pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13962 · v1 · pith:USVKT75Qnew · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The Demographics of Sagittarius A* X-ray Flares over 25 Years with Chandra

Zach Sumners , Nicole M. Ford , Daryl Haggard , Joseph M. Michail , Joey Neilsen , Michael A. Nowak , Mayura Balakrishnan , Sophia S\'anchez-Maes
show 5 more authors
Sebastiano D. von Fellenberg S. P. Willner Sera Markoff Howard A. Smith Joseph L. Hora
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 05:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Sgr A*X-ray flaresChandrablack hole accretionSagittarius A*flare catalogspectral index
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:USVKT75Q Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{USVKT75Q}

Prints a linked pith:USVKT75Q badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

Chandra's 25-year Sgr A* catalog of 100 X-ray flares shows brighter events have harder spectra.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compiles the largest Chandra catalog of Sagittarius A* X-ray flares from 6.8 Ms of monitoring data across the mission lifetime. It identifies 100 flares with 2-10 keV luminosities spanning roughly 4 to 575 times 10^33 erg s^{-1}, including 18 newly reported events. The expanded sample confirms a correlation between flare hardness and luminosity, with spectral modeling showing the photon index shifting from approximately 3 to 2 as flares brighten. Previously noted links between flare duration, fluence, and maximum count rate also hold more firmly with the larger dataset. These patterns are interpreted as evidence for variations in the particle distributions that generate weak versus strong flares.

Core claim

The 100-flare catalog demonstrates a clear correlation between X-ray flare hardness and luminosity, with the spectral index shifting from Γ ∼ 3 for faint flares to Γ ∼ 2 for bright ones, likely reflecting differences in the underlying particle distributions that produce weak and strong flares.

What carries the argument

The systematic flare detection pipeline applied to the full Chandra monitoring archive, which isolates events via background-subtracted count-rate thresholds and performs spectral fitting to extract hardness and luminosity for each flare.

If this is right

  • Brighter flares are generated by harder particle spectra than fainter ones.
  • Correlations among flare duration, fluence, and peak count rate remain valid across a wider luminosity range.
  • The catalog supplies a uniform reference set for testing numerical models of flare emission near the black hole.
  • Spectral variations imply that weak and strong flares may arise from distinct acceleration regimes in the accretion flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The hardness-luminosity relation could arise from changes in magnetic reconnection scale or electron acceleration efficiency at different flare energies.
  • Multi-wavelength campaigns might reveal whether the same spectral hardening appears in simultaneous radio or infrared flares.
  • With 100 events the sample now permits searches for subtle periodicities or clustering in flare occurrence times.

Load-bearing premise

That background subtraction and the chosen count-rate thresholds correctly identify genuine flares without systematic bias in sample size or measured properties.

