Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 113 references

The peculiar hard state behaviour of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613

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

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

Pith's one-line read Swift J1727.8−1613 appears to be the most radio-quiet black hole X-ray binary known, and for the first time in such a system the onset of X-ray spectral softening coincides with a change in its radio–X-ray path.

desk verdict A genuinely extreme radio-quiet BH LMXB with transparent analysis; the ejecta-subtraction model is the main uncertainty, but the core claims hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12387 v2 pith:FLL6TTLU submitted 2025-06-14 astro-ph.HE

A. K. Hughes , F. Carotenuto , T. D. Russell , A. J. Tetarenko , J. C. A. Miller-Jones , R. M. Plotkin , A. Bahramian , J. S. Bright
show 32 more authors
F. J. Cowie J. Crook-Mansour R. Fender J. K. Khaulsay A. Kirby S. Jones M. McCollough R. Rao G. R. Sivakoff S. D. Vrtilek D. R. A. Williams-Baldwin C. M. Wood D. Altamirano P. Casella N. Castro Segura S. Corbel M. Del Santo C. Echiburu-Trujillo J. van den Eijnden E. Gallo P. Gandhi K. I. I. Koljonen T. Maccarone S. B. Markoff S. Motta D. M. Russell P. Saikia A. W. Shaw R. Soria J. A. Tomsick W. Yu X. Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeX-raybinariesradio-X-raycorrelationradio-quietcompactjetshybridtrackaccretionstatesSwiftJ1727.8-1613jetejectasubtraction
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 tracks how the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8−1613 coupled its accretion inflow (X-rays) to its jet outflow (radio) across its 2023–2024 outburst. The authors find that, for most of the plausible distance range (about 1.5 to 4.3 kpc), the source sits lower in radio luminosity at a given X-ray luminosity than any previously catalogued black hole binary, making it the most radio-quiet such system known. They also report a first: the moment when the radio–X-ray correlation switches from a steep to a shallow power-law branch coincides with the onset of X-ray spectral softening, suggesting a physical change in the accretion flow rather than a pure jet effect. The result matters because it sharpens the empirical map of jet–accretion coupling and provides a new, single-outburst diagnostic for why some black hole systems are radio-quiet.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radio–X-ray luminosity plane, in which the source is modelled with a broken power law: a steep branch (β ≈ 1.0–1.4) at high X-ray luminosity and a shallow branch (β ≈ 0.3) at low luminosity, joined at a transition luminosity L_X,tran ≈ (5–7)×$10^{35}$ erg/s (for D = 2.6 kpc). The analysis rests on quasi-simultaneous radio (MeerKAT, VLA, ATCA) and X-ray (Swift-XRT) observations, logarithmic interpolation of X-ray fluxes onto radio epochs, and subtraction of an exponentially decaying jet-ejecta component from the radio core fluxes, a subtraction that removes 25–40% of the measured flux at some epochs.

