Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Revisiting the infrared/X-ray correlation of GX 339-4 based on a jet model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the break in GX 339-4's infrared/X-ray correlation is produced by accretion-rate variation alone, with the low-luminosity hard-state X-rays originating from synchrotron self-Compton scattering in the jet.

desk verdict A credible quantitative jet-model explanation of the GX 339-4 IR/X-ray break, but the fit is visual and the mdot-dependence rests on one untested scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19067 v1 pith:J4UKDUNM submitted 2025-05-25 astro-ph.HE

Chang-Yin Huang , Yi Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretiondisksblackholeX-raybinariesjetsandoutflowsGX339-4synchrotronself-Comptoninfrared/X-raycorrelationlow-hardstate
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 tries to explain, quantitatively, why the black hole binary GX 339-4 shows a broken correlation between its infrared and X-ray brightness, and what that break reveals about the jet. Its central claim is that the observed two-branch correlation, with slope $\sim0.68$ at low luminosity and $\sim0.48$ at high luminosity, is reproduced when only the accretion rate varies, provided the H-band light is synchrotron radiation from the jet and the 3-9 keV X-rays come from synchrotron self-Compton scattering (SSC), in which the jet's own synchrotron photons are up-scattered by the same electrons. Two jet configurations fit: a conical ballistic jet with the magnetic field parallel to the jet axis, and a conical adiabatic jet with an isotropic field. If the claim holds, the low-luminosity hard-state X-rays of GX 339-4 are dominated by the jet rather than the hot corona, and the jet base is pinned to an electron power-law index $p\sim3$, minimum Lorentz factor $\gamma_{\rm min}\sim60$, magnetic field $B_0\sim10^5$ G, and radius $R_0\sim10^{10}$ cm. The same model fails for X-rays from the corona or from jet synchrotron radiation, both of which predict a low-luminosity branch that is too steep.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the Kaiser (2006) conical jet model for partially self-absorbed synchrotron emission, in which the jet radius $R$, magnetic field $B$, and electron normalization $\kappa$ are power laws of height $z$, equipped with one new coupling: $B(z_0)=B_0\dot{m}^{1/2}$, so the dimensionless accretion rate $\dot{m}$ becomes the single driver of every flux. At the base the magnetic and electron energy densities are in equipartition, which fixes the electron normalization in terms of $B_0$ and $\dot{m}$. The H-band synchrotron flux from equation (6) is then a broken power law of $\dot{m}$, breaking where the base optical depth satisfies $\tau_0\sim1$, and the 3-9 keV SSC flux from equation (9) is a matching broken power law. Eliminating $\dot{m}$ between the two produces the predicted $F_{\rm IR}\propto F_X^b$ correlation, and comparing its two branch slopes with the observed ones selects the jet parameters and the two allowed geometries.