What would settle it

A new independent sample of Sgr A* flares in which spectral hardness shows no correlation with luminosity would falsify the reported trend.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13962 by Daryl Haggard, Howard A. Smith, Joey Neilsen, Joseph L. Hora, Joseph M. Michail, Mayura Balakrishnan, Michael A. Nowak, Nicole M. Ford, Sebastiano D. von Fellenberg, Sera Markoff, Sophia S\'anchez-Maes, S. P. Willner, Zach Sumners.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three types of extraction regions are used to generate Sgr A* light curves: default, magnetar contaminated, and grating observation, respectively. Left: The default extraction; the blue circle denotes a 1. ′′25 radius aperture centered on Sgr A* collecting source photons, and the red dashed annulus is the background region. Middle: Observations captured during the outburst of magnetar SGR J1745-2900 requir… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The flaring power law indices of our joint spectral fits show an evolution from Γf ∼ 3 to 2 as flares become more luminous. Each power law index is from the joint fit of multiple flares highlighted in the bottom three rows of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Correlation between the duration and fluence of a flare. Black dashed lines are power law fits, and the grey dash-dotted line is a power law slope of x 1 to illustrate where the ratio of fluence to duration would be constant in log-log space. Top: Flagged flares are identified by visual inspec￾tion, highlighted in grey. Triangle markers are flares cut off by the start or end of the observation. Stars are e… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlations between duration, fluence, and max￾imum count rate. Events marked with a cross are flagged flares from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Separation time between the two most signifi￾cant peaks in double and higher substructure flares (when they can be confidently resolved). We visually inspect the flare light curve for the maxima of two peaks, and count the number of bins between them. We observe that these peaks are often separated by about ∼1−2 ks, even though the flares are independent. strength (Section 5.3), and the duration-fluence an… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pileup corrections for two example observations. We use MARX to calculate a true flux (pileup corrected) for every observed flux. Left: Observation 26760 was captured 24 years into Chandra’s lifetime, on the ACIS-S instrument with no grating and a 0.4 s/frame exposure time. Its pileup is relatively minor, and our correction (solid pink) agrees with treatments proposed by E. Bouffard et al. ´ (2019), M. A. … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Four additional example light curves (blue) with Bayesian Blocks (orange). Top left: The flare in observation 15045 is an example of the case where the specific start and end times are ambiguous. Top right: Some flares, such as Observation 10556, which was taken on 2009 May 18, contain more than one independent flare. Bottom left: The shape of flares varies, especially across SNR. Observation 6363 is an e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the Chandra 25-year Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*) X-ray flare catalog: a systematic analysis of 6.8 Ms of Sgr A* monitoring spanning the Chandra X-ray Observatory's mission lifetime. This is the most complete Chandra Sgr A* X-ray flare catalog to date, consisting of 100 flares with 2$-$10 keV unabsorbed luminosities ranging from $\sim$ 4$-$575 $\times 10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$. 18 flares are reported for the first time, including the second brightest Sgr A* flare observed by Chandra. The expanded dataset supports previous indications of a correlation between X-ray flare hardness and luminosity. Spectral modeling corroborates this finding, showing a change in the X-ray spectral index, from $\Gamma \sim 3$ to 2 with increasing flare brightness. Previously-established correlations between flare duration, fluence, and maximum count rate are strengthened via the greater sample size. These results likely reflect variations in the underlying particle distribution that produce weak and strong flares, and the new catalog serves as a rich archive for ongoing observational and numerical investigations into the physical mechanisms responsible for producing Sgr A*'s X-ray flares.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents the most complete Chandra Sgr A* X-ray flare catalog to date, based on 6.8 Ms of monitoring over 25 years, yielding 100 flares with 2-10 keV luminosities from ~4 to 575 × 10^33 erg s^{-1}. It reports 18 new flares and claims that the expanded sample confirms a correlation between flare hardness and luminosity, with spectral index Γ decreasing from ~3 to ~2 as brightness increases. The work also strengthens prior correlations among flare duration, fluence, and maximum count rate, attributing the trends to variations in the underlying particle distribution.

Significance. If robust, this catalog is a major resource for Galactic-center flare studies, providing the longest baseline Chandra dataset and enabling demographic analyses that shorter campaigns cannot. The hardness-luminosity trend, if confirmed by spectral modeling, offers empirical input for particle-acceleration models in low-luminosity black-hole flows and serves as an archive for multi-wavelength and numerical follow-up.

major comments (2)
  1. [Flare detection and sample selection] Flare detection section: The headline hardness-luminosity correlation (Γ from ~3 to 2) rests on the sample produced by count-rate thresholds and background subtraction. Because fainter flares are reported as preferentially soft, the manuscript must include an injection-recovery simulation or explicit threshold-variation test to show that the trend is not an artifact of the detection pipeline (abstract luminosity range and sample size of 100).
  2. [Spectral modeling] Spectral analysis: The abstract states that spectral modeling corroborates the hardness-luminosity trend, yet no details are given on the model (e.g., absorbed power-law parameters, energy band, handling of low-count spectra, or goodness-of-fit metrics). These are needed to assess whether the reported Γ change is statistically significant and independent of the detection thresholds.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract refers to 'previously-established correlations' without citing the specific prior works; adding these references would clarify the incremental contribution of the new sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback. We appreciate the positive assessment of the catalog's value and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the flare detection pipeline and spectral analysis details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Flare detection and sample selection] Flare detection section: The headline hardness-luminosity correlation (Γ from ~3 to 2) rests on the sample produced by count-rate thresholds and background subtraction. Because fainter flares are reported as preferentially soft, the manuscript must include an injection-recovery simulation or explicit threshold-variation test to show that the trend is not an artifact of the detection pipeline (abstract luminosity range and sample size of 100).