What would settle it

A direct distance measurement (for example a radio parallax) that places Swift J1727.8−1613 outside 1.5–4.3 kpc, or high-resolution imaging showing that the soft-state core emission is not fading jet ejecta, would overturn the radio-quiet record and the track-switch interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Swift J1727.8−1613, during its 2023–2024 outburst, followed an unusually radio-quiet broken power-law track in the radio–X-ray luminosity plane, and that for the first time in a radio-quiet system the transition from the steep to the shallow branch is temporally aligned with the onset of X-ray spectral softening. Across most of the adopted distance range (D ≈ 1.5–4.3 kpc), its radio luminosities at a given X-ray luminosity are lower than those of any previously identified black hole low-mass X-ray binary; at the upper end of that range it becomes comparable to the extremely radio-quiet MAXI J1348−630, but its peak hard-state X-ray luminosity would then exceed 5×$10^{38}$ erg/s, the highest reported for a hard-state system. The paper argues that the coincidence between X-ray softening and the shallow-track onset favours an accretion-driven origin, possibly tied to a radiative-efficiency transition, over purely jet-based explanations.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the adopted distance range and, more fragilely, on subtracting an exponentially decaying jet-ejecta component from the radio core; if the true ejecta decay is not exponential, the compact-jet fluxes, the radio-quiet ranking, and the transition luminosity all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the source lies at the nearer distances, it becomes the benchmark for extreme radio-quiet behaviour, rejoining the standard track about two orders of magnitude lower in X-ray luminosity than MAXI J1348−630.
  • If the source lies at or beyond 4 kpc, its peak 1–10 keV hard-state luminosity would be the highest recorded for a black hole low-mass X-ray binary, implying a bolometric luminosity near or above the Eddington limit for a ~7 solar-mass black hole.
  • The alignment of X-ray spectral softening with the steep-to-shallow track switch, if confirmed, favours accretion-flow evolution over jet-based mechanisms and predicts that the minimum photon index should mark the track turnover in other radio-quiet systems.
  • The derived black-hole mass bound from the radiative-efficiency transition (M_BH ≲ 20 solar masses for D = 2.6 kpc) gives a testable constraint once distance, black-hole mass, and electron temperature are measured independently.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The coincidence between spectral softening and the track switch could become a practical monitoring tool: in future radio-quiet outbursts, the epoch of minimum X-ray photon index would predict where to look for the steep-to-shallow break.
  • If the exponential subtraction is inaccurate, part of the radio-quiet ranking could be an artifact; a clean test would be VLBI imaging during the decay hard state that resolves the compact core from the fading ejecta and measures the compact jet fluxes directly.
  • The distance-luminosity degeneracy means an independent geometric distance (for instance from radio parallax) would immediately decide between the two extreme readings of the outburst: the most radio-quiet black hole binary versus the most X-ray-luminous hard state.
  • Because only four systems now have both steep and shallow branches observed, the Swift J1727 dataset suggests that single-outburst monitoring with dense quasi-simultaneous radio and X-ray coverage can reveal the same accretion-state physics that multi-outburst analyses previously required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents quasi-simultaneous radio and X-ray observations of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613 during its 2023-2024 outburst, and uses them to construct the radio-X-ray luminosity (L_R-L_X) correlation. The authors fit a broken power-law track with a steep branch at high X-ray luminosity and a shallow branch at low X-ray luminosity, and argue that across most of the plausible distance range (D ~ 1.5-4.3 kpc) the source is the most radio-quiet black hole binary identified to date, with a rejoin luminosity to the standard track far below typical values. They further claim that, for the first time in a radio-quiet system, the onset of X-ray spectral softening is temporally coincident with the change in trajectory through the L_R-L_X plane. The paper discusses jet-based and accretion-based explanations, and derives a model-dependent constraint on the black hole mass from the transitional luminosity.