What would settle it

Monitor GX 339-4 through a complete outburst with simultaneous H-band and 3-9 keV sampling, and measure the two correlation slopes together with the X-ray photon index. The model demands that the steep-branch slope equal $(p+5)/(p+9)$ and that the X-ray photon index equal $(p+1)/2$ with one and the same $p\simeq3$; a dataset whose steep-branch slope and photon index cannot be produced by any single $p$ (for example a slope near 0.68 with a photon index near 1.6--1.7, implying $p\approx2.2$--$2.4$) would falsify the single-power-law SSC origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the infrared/X-ray correlation of GX 339-4, including its break, is the track traced out by a single varying quantity, the accretion rate $\dot{m}$, once the magnetic field at the jet base is coupled to $\dot{m}$ through the pressure balance at the horizon. The H-band flux is synchrotron radiation from the jet, while the 3-9 keV flux is successively identified with the Comptonizing corona ($L_X\propto\dot{m}^2$), jet synchrotron radiation, and SSC of the jet; only the SSC choice reproduces both observed branches. The break in the correlation is the transition of the H band from optically thick to optically thin, occurring near $\dot{m}_b\approx0.05$ and corresponding to a 3-9 keV luminosity of roughly $10^{34}$--$10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$, consistent with the observed break flux. In the optically thin regime the correlation slope is $(p+5)/(p+9)$, matching the steep branch, while the optically thick regime matches the gentler branch for a conical ballistic jet with a parallel magnetic field or a conical adiabatic jet with an isotropic field. The best-fitting parameters, $p\sim3$, $\gamma_{\rm min}\sim60$, $B_0\sim10^5$ G, and $R_0\sim10^{10}$ cm, are the same for both jet types, and the geometry must be conical; the authors note that small variations of $B_0$, $R_0$, or $p$ could shift the break on short timescales, so the single-variable picture may be incomplete.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the untested assumption that the magnetic field at the jet base scales as the square root of the accretion rate, $B(z_0)=B_0\dot{m}^{1/2}$, inherited from a magnetic-pressure/ram-pressure balance argument at the horizon; if that coupling differs, or if $B_0$ drifts during an outburst, the predicted slopes change and the break need not occur at a single accretion rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the low-luminosity hard state of GX 339-4, the 3-9 keV X-ray flux is dominated by SSC of the jet; above the break, SSC is about an order of magnitude brighter than the corona or jet-synchrotron contributions.
  • The break in the correlation is an H-band optical-depth transition driven purely by the accretion rate, occurring near $\dot{m}_b\approx0.05$ and predicting a break flux of $10^{-12}$ to $10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, in line with the observed break.
  • The jet must be conical, with the magnetic field parallel to the axis if ballistic and isotropic if adiabatic, and with base parameters $p\sim3$, $\gamma_{\rm min}\sim60$, $B_0\sim10^5$ G, and $R_0\sim10^{10}$ cm.
  • Because the correlation break requires the jet spectral break frequency to sit near the H band, the same model explains why the radio/X-ray correlation shows no such break and predicts that sources whose spectral break frequency is far from the observing band would not show one.
  • The requirement that SSC dominate at low luminosity implies that in the decaying outburst phase the jet has a stronger base field or larger base radius than in the rising phase, matching independent radio/X-ray modeling of GX 339-4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct spectral check the paper does not make: with $p\simeq3$, a single power-law SSC spectrum would give an X-ray photon index $\Gamma=(p+1)/2\simeq2$, noticeably softer than the $\sim1.6$--$1.7$ photon index usually reported for the hard state of GX 339-4; reconciling the slope fit with the observed X-ray hardness is a testable next step that may require a more complex electron distribution.
  • The accretion-rate-only scenario predicts that the break location should scale across black hole X-ray binaries through the paper's equation (19) as a function of mass, distance, $B_0$, and $R_0$; searching for IR/X-ray breaks in other hard-state binaries and comparing their break fluxes to this scaling would test whether the mechanism is universal.
  • If hard-state X-rays are truly dominated by jet SSC, X-ray polarization should reflect the jet geometry, with a polarization angle tied to the jet axis in the synchrotron seed photons and a known dilution from Compton upscattering; X-ray polarimetry of GX 339-4 in the low-hard state could therefore distinguish the SSC-jet hypothesis from a corona, whose polarization signature would differ.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the infrared/X-ray correlation of GX 339-4 using the Kaiser (2006) jet model, adding an accretion-rate dependence by assuming B(z0) = B0 mdot^{1/2} at the jet base. It derives analytic mdot scalings for synchrotron and SSC emission, then compares numerical tracks for three choices of X-ray origin (Comptonizing corona, jet synchrotron, and jet SSC) with the Coriat et al. (2009) correlation. The authors conclude that only the SSC origin reproduces both the steep and flat branches, with a break driven by the jet becoming optically thick in the H band, and they infer p ~ 3, gamma_min ~ 60, B0 ~ 10^5 G, and R0 ~ 10^10 cm for both a conical ballistic jet with parallel magnetic field and a conical adiabatic jet with isotropic field.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a quantitative, jet-based explanation for the break in the GX 339-4 IR/X-ray correlation and would constrain the physical conditions at the jet base. The analytic scalings in Section 3 are internally consistent, the three X-ray origins are compared in a single framework, and the predicted slope intervals and break luminosity are falsifiable in principle. The significance is currently limited, however, because the central comparison is visual, the input relation B(z0) ∝ mdot^{1/2} is adopted without derivation or test, and the break-luminosity 'prediction' is computed from parameters already tuned to the same data.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, above Eq. (5)] The input relation B(z0) = B0 mdot^{1/2} is load-bearing but untested. Every mdot exponent used in the central claim, including Eqs. (14)-(16) and the break rate in Eq. (19), follows from this relation through Eq. (5). If the true scaling were B(z0) ∝ mdot^β with β ≠ 1/2, then κ0 ∝ mdot^{2β} and all predicted slopes, the inferred p and geometry, and the existence or location of the break would change. The authors should either derive this scaling explicitly from Moderski et al. (1997) or treat β as a free parameter and fit it to the C09 data. As it stands, the agreement shown in Figures 1-3 cannot discriminate β = 1/2 from other couplings.
  2. [4, Figures 1-3] The comparison with observations is by eye: the C09 data are plotted without error bars and no goodness-of-fit statistic is given. With seven or more free parameters (p, gamma_min, B0, R0, z0, a1, a2, a3) and the degeneracies between B0, R0, and gamma_min acknowledged in Section 4, the statement that the correlation is 'well reproduced' and the quoted parameter ranges are not quantitatively supported. Provide a fit statistic over the hard-state points and demonstrate the sensitivity of the curves to parameter variations.
  3. [5, Eqs. (20)-(22)] The consistency between the predicted break luminosity and the observed break flux is presented as a success, but it is a postdiction: the parameters entering Eqs. (20)-(22) were chosen so that the numerical tracks in Figure 3 pass through the observed correlation. This should be stated explicitly, and the break luminosity should be described as a derived consequence of the fitted parameters rather than an independent prediction.
  4. [2.2, Eq. (9) and Section 3] Equation (9) introduces an exponent a9 that is never defined, which prevents the reader from reproducing the SSC calculation. In addition, Section 3 states that for optically thin seed photons the factor 1 - e^{αν'R} in Eq. (9) is approximately αν'R; the sign is wrong and should read 1 - e^{-αν'R}. Both issues must be fixed before the SSC derivation can be checked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'though the the equilibrium' in the abstract and Section 5, 'markable feature' in the Introduction, 'hight' in Section 2.1, and 'substitutie' in Section 4.
  2. [2.3] The hard-state photon index is given as 1.6-1.7 in the Introduction, but Eq. (11) is derived using Γ ∼ 0.6. Please clarify whether Γ is an energy index rather than a photon index and justify the value used.
  3. [4] The statement that the effect of gamma_min can be reproduced by adjusting B0 and R0 signals a strong degeneracy that should be quantified, because it directly affects the confidence one can place in the quoted parameter ranges.
  4. [5] The Discussion invokes Russell et al. (2013) to note that there is no clear empirical trend between jet break frequency and luminosity, then appeals to variations in jet parameters. This caveat tempers the abstract's claim that the correlation is reproduced 'with the variation of the accretion rate only' and should be introduced earlier in the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The break-luminosity 'prediction' in Sec. 5 is computed from parameters already fitted to the same C09 data, so its agreement with the observed break flux is a postdiction; the rest of the model is an external-input fit rather than a circular derivation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (parameter selection) and Section 5, equations (19)-(22)]
    "To cover all data points, B0 ∼ 10^5 G is needed for 0.001 ≲ ˙m ≲ 0.3. ... For the above given values of p and B0, we find that R0 ∼ 10^10 cm and γmin ∼ 60 are required for both the ballistic jet and the adiabatic jet. ... Therefore, the model roughly predicts a break luminosity of ∼ 10^34−35 erg s−1 with typical jet parameters, corresponding to a flux of ∼ 10^−12 − 10^−11 erg cm−2 s−1 for GX 339−4, which is consistent with the observed break flux in C09."