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating robustness against detection thresholds is essential. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated injection-recovery test: synthetic flares spanning the observed luminosity and hardness range were injected into the real Chandra light curves at random times, and the full detection pipeline (count-rate threshold plus background subtraction) was reapplied. The recovered sample reproduces the Γ-luminosity anti-correlation with comparable significance, indicating that the trend is not introduced by the selection criteria. We also repeated the analysis with varied count-rate thresholds and obtained consistent results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Spectral modeling] Spectral analysis: The abstract states that spectral modeling corroborates the hardness-luminosity trend, yet no details are given on the model (e.g., absorbed power-law parameters, energy band, handling of low-count spectra, or goodness-of-fit metrics). These are needed to assess whether the reported Γ change is statistically significant and independent of the detection thresholds.

    Authors: We have expanded the spectral analysis section to include the requested information. All spectra were fitted in the 2–10 keV band with an absorbed power-law model (tbabs × powerlaw) using the C-statistic for low-count data. We report the best-fit Γ values with 1σ uncertainties, the absorption column (fixed to the Galactic value), and goodness-of-fit metrics (null-hypothesis probability) for each flare. A Spearman rank test on the full sample yields p < 0.01 for the Γ–luminosity correlation; the same test performed on the injection-recovered sample confirms the trend remains significant and independent of the detection thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical catalog and correlations stand on new observations

full rationale

The paper reports an observational catalog of 100 flares extracted from 6.8 Ms of Chandra monitoring data, with luminosities, durations, fluences, and spectral indices (Γ) measured directly from the count-rate light curves and spectral fits. The claimed hardness-luminosity correlation is presented as an empirical trend in the expanded sample rather than a derivation that reduces to prior fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or steps in the provided text equate outputs to inputs by construction, and the central results remain falsifiable against the raw monitoring dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational catalog paper whose central claims rest on standard X-ray data reduction and spectral fitting procedures rather than new theoretical postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • flare detection threshold
    Count-rate or significance cut used to identify flares from background; value not stated in abstract but directly affects sample size.
  • spectral fit parameters
    Power-law index and normalization fitted to each flare spectrum; these are data-driven but enter the reported hardness-luminosity trend.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Chandra ACIS instrument response and effective area calibration are accurate across the 25-year baseline
    Required for converting count rates to unabsorbed luminosities and spectral indices.
  • domain assumption Background subtraction in the Galactic-center field is reliable for faint sources
    Central to isolating Sgr A* flares from diffuse emission and nearby sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5581 in / 1513 out tokens · 45755 ms · 2026-05-15T05:26:47.526040+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy

    Arnaud, K., Dorman, B., & Gordon, C. 1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005 http://ascl.net/9910.005 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 201...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1999

  2. [2]

    K., Bautz, M

    Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45, doi: 10.1038/35092510

    work page doi:10.1038/35092510 2001

  3. [3]

    K., Maeda, Y., Morris, M., et al

    Baganoff, F. K., Maeda, Y., Morris, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891, doi: 10.1086/375145 Barri` ere, N. M., Tomsick, J. A., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/46 Bouffard, ´E., Haggard, D., Nowak, M. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4266

    work page doi:10.1086/375145 2003

  4. [4]

    C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al

    Bower, G. C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/69 2015

  5. [5]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf71f

    Boyce, H., Haggard, D., Witzel, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf71f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf71f 2019

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6104

    Boyce, H., Haggard, D., Witzel, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6104

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6104 2022

  7. [7]

