Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 128 references

The Accretion-Ejection Connection in the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three re-brightenings of the black hole binary MAXI J1820+070 all follow the same light-curve shape, matching disk-instability models that include irradiation from the inner disk.

desk verdict Solid observational benchmark with a nice 3D activity plane, but the abstract overclaims the disk-instability comparison and the correlation slopes rest on post-hoc data cuts. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11303 v1 pith:YHU7TIPG submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.HE

Joe S. Bright , Rob Fender , David M. Russell , Sara E. Motta , Ethan Man , Jakob van den Eijnden , Kevin Alabarta , Justine Crook-Mansour
show 7 more authors
Maria C. Baglio David A. Green Ian Heywood Fraser Lewis Payaswini Saikia Paul F. Scott David J. Titterington
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords MAXIJ1820+070blackholeX-raybinaryradio-X-raycorrelationoptical-X-rayaccretiondiskinstabilityjetre-brighteningmulti-wavelengthmonitoring
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

MAXI J1820+070, a black hole X-ray binary at 2.96 kpc, began its first recorded outburst in March 2018 and stayed active for over four years. This paper assembles dense radio (AMI-LA, MeerKAT), X-ray (Swift), and optical (LCO) monitoring covering the entire outburst, including three hard-state-only re-brightenings after the main event. The authors show that during hard states the three wavebands are tightly correlated and lie along a single line in three-dimensional log-luminosity space, with hysteresis as the source enters and exits the soft state. They also show that the three re-brightenings have remarkably similar light-curve morphologies, which they argue are broadly consistent with modified disk instability models where irradiation from the inner accretion disk is included. This matters because it suggests that the full multi-wavelength evolution of an outburst, and its echoes, is organised by a single accretion–ejection coupling.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the three-dimensional radio–X-ray–optical activity plane: a parametric line fit in log-luminosity space (Equation 1) to quasi-simultaneous hard-state measurements that have been binned in time. It unifies the well-known radio–X-ray correlation with optical data, exposing state-transition hysteresis and the independent optical fade. The second load-bearing element is the irradiated disk-instability model of Dubus et al. (2001), which predicts the observed two-phase decay: an initial exponential decline while irradiation keeps the disk hot and ionised, followed by a steeper decline as a cooling front propagates inward once irradiation fades.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to re-fit the hard-state correlations including all points currently excluded: hard-state points within 5 days of the state transitions and optical points before MJD 58233.5. If the correlation slopes or the 3D activity-line parameters shift by more than the quoted uncertainties, the claim that the hard state follows one line fails. A second decisive test is to catch a future re-brightening (of J1820 or a similar source like Swift J1910.2−0546) at daily cadence in radio, X-ray, and optical: if the decay is a single power law rather than the two-phase exponential-then-steeper profile, the irradiated disk-instability interpretation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the entire four-year radio, X-ray, and optical evolution of MAXI J1820+070 is organised by a single set of correlations. In the hard state, radio, X-ray, and optical luminosities are strongly correlated and lie along one line in three-dimensional log-luminosity space, with centroid [LX,0, LR,0, LO,0] = [35.984, 29.510, 35.105] and unit direction vector [0.846, 0.383, 0.371] (Equation 1). Excursions from this line occur mainly during the rising hard state, where the optical fades independently of the correlated radio and X-ray emission, and during the hard-to-soft and soft-to-hard transitions, which trace out a hysteresis loop. The paper also establishes that the three hard-state-only re-brightenings (R1, R2, R3) have remarkably similar light-curve morphologies: a fast rise, a shallow decay lasting roughly 30 days, then a steeper decay lasting roughly 20 days, visible in all three bands. This two-phase decay profile is argued to be broadly consistent with modified disk-instability models in which irradiation from the inner accretion disk (or corona) keeps the disk fully ionised until the irradiation weakens enough for a cooling front to move inwards.