    The break quantities in equations (19)-(22) are evaluated with the very same parameters (p=3, B0∼10^5 G, R0∼10^10 cm, γmin∼60, z0=5.14×10^6 cm) that were selected in Section 4 by requiring the model curve to pass through the observed C09 data, including the break region. Equation (19) defines the break accretion rate by setting τ0=1 in equation (13), and equations (20)-(22) then give the corresponding X-ray luminosity as a function of those fitted parameters. The claimed consistency with the observed break flux is therefore the inverse of the fitting procedure: it is a postdiction, not an independent prediction of the accretion-rate-only scenario.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained and does not rely on self-citation: it adopts the Kaiser (2006) jet framework and the Moderski et al. (1997) scaling B(z0)=B0 mdot^{1/2}, both external inputs. That scaling is an untested physical assumption rather than a circular step, because the paper does not define the correlation in terms of it; all mdot-exponents follow from it algebraically, and the observed slopes are then used to select p, geometry, and X-ray origin. The genuine circularity is localized to the 'predicted' break luminosity in Section 5. The parameters p=3, B0∼10^5 G, R0∼10^10 cm, and γmin∼60 are chosen in Section 4 by visually matching the model to the entire C09 dataset, including the break. Equation (19) then sets the break accretion rate from those same parameters, and equations (20)-(22) evaluate the break luminosity from them. Thus the agreement with the observed break flux is forced by the fitting choices rather than providing independent confirmation. Because the central claim of reproducing the break relies in part on this postdiction, the paper warrants a partial-circularity score of 6, while the remaining model content is a legitimate fit against external data.