Significance. If the claims hold, Swift J1727.8-1613 is an extreme outlier in the L_R-L_X plane, providing a strong test for models of jet-accretion coupling in black hole binaries. The paper is valuable for its comprehensive quasi-simultaneous dataset, the wide dynamic range covered (~6.5 decades in X-ray luminosity), and the transparent treatment of the distance ambiguity. The authors ship machine-readable data tables and analysis scripts on GitHub, which strengthens reproducibility. The identification of a temporal coincidence between the steep-to-shallow track switch and the minimum X-ray photon index, if robust, would be an important new constraint on the physical origin of the hybrid track. The discussion of alternative explanations is balanced and appropriately caveated, particularly regarding the possibility of residual ejecta contamination at late epochs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The exponential ejecta-decay subtraction is the most load-bearing element of the analysis and is insufficiently constrained. The subtracted component is 25-40% of the MeerKAT flux at some decay hard-state epochs, yet the decay model is fitted to only the final five soft-state MeerKAT epochs, and the footnote in Section 2.1 states that a power-law decay gives a statistically indistinguishable fit. Because the broken-power-law fit in Section 3 (Eq. 1) uses these corrected fluxes to define the shallow branch and the transition luminosity L_X,tran, an incorrect decay shape would directly shift L_X,tran, the rejoin luminosity, and the radio-quiet ranking. The 10% systematic added in quadrature is described in Section 2.1 as implicitly covering 'imperfect subtraction', but it does not quantify the systematic error in the decay shape. I request that the authors repeat the broken-power-law fit and the radio-quiet ranking for a power-law decay model and for the envelope of acceptable exponential parameters, and propagate this as a systematic uncertainty on L_X,tran and on the radio-quiet classification.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 2a] The claimed temporal coincidence between the minimum X-ray photon index and the steep-to-shallow track switch is not independent of the ejecta-subtraction model. The time range corresponding to L_X,tran is derived from the broken-power-law fit, whose decay-epoch points are the very points corrected in Appendix B; if the correction is biased, the mapped time window shifts. In addition, the 'clear temporal alignment' between the vertical dotted line and the grey band is asserted visually; the paper should quantify the overlap (e.g., the number of days that the 1-sigma L_X,tran band overlaps the epoch of minimum Gamma, and how that overlap changes under the alternate decay models requested above). Without such a quantitative statement, the strength of the claimed first-time coincidence is difficult to assess.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 2a] The claimed temporal coincidence between the minimum X-ray photon index and the steep-to-shallow track switch is not independent of the ejecta-subtraction model. The time range corresponding to L_X,tran is derived from the broken-power-law fit, whose decay-epoch points are the very points corrected in Appendix B; if the correction is biased, the mapped time window shifts. In addition, the 'clear temporal alignment' between the vertical dotted line and the grey band is asserted visually; the paper should quantify the overlap (e.g., the number of days that the 1-sigma L_X,tran band overlaps the epoch of minimum Gamma, and how that overlap changes under the alternate decay models requested above). Without such a quantitative statement, the strength of the claimed first-time coincidence is difficult to assess.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (2)] The derivation of the constraint M_BH ≲ 10^-4 eta^-1 alpha_v^-2 theta_e^-3/2 (D/2.6 kpc)^2 M_sun rests on the model assumption that the efficiency transition occurs on the shallow branch. This should be stated more explicitly; as written, 'the efficiency transition occurs during the shallow branch' is ambiguous and could be read as an observational fact. The sentence introducing Eq. (2) should clarify that the inequality is conditional on the Xie-Yuan radiative-efficiency interpretation, not a direct model-independent limit.
  2. [Section 2.1] The sentence describing the 10% systematic error is grammatically convoluted and should be reworded for clarity, e.g., 'We added a 10% systematic error in quadrature to all radio flux densities; although this is conservative for calibration uncertainties alone, it is intended to cover additional systematics from interpolation errors and imperfect subtraction of the decaying ejecta.'
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The inset description ('red for all data, blue for the decay hard state') does not specify what the lines or shaded region in the inset represent beyond the broken power-law fit. Please state explicitly the meaning of the solid/dashed lines and the grey shaded region in the inset so that the reader can interpret the fit without referring to Section 3.
  4. [Table C1] The column header 'alpha' is used for the radio spectral index used to scale to 5 GHz, but the footnote defines it only as 'radio spectral index'. For clarity, state in the footnote that alpha is the inter-band spectral index obtained from multi-frequency data (or interpolated MeerKAT and ATCA data) and that it was adopted to rescale the observed flux density to 5 GHz.
  5. [Section 3.1] The discussion of the rejoin luminosity as a function of distance would benefit from a small table or figure showing L_X,rejoin and L_X,tran for D = 1.5, 2.6, 3.7, and 4.3 kpc, rather than only the scaling relations. This would make the distance-dependence of the 'most radio-quiet' claim easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline claims compare fitted quantities to independently measured data or direct observations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from direct observational measurements. The broken power-law parameters in Equation (1) are fitted to the observed L_R-L_X data, but the main novelty—the coincidence between the onset of X-ray spectral softening and the steep-to-shallow track switch—compares the fitted transition luminosity L_X,tran to the independently measured X-ray photon index Gamma (Figure 2 and Section 3.2), so the comparison is not forced by construction. The radio-quiet ranking is based on measured radio and X-ray luminosities relative to an archival sample, with the distance dependence explicitly propagated rather than tuned. The exponential ejecta-decay subtraction in Appendix B (Equation B1) is a model-dependent correction, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: it is constrained by five soft-state MeerKAT epochs and extrapolated, and the paper itself notes that a power-law decay gives an indistinguishable fit, which is a stated uncertainty rather than a circular step. Citations to Hughes et al. (2025) supply the underlying radio data, not the conclusions. No equation in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own input; therefore no circularity is identified.