Load-bearing premise

The reported hard-state correlation slopes rest on excluding hard-state points within five days of state transitions (because of a clear drop in radio emission) and optical points before MJD 58233.5 (because they clearly do not follow the X-ray emission); if those exclusions are not physically justified, the slopes describe a selected subset of the hard state rather than the full one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 3D activity plane is confirmed for other well-sampled black hole X-ray binaries, it would provide a standard diagnostic for linking accretion state, jet launching, and optical emission in a single framework.
  • The regularity and shared morphology of the re-brightenings imply that a common process regulates them, tying J1820's behaviour to a broader class of low-mass X-ray binary re-brightening phenomena.
  • The radio–X-ray correlation slope of about 0.48 for J1820 is shallower than the canonical 0.6 for radio-loud sources, yet the source stays on the radio-loud track throughout; this constrains models that tie the slope to accretion efficiency.
  • The inferred jet contribution to the optical emission during the soft-to-hard transition, suggested by the ordering of the radio and optical peaks, can be tested with broadband spectral energy distribution fitting and optical polarimetry.
  • The striking similarity of the re-brightening events to the fading hard state (R0) indicates that the same physical mechanism can operate both during the tail of the canonical outburst and in subsequent hard-state-only flares.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-constant peak luminosity of the re-brightenings (about 0.2 per cent of Eddington for an 8.5 solar-mass black hole) may point to a threshold in disk-stability models that could be tested across other sources, although the paper does not make this generalisation explicitly.
  • Extending the 3D activity-plane analysis to other bright outbursts, such as Swift J1727.8−1613 as the authors themselves suggest, would reveal whether a single line in log-luminosity space is a universal feature of hard states or an idiosyncrasy of J1820.
  • A re-analysis that includes the hard-state points currently excluded (within 5 days of state transitions, and optical points before MJD 58233.5) would test how much of the reported tight correlation relies on the selection; if the slopes shift significantly, the 'single line' claim would be weakened.
  • The disk-instability interpretation predicts that the spacing between re-brightenings (roughly 155–190 days) and the two-phase decay timescales should be tied to the disk mass-transfer rate and the irradiation strength, which could be checked with time-dependent disk models tailored to J1820's parameters.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents radio (AMI-LA 15.5 GHz and MeerKAT 1.28 GHz), Swift X-ray, and LCO optical g'/i' monitoring of MAXI J1820+070 from 2018 to 2022, covering the initial hard state, a soft-state excursion, and three hard-state-only re-brightenings. The authors construct two-dimensional radio-X-ray, optical-X-ray, and radio-optical correlations, plus a three-dimensional radio-X-ray-optical activity plane, and report slopes, a hysteresis pattern, and morphological similarities between the re-brightenings. They interpret the re-brightening light curves as broadly consistent with irradiation-modified disk instability models and discuss jet formation and optical jet contributions during state transitions.

Significance. The dataset is unusually comprehensive and publicly available in machine-readable form, with detailed reduction descriptions; if the correlations are robust, the 3D activity plane provides a valuable diagnostic of accretion-ejection coupling for one of the best-sampled BHXRBs. The paper also correctly notes degeneracies between irradiated-disk and jet origins for optical emission. However, the central model-consistency claim is only qualitative, and the correlation slopes rely on data-dependent exclusions; these issues need to be addressed before the broad conclusions are established.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1 and Conclusions] The abstract's claim that the re-brightenings are 'broadly consistent' with irradiation-modified disk instability models is not quantitatively supported. Section 4.1 describes the two-stage decay morphology and qualitatively matches it to the Dubus et al. (2001) description, but the paper computes no model light curves for J1820's parameters, fits none of the observed light curves, and reports no timescale comparison or goodness-of-fit statistic. As it stands, any template with a fast rise and two decay rates would be equally consistent, so the wording 'We establish' overstates the evidence; either soften the claim or add a quantitative model comparison.
  2. [3.2.1-3.2.3] The fitted correlation indices are directly affected by data-dependent selection. Section 3.2.1 excludes hard-state points within 5 days of state transitions because of a 'clear drop in radio emission', and Sections 3.2.2-3.2.3 exclude optical points before MJD 58233.5 because they 'clearly do not follow the X-ray emission'. Since these cuts are motivated by inspection of the same data being fit, the reported slopes (and the claimed flattening during re-brightenings in Section 3.2.1) may reflect the selection rather than the full hard state. Please report the fits with and without these cuts, or define an independent a priori criterion.
  3. [Table 6 / Section 3.2.4] The reduced chi-squared values in Table 6 range from 3.9 to 12.4, which, given the quoted errors, formally reject the power-law models at high significance, yet Section 3.2.4 describes the hard-state data as 'strongly correlated' and lying 'along a line'. The paper should quantify the intrinsic scatter (e.g., with a scatter parameter or an explicit statement of the rms dispersion about the line) so that 'high degree of correlation' has a well-defined meaning; otherwise the activity-plane claim is stronger than the statistics warrant.
  4. [3.2.4] It is not stated whether the 3D line fit applies the same data exclusions used in the 2D fits (the 5-day transition window and the pre-MJD 58233.5 optical cut). If those points are included, the line is fit through the rising-hard-state optical fade that the 2D analysis explicitly rejects; if they are excluded, the 'hard state' line is defined on a subset. Please state which points enter the 3D fit and show the sensitivity of the centroid and direction vector to this choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.1.2] The phrase 'in quadrate' should be 'in quadrature'.
  2. [3.2.1] The reference to 'panel B of Figure 1' should be 'panel B of Figure 2'; the spectral index is shown in Figure 2, not the calibrator light curve in Figure 1.
  3. [Figure 7 / Section 4.5] The interactive URL 'https://joesbright.github.io/MAXIJ180' appears truncated; it should include the full source name 'MAXIJ1820+070'.
  4. [3.2.1] The sentence describing Figure 4 says 'which includes the hard-state-only re-brightenings only' and is redundant; consider rewording.
  5. [3.2] The bin sizes (1.5 and 1.8 days) are stated without justification; a brief sentence explaining the choice and its sensitivity would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's correlations are measured fits to independent observational data, and the disk-instability comparison is a qualitative post hoc interpretation rather than a derivation from the model.

