x

    Dubus, G., Lasota, J.-P., Hameury, J.-M., & Charles, P. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 139, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02212.x

    1999

  12. [20]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  14. [22]

    Rodrigues, J. M. 2009, Nature, 460, 73, doi: 10.1038/nature08083

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Servillat, M., Pforr, J., et al

    Farrell, S. A., Servillat, M., Pforr, J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L13

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Servillat, M., Gladstone, J

    Farrell, S. A., Servillat, M., Gladstone, J. C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1924 19

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 Gierliński, M., Done, C., & Page, K

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 Gierliński, M., Done, C., & Page, K. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1106, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14166.x

    2021

  19. [27]

    C., Antonini, F., et al

    Godet, O., Lombardi, J. C., Antonini, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/105

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/34

    Godet, O., Plazolles, B., Kawaguchi, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/34

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Graham, A. W. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3547

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Chilingarian, I., Nguyen, D

    Graham, A. W., Chilingarian, I., Nguyen, D. D., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e068, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10035

    2025

  23. [31]

    2017, A&A, 603, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629672

    Grzdzielski, M., Janiuk, A., Czerny, B., & Wu, Q. 2017, A&A, 603, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629672

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3aa0

    Guo, C., & Qiao, E. 2026, ApJ, 998, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3aa0

    2026 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Alexander, T., Dubus, G., et al

    Lasota, J. P., Alexander, T., Dubus, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/89

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Kennicutt, Jr., R

    Lee, J. C., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Funes, S. J. J. G., Sakai, S., & Akiyama, S. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1305, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1305

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Eufrasio, R

    Lehmer, B. D., Eufrasio, R. T., Tzanavaris, P., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab22a8

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    Leitherer, C., Ekström, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Kriss, G

    Malumuth, E. M., Kriss, G. A., Dixon, W. V. D., Ferguson, H. C., & Ritchie, C. 1992, AJ, 104, 495, doi: 10.1086/116250

    1992 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt767

    Mapelli, M., Annibali, F., Zampieri, L., & Soria, R. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt767

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Stone, N

    Metzger, B. D., & Stone, N. C. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1394

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag387

    Mummery, A. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag387

    2026 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.0...

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2824

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Brindle, C., Talavera, A., et al

    Page, M. J., Brindle, C., Talavera, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21706.x

    2012

  40. [48]

    S., & Saikia, D

    Paliya, V. S., & Saikia, D. J. 2024, ApJL, 967, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4999

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Zijlstra, A

    Parker, Q. A., Zijlstra, A. A., Stupar, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1432

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    L., & Mockler, B

    Piro, A. L., & Mockler, B. 2025, ApJ, 985, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc729

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 3473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf719

    Qiao, E., Wu, Y., Lin, Y., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf719

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaec6

    Roth, N., & Kasen, D. 2018, ApJ, 855, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaec6

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    Roth, N., Kasen, D., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2016, ApJ, 827, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  47. [55]

    D., Wevers, T., van Velzen, S., et al

    Saxton, R. D., Wevers, T., van Velzen, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554193 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Lin, D., et al

    Servillat, M., Farrell, S. A., Lin, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/6

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    Shen, R.-F., & Matzner, C. D. 2014, ApJ, 784, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/87

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    Soria, R., Hau, G. K. T., Graham, A. W., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 870, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16517.x

    2010

  51. [59]

    Soria, R., Hau, G. K. T., & Pakull, M. W. 2013, ApJL, 768, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/768/1/L22

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx888

    Soria, R., Musaeva, A., Wu, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx888

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    T., & Vacca, W

    Tokunaga, A. T., & Vacca, W. D. 2005, PASP, 117, 421, doi: 10.1086/429382 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W. S., Onori, F., Hung, T., &

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al

    Arcavi, I. 2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    2012, Science, 337, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1222779

    Webb, N., Cseh, D., Lenc, E., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1222779

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Guérou, A., Ciambur, B., et al

    Webb, N. A., Guérou, A., Ciambur, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630042

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e2

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Webb, N

    Wiersema, K., Farrell, S. A., Webb, N. A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 721, L102, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L102 20

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/79

    Wu, Q., Czerny, B., Grzedzielski, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/79

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/23

    Yan, Z., Zhang, W., Soria, R., Altamirano, D., & Yu, W. 2015, ApJ, 811, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/23

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    Yershov, V. N. 2014, Ap&SS, 354, 97, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-1944-5

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    2024a, ApJ, 968, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad434b

    Zhang, Y., Wu, Q., Wu, J., Cao, X., & Lei, W. 2024a, ApJ, 968, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad434b

    doi

  63. [71]

    2024b, A&A, 690, A268, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449413

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024b, A&A, 690, A268, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449413

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.