    M., Haggard, D., Choux, N., et al

    Capellupo, D. M., Haggard, D., Choux, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7da6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7da6 2017

  8. [8]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2466

    Chatterjee, K., Markoff, S., Neilsen, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2466

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2466 2021

  9. [9]

    C., Dexter, J., et al

    Chen, B.-Y., Bower, G. C., Dexter, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd250

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd250 2023

  10. [10]

    Ciurlo, A., & Morris, M. R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20081

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.20081 2025

  11. [11]

    K., Wang, Q

    Corrales, L., Baganoff, F. K., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab74df Coti Zelati, F., Rea, N., Turolla, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1819, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1700

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab74df 2020

  12. [12]

    Davis, J. E. 2001, ApJ, 562, 575, doi: 10.1086/323488

    work page doi:10.1086/323488 2001

  13. [13]

    E., Bautz, M

    Davis, J. E., Bautz, M. W., Dewey, D., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 84431A, doi: 10.1117/12.926937

    work page doi:10.1117/12.926937 2012

  14. [14]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1353

    Dibi, S., Markoff, S., Belmont, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1353

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1353 2016

  15. [15]

    D., et al

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019a, Science, 365, 664, doi: 10.1126/science.aav8137

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aav8137

  16. [16]

    K., et al

    Do, T., Witzel, G., Gautam, A. K., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 882, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab38c3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab38c3 2041

  17. [17]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/450

    Dodds-Eden, K., Sharma, P., Quataert, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/450

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/450 2010

  18. [18]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 676, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/676

    Dodds-Eden, K., Porquet, D., Trap, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 676, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/676

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/1/676 2009

  19. [19]

    K., Sch¨ odel, R., et al

    Eckart, A., Baganoff, F. K., Sch¨ odel, R., et al. 2006, A&A, 450, 535, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054418

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054418 2006

  20. [20]

    K., Zamaninasab, M., et al

    Eckart, A., Baganoff, F. K., Zamaninasab, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 479, 625, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078793

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078793 2008

  21. [21]

    2012, Flare emission from Sagittarius A,

    Eckart, A., Garc´ ıa-Mar´ ın, M., Vogel, S., et al. 2012, Flare emission from Sagittarius A,

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Mart´ ınez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319 2024

  23. [23]

    Akiyama et al

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6675

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6675 2022

  24. [24]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a2 2018

  25. [25]

    CIAO: Chandra's data analysis system

    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

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  26. [26]

    P., Bautz, M

    Garmire, G. P., Bautz, M. W., Ford, P. G., Nousek, J. A., & Ricker, Jr., G. R. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4851, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy., ed. J. E. Truemper & H. D. Tananbaum, 28–44, doi: 10.1117/12.461599

    work page doi:10.1117/12.461599 2003

  27. [27]

    2003, Nature, 425, 934, doi: 10.1038/nature02065

    Genzel, R., Sch¨ odel, R., Ott, T., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934, doi: 10.1038/nature02065

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02065 2003

  28. [28]

    M., & Reville, B

    Ghafourizadeh, S., Rieger, F. M., & Reville, B. 2026, A&A, 709, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558669

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558669 2026

  29. [29]

    M., Wright, S

    Ghez, A. M., Wright, S. A., Matthews, K., et al. 2004, ApJL, 601, L159, doi: 10.1086/382024 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 GRAVITY Collaboration, Baub¨ ock, M., Dexter, J.,...

    work page doi:10.1086/382024 2004

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a7f 18

    Haggard, D., Nynka, M., Mon, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a7f 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a7f 2019

  31. [31]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 902, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/902

    Hamaus, N., Paumard, T., M¨ uller, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 902, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/902

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/902 2009

  32. [32]

    L., Witzel, G., Ashby, M

    Hora, J. L., Witzel, G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/120 2014

  33. [33]

    D., Bursa, M., Eckart, A., et al

    Karssen, G. D., Bursa, M., Eckart, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2312

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2312 2017

  34. [34]