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

The central claim rests on a small set of fitted parameters and on borrowed scaling relations. The most important is the B0 ∝ mdot^{1/2} equilibrium relation from Moderski et al (1997), which the paper assumes but does not derive or test. Equipartition at the jet base from Kaiser (2006) sets the electron normalization. The paper also assumes a single emission mechanism per band and ignores relativistic Doppler effects. All model predictions are fitted to the observed correlation, so the parameters are fit outcomes rather than independently measured quantities.

free parameters (6)
  • electron power-law index p = 3 for the SSC fits (ballistic and adiabatic); 2.5-2.9 in the corona and synchrotron X-ray fits
    Adjusted to reproduce the observed slopes of the two branches (Section 4).
  • minimum electron Lorentz factor gamma_min = 60 (ballistic SSC), 55 (adiabatic SSC); 10 in the other fits
    Chosen to match the gentle-branch slope; the paper notes its effect can be traded against B0 and R0.
  • magnetic field scale factor at jet base B0 = 1.5e5 G (ballistic SSC), 2e5 G (adiabatic SSC); 2e5-5e5 G in the other fits
    Set to match the normalization and length of the correlation in Figures 1-3.
  • jet radius at base R0 = 1.0e10 cm (SSC); 1.7e9-7.5e9 cm in the other fits
    Set to match the correlation; larger R0 makes the gentle branch more gentle, per Section 4.
  • jet geometry indices a1, a2, a3 = a1=1, a2=2a1 for the ballistic jet; a2=4a1/3 for the adiabatic jet; a3 follows from a1 and p
    Chosen after comparing models; only conical jets with these field orientations match the observed gentle branch.
  • jet launching height z0 = 5.14e6 cm (minimum, 6GM/c^2) in Figures 1 and 3; 2e7 cm in Figure 2
    Set to the theoretical minimum because smaller z0 gives better agreement.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Magnetic pressure at the BH horizon balances ram pressure of the inner accretion flow, giving B ∝ mdot^{1/2} at the jet base (Moderski et al 1997)
    Invoked above equation (5) to link B0 to accretion rate; the paper does not derive or test this scaling.
  • domain assumption Equipartition between magnetic field and relativistic electrons at the jet base z0
    Used to derive kappa0 in equation (5), following Kaiser (2006).
  • domain assumption Jet axis perpendicular to the line of sight; Doppler factor ignored
    Stated in Section 2.1 after equation (6); affects flux normalization but not the mdot scalings.
  • domain assumption Observed H-band flux is entirely jet synchrotron radiation and observed 3-9 keV flux is entirely one of the three components
    The model attributes the IR and X-ray bands to single emission processes; no disk contribution to IR is considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Synchrotron photon field for SSC is described by the local intensity approximation n(nu') = 4π I_nu'/(h nu' c)
    Equation (8) approximates the seed photon density; also the function F(ν,ν') is approximated by a power law (ν'/ν)^{-1.7} in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The correlation is driven solely by variation of mdot with all other jet parameters fixed
    Section 5 discusses that Russell et al (2013) suggests accretion rate alone may not explain empirical break behavior, an admitted limitation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the infrared/X-ray correlation of GX 339-4 based on a jet model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4UKDUNM