full rationale

The paper's empirical claims are derived directly from independent radio, X-ray, and optical observations, not from fitted model inputs. The two- and three-dimensional correlation slopes (Eqs. 2-3, Section 3.2) are fits to measured luminosities and are presented as measured correlations, not as predictions generated from a theoretical model. The central interpretive claim that the re-brightening events are 'broadly consistent with modified disk instability models' (Section 4.1, Conclusions) is a qualitative post hoc comparison with no quantitative model fit or similarity statistic; being unsupported is a robustness concern, not a circularity concern. The reuse of early MeerKAT flux densities and the earlier 0.50 +/- 0.09 radio-X-ray slope from Bright et al. (2020) is a citation of independently published measurements by overlapping authors, and the paper reproduces consistent slopes from its own expanded dataset, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The Section 4.3 discussion of an expected optical-radio slope combines the van Paradijs & McClintock (1994) reprocessing exponent with the paper's measured radio-X-ray slope; this is an algebraic consistency check among measured correlations, and the paper explicitly states that 'based on correlation arguments no conclusions can be drawn' about the optical photon origin. No definitional equivalence, fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction, or uniqueness-imported-by-self-citation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by measured correlation parameters and standard astrophysical calibrations rather than by ad hoc model inputs. No new physical entities are introduced. The main selection-related choices (bin sizes, exclusion windows, upper-limit handling) are honest to list as hand-chosen parameters because they directly shape the quantitative claims.