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

The central claims rest on three fitted parameters of the broken power law, an exponential ejecta subtraction fit, and an adopted distance range. No new physical entities are introduced; the theoretical discussion uses published LHAF and jet models.

free parameters (7)
  • beta_shallow (shallow branch slope) = 0.30 ± 0.02 (full), 0.32 ± 0.03 (decay-only)
    Fitted to the low-luminosity branch of the L_R-L_X relation; robust to fitting scenario.
  • beta_steep (steep branch slope) = 1.02 ± 0.01 (full), 1.42 ± 0.15 (decay-only)
    Fitted to the high-luminosity branch; the two estimates differ by about 2.7 sigma, hinting at mild evolution.
  • L_X,tran (break luminosity) = (7.1 ± 0.9) x 10^35 erg/s (full), (5.4 ± 1.1) x 10^35 erg/s (decay-only)
    Fitted break in the broken power law; scales as D^2.
  • ejecta decay timescale tau = 20.5 ± 0.8 days
    Fitted to the final five MeerKAT soft-state epochs (Appendix B); used to subtract ejecta from core fluxes.
  • ejecta decay amplitude A = not quoted in text
    Fitted together with tau in Eq. B1; determines the subtracted flux.
  • ejecta spectral index alpha_ej = -1 (fixed)
    Adopted from ATCA inter-band spectral indices at the end of the soft state; used to scale the subtraction across frequencies.
  • source distance D = 2.6 kpc nominal; 1.5-4.3 kpc range
    Adopted from Burridge et al. (private communication) and Mata Sanchez et al.; all luminosities scale as D^2 and the radio-quiet ranking depends on it.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Hard-state compact jet radio emission follows a broken power-law relation with X-ray luminosity (hybrid track).
    Adopted from Coriat et al. (2011) and Carotenuto et al. (2021b); used as the model in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Compact jet emission is quenched by more than 3 orders of magnitude in the soft state, so soft-state core radio emission is dominated by unresolved jet ejecta.
    Standard expectation (Section 1); justifies the exponential decay subtraction in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper The soft-state core flux decays exponentially (Eq. B1).
    A power-law fit was indistinguishable given measurement errors, but the exponential shape is not independently forced; this assumption directly affects the subtracted compact jet fluxes.
  • domain assumption The adopted distance range of 1.5-4.3 kpc is correct.
    Based on a private communication from Burridge et al.; the central most-radio-quiet claim depends on this range, though the authors argue the source remains extreme outside it.
  • domain assumption The X-ray spectral model tbabs*(pegpwrlw+diskbb) with fixed N_H=2.68e21 cm^-2 describes the observed spectra.
    Standard model for hard-state BH LMXBs (Section 2.2); affects the measured X-ray luminosities and photon indices.
  • domain assumption The black hole mass is about 7 solar masses for Eddington-luminosity estimates.
    Mass dynamically confirmed to exceed 3 solar masses; 7 solar masses is a typical assumed value (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The bolometric correction tau_bol = 2-5 converts 1-10 keV luminosity to total accretion luminosity.
    Taken from Migliari and Fender (2006) and Anastasopoulou et al. (2022); used in Eddington fraction estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The peculiar hard state behaviour of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLL6TTLU

@misc{pith2026250612387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The peculiar hard state behaviour of the black hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8$-$1613},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLL6TTLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12387}
}
abstract