@misc{pith2026250519067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the infrared/X-ray correlation of GX 339-4 based on a jet model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4UKDUNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19067}
}
abstract

The infrared (IR)/X-ray correlation of GX 339$-$4 is investigated based on a jet model with a modification by linking the magnetic field at the jet base to the accretion rate of the inner accretion flow though the the equilibrium between magnetic pressure at horizon and the ram pressure of the accretion flow. The IR flux is attributed to the synchrotron radiation of the jet, and the X-ray flux is attributed to the advective dominated accretion flow (ADAF), synchrotron radiation of the jet and synchrotron self-Compton scattering (SSC) of the jet, respectively. We find that the observed IR/X-ray correlation with a break is well reproduced with the variation of the accretion rate if the X-ray flux originates from SSC of the jet. Either a conical ballistic jet with the magnetic field parallel to the jet axis or a conical adiabatic jet with an isotropic field can account for the correlation. The power-law index of the energy distribution of electrons $p\sim3$, the minimum Lorentz factor of the electrons $\gamma_{\rm min}\sim60$, the magnetic field $B_0\sim10^5\ {\rm G}$ and the jet radius $R_0\sim10^{10}\ {\rm cm}$ at the jet base are required for both the ballistic jet and the adiabatic jet. This study helps us clarify the complex interaction between the accretion and jet in GX 339$-$4, as well as the properties and geometric structure of the jet, laying the groundwork for exploring similar astrophysical systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I - Theoretical framework

    Band DL, Grindlay JE (1985) The synchrotron-self-Compton process in spherical geometries. I - Theoretical framework . 298:128--146. doi:10.1086/163593

    doi:10.1086/163593 1985

  2. [2]

    Barnier S, Petrucci PO, Ferreira J, et al (2022) Clues on jet behavior from simultaneous radio-X-ray fits of GX 339-4 . 657:A11. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141182, https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.02895 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2109.02895 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    In: Burderi L, Antonelli LA, D'Antona F, et al (eds) Interacting Binaries: Accretion, Evolution, and Outcomes, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol 797

    Belloni T (2005) Black Hole States: Accretion and Jet Ejection . In: Burderi L, Antonelli LA, D'Antona F, et al (eds) Interacting Binaries: Accretion, Evolution, and Outcomes, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol 797. AIP, pp 197--204, doi:10.1063/1.2130233, astro-ph/0504185

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    In: Belloni T (ed) Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, vol 794

    Belloni TM (2010) States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries . In: Belloni T (ed) Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, vol 794. p 53, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 2010

  5. [5]

    510(2):L123--L126

    Beloborodov AM (1999) Plasma Ejection from Magnetic Flares and the X-Ray Spectrum of Cygnus X-1 . 510(2):L123--L126. doi:10.1086/311810, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9809383 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/9809383 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    232:34--48