free parameters (14)
  • 2D correlation bin size = 1.5 days
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2 to maximize matches without correlating long-timescale evolution; directly determines which observations enter every two-way correlation.
  • 3D correlation bin size = 1.8 days
    Chosen in Section 3.2 for the three-wavelength activity plane; affects the number and composition of points in Figure 7.
  • Hard-state AMI-LA radio-X-ray index a_A = 0.481 ± 0.009
    ODR power-law fit to hard-state AMI-LA/Swift data after excluding selected epochs; central to the radio-X-ray coupling claim.
  • Hard-state MeerKAT radio-X-ray index a_M = 0.41 ± 0.03
    Same fit for MeerKAT/Swift data; used to show consistency with earlier work.
  • Re-brightening AMI-LA radio-X-ray index (post MJD 58500) = 0.37 ± 0.02
    Fit to re-brightening-only data; supports the claim of a flatter correlation in hard-state-only events.
  • Re-brightening MeerKAT radio-X-ray index = 0.41 ± 0.04
    MeerKAT re-brightening fit; consistent with the global index rather than the AMI-LA flattening.
  • g'-band vs X-ray index = 0.45 ± 0.02
    Optical-X-ray correlation slope for g' data; compared to theoretical reprocessing prediction.
  • i'-band vs X-ray index = 0.41 ± 0.01
    Optical-X-ray correlation slope for i' data; drives the optical reprocessing discussion.
  • g'-band vs 15.5 GHz index = 0.95 ± 0.05
    Radio-optical correlation slope for g'/AMI-LA; supports the L_O proportional L_R expectation.
  • i'-band vs 15.5 GHz index = 0.93 ± 0.04
    Radio-optical correlation slope for i'/AMI-LA; similar to the g' result.
  • g'-band vs 1.28 GHz index = 1.1 ± 0.1
    Radio-optical slope for g'/MeerKAT; less well constrained than AMI-LA fits.
  • i'-band vs 1.28 GHz index = 0.86 ± 0.06
    Radio-optical slope for i'/MeerKAT; included in Table 6.
  • 3D line centroid [log LX, log LR, log LO] = [35.984, 29.510, 35.105]
    Centroid of the best-fit line in the 3D activity plane; defines the location of the hard-state track.
  • 3D line direction vector [a, b, c] = [0.846, 0.383, 0.371]
    Unit direction vector from the 3D power-iteration fit; encodes the relative scaling between the three bands along the hard-state track.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The source distance is 2.96 kpc from Atri et al. (2020) and is used to convert fluxes to luminosities.
    Used in Section 2.3 and Figure 2; distance uncertainty is not propagated into the correlation fits or the absolute luminosities quoted.
  • domain assumption Optical extinction correction uses A_V = 0.558 with Cardelli et al. (1989) coefficients.
    Section 2.3; the adopted extinction affects all optical luminosities and therefore the optical correlation slopes and normalizations.
  • domain assumption X-ray spectra are modeled as absorbed power laws, with nH = 0.091 and Gamma = 1.7 fixed for low-count spectra.
    Section 2.2; this modeling choice affects Swift flux estimates during faint epochs and the re-brightenings, which anchor the low-luminosity ends of the correlations.
  • domain assumption Accretion state classifications (hard, intermediate, soft) are taken from Shidatsu et al. (2019).
    Used throughout to assign colors in correlation plots and to define the 5-day exclusion windows around state transitions.
  • standard math The power-law correlation model L1 = A L2^a is adequate, with ODR assuming Gaussian errors in log-luminosity space.
    Section 3.2; the reduced chi-squared values of 3.9-12.4 make clear that the model leaves significant unmodeled scatter.
  • domain assumption Upper limits are ignored in all correlations.
    Section 3.2; if non-detections are concentrated in particular luminosity ranges, the fitted slopes may be biased toward the detected, brighter points.
  • domain assumption Radio luminosities can be scaled to 5 GHz using the nearest spectral index within 3 days, or the median spectral index if no measurement is close enough.
    Section 3.2.1; the interpolation of spectral index introduces systematic uncertainty that is not propagated into the scatter of the correlations.
  • domain assumption A flat radio spectrum is assumed when converting flux densities to luminosities for the light curves.
    Figure 2 and Section 3.2.1; this differs from the spectral-index scaling used for the correlations, so the light-curve luminosities and correlation luminosities are not on exactly the same scale.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Accretion-Ejection Connection in the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHU7TIPG

@misc{pith2026250711303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Accretion-Ejection Connection in the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHU7TIPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11303}
}
abstract

The black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1820$+$070 began its first recorded outburst in March 2018, and remained an active radio, X-ray, and optical source for over four years. Due to the low distance to the source and its intrinsically high luminosity MAXI J1820$+$070 was observed extensively over this time period, resulting in high-cadence and quasi-simultaneous observations across the electromagnetic spectrum. These data sets provide the opportunity to probe the connection between accretion and the launch of jets in greater detail than for the majority of black hole X-ray binaries. In this work we present radio (Arcminute Microkelvin Imager Large Array, MeerKAT), X-ray (Swift), and optical (Las Cumbres Observatory) observations of MAXI J1820$+$070 throughout its entire outburst, including its initial hard state, subsequent soft state, and further hard-state-only re-brightenings (covering March 2018 to August 2022). Due to the regularity and temporal density of our observational data we are able to create a Radio - X-ray - Optical activity plane where we find a high degree of correlation between the three wave bands during the hard states, and observe hysteresis as MAXI J1820$+$070 enters and exits the soft state. Based on the morphology of the optical light curves we see evidence for optical jet contributions during the soft-to-hard state transition, as well as fading optical emission well before the hard to soft transition. We establish that the remarkably similar profiles of the re-brightening events are broadly consistent with modified disk instability models where irradiation from the inner accretion disk is included.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curve of the phase reference calibrator J1824+1044. Errors on data points indicate the statistical uncertainty from the imfit task. The central dashed line marks the mean flux density of J1824+1044 and the lines above and below it mark 1.15 times the mean flux density and 0.85 times the mean flux density, respectively. We reject observations of J1820 for which the flux density of J1824+1044 is outside of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radio (Arcminute Microkelvin Imager Large Array, MeerKAT), X-ray (Swift), and optical (Las Cumbres Observatory) light curves of MAXI J1820. A distance of 2.96 kpc was assumed for the conversion to luminosity (Atri et al. 2020). Grey shaded regions mark times during which J1820 was in the intermediate state according to Shidatsu et al. (2019). Panel A: MeerKAT 1.28 GHz and AMI-LA 15.5 GHz radio observations of J1820+… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The radio – X-ray correlation for J1820, including data from the initial outburst (as seen in Bright et al. 2020), and the three re-brightening events shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 𝑖 ′ -band (top; multiplied by 102 for clarity) and 𝑔 ′ -band (bot￾tom) optical – X-ray correlation for J1820. Blue, green, and orange points are the hard, intermediate, and soft states, respectively. For the hard state we distinguish points before MJD 58233.5 by ci…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The radio – X-ray – optical correlation plane for J1820. Blue, green, and orange points indicate that the source was in the hard, intermediate and soft states, respectively. The grey shaded region indicates the best fitting line to the hard state data from all three wa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves and the 1.28 to 15.5 GHz spectral index of the three re-brightening events R1, R2, and R3 (b, c, and d, respectively). Also shown is the hard state that J1820 entered immediately after its only excursion to the soft state (R0; panel a). Note that all plots…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The three hard-state-only re-brightenings shown by J1820 (blue, red, and green, chronologically), as seen at 1.28 GHz (squares) at 15.5 GHz (circles). The re-brightenings have been shifted in time to overlap the first re-brightening in order to demonstrate their regula…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The soft to hard state transition showing the re-ignition of the core jet, particularly obvious at radio frequencies. The X-ray and optical luminosi￾ties have been scaled down by a factor of 5000 and 10000, respectively, to ease comparison. quenching before those at l…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 14 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]