Tracking the correlation between radio and X-ray luminosities during black hole X-ray binary outbursts is a key diagnostic of the coupling between accretion inflows (traced by X-rays) and relativistic jet outflows (traced by radio). We present the radio--X-ray correlation of the black hole low-mass X-ray binary Swift~J1727.8$-$1613 during its 2023--2024 outburst. Our observations span a broad dynamic range, covering $\sim$4 orders of magnitude in radio luminosity and $\sim$6.5 in X-ray luminosity. This source follows an unusually radio-quiet track, exhibiting significantly lower radio luminosities at a given X-ray luminosity than both the standard (radio-loud) track and most previously known radio-quiet systems. Across most of the considered distance range ($D {\sim} 1.5-4.3$ kpc), Swift~J1727.8$-$1613 appears to be the most radio-quiet black hole binary identified to date. For distances ${\geq} 4$ kpc, while Swift~J1727.8$-$1613 becomes comparable to one other extremely radio-quiet system, its peak X-ray luminosity (${\gtrsim} 5{\times}10^{38}$ erg/s) exceeds that of any previously reported hard-state black hole low-mass X-ray binary, emphasising the extremity of this outburst. Additionally, for the first time in a radio-quiet system, we identify the onset of X-ray spectral softening to coincide with a change in trajectory through the radio--X-ray plane. We assess several proposed explanations for radio-quiet behaviour in black hole systems in light of this dataset. As with other such sources, however, no single mechanism fully accounts for the observed properties, highlighting the importance of regular monitoring and the value of comprehensive (quasi-)simultaneous datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12387 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 𝐿𝑅–𝐿𝑋 evolution of Swift J1727 (triangles) is shown alongside archival BH LMXBs (grey circles; Bahramian & Rushton 2022), with H1743−322 (purple squares) and MAXI J1348−630 (green diamonds) highlighted for comparison. The inset shows a broken power-law fit (𝐷=2.6 kpc): red for all data, blue for the decay hard state. The grey shaded region marks the (approximate) 1𝜎 range of the transitional luminosity (𝐿𝑋 tran)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral and photometric evolution of Swift J1727 during the decaying hard state. Panels show: (a) the 1–10 keV X-ray flux; (b) the X￾ray photon index Γ (the red star indicates the variance-weighted average of the final three measurements, which had high uncertainties); (c) the radio flux density (marker colour indicates observing frequency; shape indicates facility); and (d) the radio spectral index 𝛼 (grey stars d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alabarta K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5507A 507, 5507

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2241 2021

  2. [2]

    F., Reig P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1400A 513, 1400

    Anastasopoulou K., Zezas A., Steiner J. F., Reig P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1400A 513, 1400

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac940 2022

  3. [3]

    M., Wijnands R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3083A 428, 3083

    Armas Padilla M., Degenaar N., Russell D. M., Wijnands R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3083A 428, 3083

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts255 2013

  4. [4]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

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

    1996

  5. [5]

    Bahramian A., Rushton A., 2022, bersavosh/XRB-LrLx\_pub: update 20220908, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.7059313 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7059313

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7059313 2022

  6. [6]

    M., Motta S

    Belloni T. M., Motta S. E., 2016, in Bambi C., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Latest Developments. p. 61 ( @eprint arXiv 1603.07872 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-52859-4_2

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Beri A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3064B 485, 3064

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz616 2019

  8. [8]

    Bollemeijer N., et al., 2023a, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16247....1B 16247, 1

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    Bollemeijer N., et al., 2023b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16273....1B 16273, 1

  2. [10]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 , 4, 697

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

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    Brocksopp C., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.331..765B 331, 765

    2002

  4. [13]

    J., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250206448B p

    Burridge B. J., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250206448B p. arXiv:2502.06448

    2025

  5. [14]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    2005 doi

  6. [15]

    Cao X.-F., Wu Q., Dong A.-J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...52C 788, 52

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    Carotenuto F., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504..444C 504, 444

    doi

  8. [17]

    Carotenuto F., et al., 2021b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab049 , 505, L58

    doi

  9. [18]

    Carotenuto F., Corbel S., Tzioumis A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..21C 517, L21

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    Casella P., Pe'er A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/L63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703L..63C 703, L63

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    Cash W., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...228..939C 228, 939

    1979 doi

  12. [21]

    Chauhan J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488L.129C 488, L129

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    A., Fender R

    Corbel S., Nowak M. A., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Markoff S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...400.1007C 400, 1007

    2003 doi

  14. [23]

    A., Kaaret P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...636..971C 636, 971

    Corbel S., Tomsick J. A., Kaaret P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...636..971C 636, 971

    2006 doi

  15. [24]

    K., Fender R

    Corbel S., Coriat M., Brocksopp C., Tzioumis A. K., Fender R. P., Tomsick J. A., Buxton M. M., Bailyn C. D., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2500C 428, 2500

    doi

  16. [25]

    Corbel S., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431L.107C 431, L107

    doi

  17. [27]

    M., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Bauer F

    Corral-Santana J. M., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Bauer F. E., Mart \' nez-Pais I. G., Russell D. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...587A..61C 587, A61