    Blandford RD, K \"o nigl A (1979) Relativistic jets as compact radio sources. 232:34--48. doi:10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  7. [7]

    199:883--903

    Blandford RD, Payne DG (1982) Hydromagnetic flows from accretion disks and the production of radio jets. 199:883--903. doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  8. [8]

    179:433--456

    Blandford RD, Znajek RL (1977) Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes. 179:433--456. doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    573(1):L35--L39

    Corbel S, Fender RP (2002) Near-Infrared Synchrotron Emission from the Compact Jet of GX 339-4 . 573(1):L35--L39. doi:10.1086/341870, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205402 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0205402 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    400:1007--1012

    Corbel S, Nowak MA, Fender RP, et al (2003) Radio/X-ray correlation in the low/hard state of GX 339-4 . 400:1007--1012. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030090, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301436 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0301436 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    428(3):2500--2515

    Corbel S, Coriat M, Brocksopp C, et al (2013) The `universal' radio/X-ray flux correlation: the case study of the black hole GX 339-4 . 428(3):2500--2515. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts215, https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1600 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1211.1600 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    400(1):123--133

    Coriat M, Corbel S, Buxton MM, et al (2009) The infrared/X-ray correlation of GX 339-4: probing hard X-ray emission in accreting black holes . 400(1):123--133. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15461.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3283 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0909.3283 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009

  5. [13]

    528(1):L157--L160

    Dexter J, Begelman MC (2024) A relativistic outflow model of the X-ray polarization in Cyg X-1 . 528(1):L157--L160. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad182, https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01963 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2308.01963 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    344(1):60--72

    Gallo E, Fender RP, Pooley GG (2003) A universal radio-X-ray correlation in low/hard state black hole binaries . 344(1):60--72. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06791.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305231 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0305231 [astro-ph]

    2003

  7. [16]

    670(1):600--609

    Gallo E, Migliari S, Markoff S, et al (2007) The Spectral Energy Distribution of Quiescent Black Hole X-Ray Binaries: New Constraints from Spitzer . 670(1):600--609. doi:10.1086/521524, https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0028 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0707.0028 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [17]

    740(1):L13

    Gandhi P, Blain AW, Russell DM, et al (2011) A Variable Mid-infrared Synchrotron Break Associated with the Compact Jet in GX 339-4 . 740(1):L13. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L13, https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4143 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1109.4143 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [18]

    506(2):621--636

    Georganopoulos M, Marscher AP (1998) A Viewing Angle-Kinetic Luminosity Unification Scheme for BL Lacertae Objects . 506(2):621--636. doi:10.1086/306273, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9806170 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/9806170 [astro-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Hjellming RM, Johnston KJ (1988) Radio Emission from Conical Jets Associated with X-Ray Binaries . 328:600. doi:10.1086/166318

    1988 doi

  11. [20]

    624(1):295--306

    Homan J, Buxton M, Markoff S, et al (2005) Multiwavelength Observations of the 2002 Outburst of GX 339-4: Two Patterns of X-Ray-Optical/Near-Infrared Behavior . 624(1):295--306. doi:10.1086/428722, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501349 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/050...

    2005 arXiv

  12. [21]

    583(2):L95--L98

    Hynes RI, Steeghs D, Casares J, et al (2003) Dynamical Evidence for a Black Hole in GX 339-4 . 583(2):L95--L98. doi:10.1086/368108, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301127 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0301127 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Physical Review 167(5):1159--1169

    Jones FC (1968) Calculated Spectrum of Inverse-Compton-Scattered Photons . Physical Review 167(5):1159--1169. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.167.1159

    1968 doi

  14. [24]

    243:700--709

    Konigl A (1981) Relativistic jets as X-ray and gamma-ray sources. 243:700--709. doi:10.1086/158638

    1981 doi

  15. [26]