    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

  3. [3]

    Atri P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493L..81A 493, L81

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa010 2020

  4. [4]

    C., Russell D

    Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Lewis F., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel11418....1B 11418

    2018

  5. [5]

    C., Russell D

    Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Saikia P., Bramich D. M., Lewis F., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14492....1B 14492

    2021

  6. [6]

    C., Russell D

    Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Alabarta K., Saikia P., Bramich D. M., Homan J., Lewis F., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16192....1B 16192

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bahramian A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accde1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948L...7B 948, L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accde1 2023

  8. [8]

    M., 2010, in Belloni T., ed., , Vol

    Belloni T. M., 2010, in Belloni T., ed., , Vol. 794, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag. p. 53

    2010

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    Blandford R. D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    1979 doi

  2. [11]

    S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    Briggs D. S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    1995

  3. [12]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..697B 4, 697

    Bright J. S., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..697B 4, 697

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    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

  5. [14]

    CASA Team et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134k4501C 134, 114501

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 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 [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505L..58C 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. [20]

    R., Livio M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...491..312C 491, 312

    Chen W., Shrader C. R., Livio M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...491..312C 491, 312

    1997 doi

  11. [21]

    P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573L..35C 573, L35

    Corbel S., Fender R. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573L..35C 573, L35

    2002 doi

  12. [22]

    P., Tzioumis A

    Corbel S., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Nowak M., McIntyre V., Durouchoux P., Sood R., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359..251C 359, 251

    2000

  13. [23]

    Corbel S., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554...43C 554, 43

    2001 doi

  14. [24]

    P., Tzioumis A

    Corbel S., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Tomsick J. A., Orosz J. A., Miller J. M., Wijnands R., Kaaret P., 2002, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1075857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Sci...298..196C 298, 196

    2002 doi

  15. [25]

    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

  16. [26]

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

    2013 doi

  17. [29]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1001C 496, 1001

    C \'u neo V. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1001C 496, 1001

    2020 doi

  18. [30]

    Cunningham C., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...208..534C 208, 534

    1976 doi

  19. [32]

    Denisenko D., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel11400....1D 11400

    2018

  20. [33]

    F., Rodr \' guez L

    Dhawan V., Mirabel I. F., Rodr \' guez L. F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543..373D 543, 373

    2000 doi

  21. [34]

    M., Lasota J

    Dubus G., Hameury J. M., Lasota J. P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...373..251D 373, 251

    2001 doi

  22. [35]

    Echibur \'u -Trujillo C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..116E 962, 116

    2024 doi

  23. [36]

    Espinasse M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab88b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895L..31E 895, L31

    2020 doi

  24. [37]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

    Evans P. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

    2009

  25. [38]

    L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9411096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293..665F 293, 665

    Falcke H., Biermann P. L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9411096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293..665F 293, 665

    1995 doi arXiv

  26. [39]

    Falcke H., K \"o rding E., Markoff S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...414..895F 414, 895