    2016 doi

  18. [28]

    E., Belloni T

    De Marco B., Motta S. E., Belloni T. M., 2022, in Bambi C., Sangangelo A., eds, , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. p. 58, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_129-1

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    Done C., Gierli \'n ski M., Kubota A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&ARv..15....1D 15, 1

    2007 doi

  20. [30]

    Dong A.-J., Wu Q., Cao X.-F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787L..20D 787, L20

    2014 doi

  21. [31]

    A., et al., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16219....1D 16219, 1

    Draghis P. A., et al., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16219....1D 16219, 1

    2023

  22. [32]

    Dunn R. J. H., Fender R. P., K \"o rding E. G., Belloni T., Cabanac C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16114.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403...61D 403, 61

    2010

  23. [33]

    Espinasse M., Fender R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4122E 473, 4122

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

    Evans P. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

    2007 doi

  25. [36]

    39, Compact stellar X-ray sources

    Fender R., 2006, in , Vol. 39, Compact stellar X-ray sources. pp 381--419, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303339

    2006 doi arXiv

  26. [37]

    P., Garrington S

    Fender R. P., Garrington S. T., McKay D. J., Muxlow T. W. B., Pooley G. G., Spencer R. E., Stirling A. M., Waltman E. B., 1999a, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02364.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..865F 304, 865

    1999

  27. [38]

    Fender R., et al., 1999b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519L.165F 519, L165

    doi

  28. [40]

    P., Pooley G

    Gallo E., Fender R. P., Pooley G. G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06791.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344...60G 344, 60

    2003

  29. [41]

    P., Maccarone T

    Gallo E., Corbel S., Fender R. P., Maccarone T. J., Tzioumis A. K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07435.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.347L..52G 347, L52

    2004

  30. [42]

    Gallo E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..290G 445, 290

    2014 doi

  31. [43]

    Gallo E., Degenaar N., van den Eijnden J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478L.132G 478, L132

    2018 doi

  32. [44]

    C., Hunstead R

    Hannikainen D. C., Hunstead R. W., Campbell-Wilson D., Sood R. K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9805332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...337..460H 337, 460

    1998 doi arXiv

  33. [45]

    Heywood I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.4433H 460, 4433

    2016 doi

  34. [46]

    K., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988..109H 988, 109

    Hughes A. K., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988..109H 988, 109

    2025 doi

  35. [47]

    arXiv:2311.05497

    Ingram A., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.05497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231105497I p. arXiv:2311.05497

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [48]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4513I 481, 4513

    Islam N., Zdziarski A. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4513I 481, 4513

    2018 doi

  37. [49]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15717.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1255J 401, 1255

    Jonker P. G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15717.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1255J 401, 1255

    2010

  38. [50]

    A., Buxton M

    Kalemci E., Tomsick J. A., Buxton M. M., Rothschild R. E., Pottschmidt K., Corbel S., Brocksopp C., Kaaret P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427818 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..508K 622, 508

    2005 doi

  39. [51]

    A., 2022, in Bambi C., Sangangelo A., eds, , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics

    Kalemci E., Kara E., Tomsick J. A., 2022, in Bambi C., Sangangelo A., eds, , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. p. 9, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_100-1

    2022 doi

  40. [52]

    A., Swift Team 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34540....1K 34540, 1

    Kennea J. A., Swift Team 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34540....1K 34540, 1

    2023

  41. [53]

    Koljonen K. I. I., Russell D. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...26K 871, 26

    2019 doi

  42. [54]

    Kong A. K. H., McClintock J. E., Garcia M. R., Murray S. S., Barret D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...570..277K 570, 277

    2002 doi

  43. [55]

    arXiv:2406.03834

    Liu H.-X., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240603834L p. arXiv:2406.03834

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [56]

    Livio M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1038/417125a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Natur.417..125L 417, 125

    2002 doi

  45. [57]

    J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..697M 409, 697

    Maccarone T. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..697M 409, 697

    2003 doi

  46. [58]

    J., Osler A., Miller-Jones J

    Maccarone T. J., Osler A., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Atri P., Russell D. M., Meier D. L., McHardy I. M., Longa-Pe \ n a P. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498L..40M 498, L40