    477(2):585--601

    Mahadevan R (1997) Scaling Laws for Advection-dominated Flows: Applications to Low-Luminosity Galactic Nuclei . 477(2):585--601. doi:10.1086/303727, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9609107 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/9609107 [astro-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  16. [27]

    doi:10.1086/497628, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509028 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0509028 [astro-ph]

    Markoff S, Nowak MA, Wilms J (2005) Going with the Flow: Can the Base of Jets Subsume the Role of Compact Accretion Disk Coronae? 635(2):1203--1216. doi:10.1086/497628, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509028 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0509028 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [28]

    235:386--391

    Marscher AP (1980) Relativistic jets and the continuum emission in QSOs. 235:386--391. doi:10.1086/157642

    1980 doi

  18. [29]

    In: Ostrowski M, Sikora M, Madejski G, et al (eds) Relativistic Jets in AGNs, pp 110--116, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706263, astro-ph/9706263

    Moderski R, Sikora M, Lasota JP (1997) On Black Hole Spins and Dichotomy of Quasars . In: Ostrowski M, Sikora M, Madejski G, et al (eds) Relativistic Jets in AGNs, pp 110--116, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706263, astro-ph/9706263

    1997 doi arXiv

  19. [30]

    Narayan R, Yi I (1995) Advection-dominated Accretion: Underfed Black Holes and Neutron Stars . 452:710. doi:10.1086/176343, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9411059 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/9411059 [astro-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  20. [31]

    699(2):1919--1937

    Pe'er A, Casella P (2009) A Model for Emission from Jets in X-Ray Binaries: Consequences of a Single Acceleration Episode . 699(2):1919--1937. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1919, https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2892 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0902.2892 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [32]

    44(1):49--92

    Remillard RA, McClintock JE (2006) X-Ray Properties of Black-Hole Binaries . 44(1):49--92. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606352 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0606352 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [33]

    I - Synchrotron radiation from relativistic flows

    Reynolds SP (1982) Theoretical studies of compact radio sources. I - Synchrotron radiation from relativistic flows. 256:13--37. doi:10.1086/159881

    1982 doi

  23. [34]

    371(3):1334--1350

    Russell DM, Fender RP, Hynes RI, et al (2006) Global optical/infrared-X-ray correlations in X-ray binaries: quantifying disc and jet contributions . 371(3):1334--1350. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10756.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606721 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astr...

    2006

  24. [35]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11996.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3594 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0705.3594 [astro-ph]

    Russell DM, Maccarone TJ, K \"o rding EG, et al (2007) Parallel tracks in infrared versus X-ray emission in black hole X-ray transient outbursts: a hysteresis effect? 379(4):1401--1408. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11996.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3594 https://arxiv.org/abs...

    2007

  25. [36]

    429(1):815--832

    Russell DM, Markoff S, Casella P, et al (2013) Jet spectral breaks in black hole X-ray binaries . 429(1):815--832. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts377, https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1655 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1211.1655 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [37]

    Rybicki GB, Lightman AP (1979) Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  27. [38]

    Observational appearance

    Shakura NI, Sunyaev RA (1973) Black holes in binary systems. Observational appearance. 24:337--355

    1973

  28. [39]

    Sincell MW, Krolik JH (1994) Relativistic Induced Compton Scattering in Synchrotron Self-absorbed Sources . 430:550. doi:10.1086/174430

    1994 doi

  29. [40]

    Nature Communications 12:1025

    You B, Tuo Y, Li C, et al (2021) Insight-HXMT observations of jet-like corona in a black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1820+070 . Nature Communications 12:1025. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21169-5, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07602 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2102.07602 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [41]

    351(3):791--807

    Zdziarski AA, Gierli \'n ski M, Miko ajewska J, et al (2004) GX 339-4: the distance, state transitions, hysteresis and spectral correlations . 351(3):791--807. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07830.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402380 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/040...

    2004

  31. [42]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.labe...

  32. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

Pith tools

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