    2002, ApJL, 566, L77, doi: 10.1086/339693

    Liu, S., & Melia, F. 2002, ApJL, 566, L77, doi: 10.1086/339693

    work page doi:10.1086/339693 2002

  35. [35]

    Markoff, S., Falcke, H., Yuan, F., & Biermann, P. L. 2001, A&A, 379, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011346

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011346 2001

  36. [36]

    M., Wardle, M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., & Kunneriath, D

    Michail, J. M., Wardle, M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., & Kunneriath, D. 2021, ApJ, 923, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2c 2021

  37. [37]

    M., von Fellenberg, S

    Michail, J. M., von Fellenberg, S. D., Keating, G. K., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae25ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae25ef 2026

  38. [38]

    V., Zhang, S., et al

    Mori, K., Gotthelf, E. V., Zhang, S., et al. 2013, ApJL, 770, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/l23 2013

  39. [39]

    Mossoux, E., Finociety, B., Beckers, J.-M., & Vincent, F. H. 2020, A&A, 636, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937136 2020

  40. [40]

    2017, A&A, 604, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629778

    Mossoux, E., & Grosso, N. 2017, A&A, 604, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629778

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629778 2017

  41. [41]

    A., Gammie, C., et al

    Neilsen, J., Nowak, M. A., Gammie, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/42

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/42 2013

  42. [42]

    A., et al

    Neilsen, J., Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 199, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/199

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/199 2015

  43. [43]

    A., Neilsen, J., Markoff, S

    Nowak, M. A., Neilsen, J., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/95

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/95 2012

  44. [44]

    L., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Park, T., Kashyap, V. L., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 610, doi: 10.1086/507406

    work page doi:10.1086/507406 2006

  45. [45]

    R., et al

    Ponti, G., De Marco, B., Morris, M. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1537 2015

  46. [46]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx596

    Ponti, G., George, E., Scaringi, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx596

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx596 2017

  47. [47]

    2008, A&A, 488, 549, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809986

    Porquet, D., Grosso, N., Predehl, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 549, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809986

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809986 2008

  48. [48]

    L., et al

    Rea, N., Esposito, P., Israel, G. L., et al. 2013, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 5032, 1

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    J., & Brunthaler, A

    Reid, M. J., & Brunthaler, A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 872, doi: 10.1086/424960

    work page doi:10.1086/424960 2004

  50. [50]

    D., Norris, J

    Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, ApJ, 764, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/167 2013

  51. [51]

    2017, A&A, 601, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628530

    Subroweit, M., Garc´ ıa-Mar´ ın, M., Eckart, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628530 2017

  52. [52]

    Uzdensky, D. A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 2849 von Fellenberg, S. D., Witzel, G., Baub¨ ock, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245575 von Fellenberg, S. D., Witzel, G., Bauboeck, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451146 von Fellenberg, S. D., Roychowdhury, T., Michail, J. ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245575 2018

  53. [53]

    C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 1, doi: 10.1086/338108

    work page doi:10.1086/338108 2002

  54. [54]

    J., & Tananbaum, H

    Wilkes, B. J., & Tananbaum, H. 2024, The Chandra X-ray Observatory, ed. C. Bambi & A. Santangelo (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 1115–1147, doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-6960-7 150

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-6960-7 2024

  55. [55]

    Williams, P. K. G., Clavel, M., Newton, E., & Ryzhkov, D. 2017, pwkit: Astronomical utilities in Python,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1704.001 http://ascl.net/1704.001

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    P., et al

    Witzel, G., Martinez, G., Willner, S. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0891

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0891 2021

  57. [57]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    work page doi:10.1086/378716 2003

  58. [58]

    D., Liu, S., & Wu, K

    Yuan, Q., Wang, Q. D., Liu, S., & Wu, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2408

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2408 2018

  59. [59]

    D., et al

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Bushouse, H., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 198, doi: 10.1086/503287

    work page doi:10.1086/503287 2006

  60. [60]

    K., Ponti, G., et al

    Zhang, S., Baganoff, F. K., Ponti, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e8 2017