    2020 doi

  47. [60]

    Mata S \'a nchez D., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Armas Padilla M., Casares J., Torres M. A. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682L...1M 682, L1

    2024 doi

  48. [61]

    Mata S \'a nchez D., Torres M. A. P., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Armas Padilla M., Yanes-Rizo I. V., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.129M 693, A129

    2025 doi

  49. [62]

    Matsuoka M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASJ...61..999M 61, 999

    2009 doi

  50. [63]

    E., Remillard R

    McClintock J. E., Remillard R. A., 2006, Black hole binaries . Cambridge University Press, pp 157--213

    2006

  51. [65]

    Merloni A., Heinz S., di Matteo T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1057M 345, 1057

    2003

  52. [66]

    Meyer-Hofmeister E., Meyer F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A.142M 562, A142

    2014 doi

  53. [67]

    P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09777.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366...79M 366, 79

    Migliari S., Fender R. P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09777.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366...79M 366, 79

    2006

  54. [68]

    Mihara T., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASJ...63S.623M 63, S623

    2011 doi

  55. [69]

    Miller-Jones J. C. A., Sivakoff G. R., Bahramian A., Russell T. D., 2023a, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16211....1M 16211, 1

  56. [70]

    Miller-Jones J. C. A., Bahramian A., Altamirano D., Homan J., Russell T. D., Sivakoff G. R., 2023b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16271....1M 16271, 1

  57. [71]

    F., Rodr \' guez L

    Mirabel I. F., Rodr \' guez L. F., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1038/371046a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Natur.371...46M 371, 46

    1994 doi

  58. [72]

    M., Motta S

    Monageng I. M., Motta S. E., Fender R., Yu W., Woudt P. A., Tremou E., Miller-Jones J. C. A., van der Horst A. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5776M 501, 5776

    2021 doi

  59. [73]

    E., Casella P., Fender R

    Motta S. E., Casella P., Fender R. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.5159M 478, 5159

    2018 doi

  60. [74]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...428L..13N 428, L13

    1994 doi

  61. [75]

    A., Bj \"o rnsson G., Pringle J

    Narayan R., Mahadevan R., Quataert E., 1998, in Abramowicz M. A., Bj \"o rnsson G., Pringle J. E., eds, Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks. pp 148--182 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9803141 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803141

    1998 doi arXiv

  62. [76]

    O'Connor B., Hare J., Younes G., Gendreau K., Arzoumanian Z., Ferrara E., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16207....1O 16207, 1

    2023

  63. [77]

    L., Dichiara S., Gropp J

    Page K. L., Dichiara S., Gropp J. D., Krimm H. A., Parsotan T. M., Williams M. A., Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory Team 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34537....1P 34537, 1

    2023

  64. [78]

    Panessa F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.1289P 447, 1289

    2015 doi

  65. [79]

    Pe'er A., Casella P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1919P 699, 1919

    2009 doi

  66. [80]

    Peng J.-Q., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad17ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960L..17P 960, L17

    2024 doi

  67. [81]

    M., Gallo E., Jonker P

    Plotkin R. M., Gallo E., Jonker P. G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...59P 773, 59

    2013 doi

  68. [82]

    M., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..104P 834, 104

    Plotkin R. M., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..104P 834, 104

    doi

  69. [83]

    M., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d6d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...92P 848, 92

    Plotkin R. M., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d6d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...92P 848, 92

    doi

  70. [84]

    M., Miller-Jones J

    Plotkin R. M., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Chomiuk L., Strader J., Bruzewski S., Bundas A., Smith K. R., Ruan J. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab01cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...13P 874, 13

    2019 doi

  71. [85]

    Podgorny J., Svoboda J., Dovciak M., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16541....1P 16541, 1

    2024

  72. [86]

    T., Reis R

    Reynolds M. T., Reis R. C., Miller J. M., Cackett E. M., Degenaar N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3656R 441, 3656

    2014 doi

  73. [87]

    Rushton A., Spencer R., Fender R., Pooley G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...524A..29R 524, A29

    2010 doi

  74. [88]

    M., Miller-Jones J

    Russell D. M., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Maccarone T. J., Yang Y. J., Fender R. P., Lewis F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739L..19R 739, L19

    2011 doi

  75. [89]

    D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1745R 450, 1745

    Russell T. D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1745R 450, 1745

    2015 doi

  76. [91]

    D., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..198R 883, 198

    Russell T. D., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..198R 883, 198

    doi

  77. [92]

    D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5772R 498, 5772

    Russell T. D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5772R 498, 5772

    2020 doi

  78. [93]

    D., Carotenuto F., Miller-Jones J

    Russell T. D., Carotenuto F., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Atri P., Grollimund N., Corbel S., et al. 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16552....1R 16552, 1

    2024

  79. [94]

    L., Lightman A

    Shapiro S. L., Lightman A. P., Eardley D. M., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..187S 204, 187

    1976 doi

  80. [95]

    W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...34S 907, 34

    Shaw A. W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...34S 907, 34

    2021 doi

  81. [96]

    C., Chael A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..705S 466, 705

    S a dowski A., Wielgus M., Narayan R., Abarca D., McKinney J. C., Chael A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..705S 466, 705

    2017 doi

  82. [97]

    A., Papadakis I

    Sobolewska M. A., Papadakis I. E., Done C., Malzac J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19209.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417..280S 417, 280

    2011

  83. [98]

    Stiele H., Kong A. K. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.268S 691, A268

    2024 doi

  84. [99]

    arXiv:2403.04689

    Svoboda J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.04689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240304689S p. arXiv:2403.04689

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [100]

    M., Levinson R., Schreier E., Giacconi R., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...174L.143T 174, L143

    Tananbaum H., Gursky H., Kellogg E. M., Levinson R., Schreier E., Giacconi R., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...174L.143T 174, L143

    1972 doi

  86. [101]

    E., Sivakoff G

    Tetarenko B. E., Sivakoff G. R., Heinke C. O., Gladstone J. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222...15T 222, 15

    2016 doi

  87. [102]

    E., Lasota J

    Tetarenko B. E., Lasota J. P., Heinke C. O., Dubus G., Sivakoff G. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554...69T 554, 69

    2018 doi

  88. [103]

    S., Price R

    Thorne K. S., Price R. H., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195L.101T 195, L101

    1975 doi

  89. [104]

    A., Corbel S., Kaaret P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...563..229T 563, 229

    Tomsick J. A., Corbel S., Kaaret P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...563..229T 563, 229

    2001 doi

  90. [105]

    A., Kalemci E., Kaaret P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..439T 601, 439

    Tomsick J. A., Kalemci E., Kaaret P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..439T 601, 439

    2004 doi

  91. [106]

    A., Yamaoka K., Corbel S., Kalemci E., Migliari S., Kaaret P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...70T 791, 70

    Tomsick J. A., Yamaoka K., Corbel S., Kalemci E., Migliari S., Kaaret P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...70T 791, 70

    2014 doi

  92. [107]

    J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.2744V 485, 2744

    Vahdat Motlagh A., Kalemci E., Maccarone T. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.2744V 485, 2744

    2019 doi

  93. [108]

    Williams D. R. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491L..29W 491, L29

    2020 doi

  94. [109]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  95. [110]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3393W 505, 3393

    Wood C. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3393W 505, 3393

    2021 doi

  96. [111]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240512370W p

    Wood C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240512370W p. arXiv:2405.12370

    2024 doi arXiv

  97. [112]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250303073W p

    Wood C. M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250303073W p. arXiv:2503.03073

    2025 doi arXiv

  98. [113]

    Xie F.-G., Yuan F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22030.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.1580X 427, 1580

    2012

  99. [114]

    Xie F.-G., Yuan F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4377X 456, 4377

    2016 doi

  100. [115]

    Yan Z., Xie F.-G., Zhang W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab665e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889L..18Y 889, L18

    2020 doi

  101. [116]

    Yu W., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16276....1Y 16276, 1

    2023

  102. [117]

    Yuan F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04258.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..119Y 324, 119

    2001

  103. [118]

    Yuan F., Cui W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..408Y 629, 408

    2005 doi

  104. [119]

    Zhang X., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538L..43Z 538, L43

    2025 doi

  105. [120]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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