    2004 doi

  27. [40]

    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

  28. [41]

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

    doi

  29. [43]

    Fender R., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 13 ( @eprint arXiv 1711.04132 ), @doi 10.22323/1.277.0013

    2016 arXiv

  30. [44]

    P., Hynes R

    Gallo E., Fender R. P., Hynes R. I., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08503.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1017G 356, 1017

    2005

  31. [45]

    P., Fender R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20899.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..590G 423, 590

    Gallo E., Miller B. P., Fender R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20899.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..590G 423, 590

    2012

  32. [46]

    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

  33. [47]

    Gasealahwe K. V. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2806G 521, 2806

    2023 doi

  34. [48]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  35. [49]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3429G 498, 3429

    Goodwin A. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3429G 498, 3429

    2020 doi

  36. [50]

    V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2858G 492, 2858

    Gusinskaia N. V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2858G 492, 2858

    2020 doi

  37. [51]

    Heywood I., 2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.003 ( @eprint ascl 2009.003 )

    2020

  38. [52]

    Hickish J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5677H 475, 5677

    2018 doi

  39. [53]

    Homan J., Belloni T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-005-1197-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Ap&SS.300..107H 300, 107

    2005 doi

  40. [54]

    D., Nespoli E., Belloni T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...624..295H 624, 295

    Homan J., Buxton M., Markoff S., Bailyn C. D., Nespoli E., Belloni T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...624..295H 624, 295

    2005 doi

  41. [55]

    Homan J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L..29H 891, L29

    2020 doi

  42. [56]

    K., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.07798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250607798H p

    Hughes A. K., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.07798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250607798H p. arXiv:2506.07798

    2025 doi arXiv

  43. [57]

    V., Perkins S., Merry B., Mauch T., Smirnov O

    Hugo B. V., Perkins S., Merry B., Mauch T., Smirnov O. M., 2022, in Ruiz J. E., Pierfedereci F., Teuben P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 532, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. p. 541 ( @eprint arXiv 2206.09179 )

    2022 arXiv

  44. [58]

    A., Buxton M

    Kalemci E., Din c er T., Tomsick J. A., Buxton M. M., Bailyn C. D., Chun Y. Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779...95K 779, 95

    2013 doi

  45. [59]

    Kara E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0803-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.565..198K 565, 198

    2019 doi

  46. [60]

    Kawamuro T., et al., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel11399....1K 11399

    2018

  47. [61]

    A., Marshall F

    Kennea J. A., Marshall F. E., Page K. L., Palmer D. M., Siegel M. H., Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory Team 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ATel11403....1K 11403

    2018

  48. [62]

    S., Smirnov O

    Kenyon J. S., Smirnov O. M., Grobler T. L., Perkins S. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.2399K 478, 2399

    2018 doi

  49. [63]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    2017 doi

  50. [64]

    Koljonen K. I. I., Long K. S., Matthews J. H., Knigge C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4190K 521, 4190

    2023 doi

  51. [66]

    Lewis F., 2018, Robotic Telescope, Student Research and Education Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RTSRE...1..237L 1, 237

    2018

  52. [67]

    M., Fender R

    Lewis F., Russell D. M., Fender R. P., Roche P., Clark J. S., 2008, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0811.2336L p. arXiv:0811.2336

    2008 arXiv

  53. [68]

    Ma X., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5...94M 5, 94

    2021 doi

  54. [69]

    Ma R., M \'e ndez M., Garc \' a F., Sai N., Zhang L., Zhang Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..854M 525, 854

    2023 doi

  55. [70]

    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

  56. [71]

    Makhathini S., 2018, PhD thesis, Rhodes University, South Africa

    2018

  57. [72]

    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

  58. [73]

    H., Harbeck D.-R., Lister T

    McCully C., Volgenau N. H., Harbeck D.-R., Lister T. A., Saunders E. S., Turner M. L., Siiverd R. J., Bowman M., 2018, in Guzman J. C., Ibsen J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for A...

    2018

  59. [74]

    P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R

    McMullin J. P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R. A., Hill F., Bell D. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 127

    2007

  60. [75]

    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

  61. [76]

    A., Kaaret P., Fender R

    Migliori G., Corbel S., Tomsick J. A., Kaaret P., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Coriat M., Orosz J. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..141M 472, 141

    2017 doi

  62. [77]

    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

  63. [78]

    Miller-Jones J. C. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20326.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421..468M 421, 468

    2012

  64. [79]

    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

  65. [80]

    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

  66. [81]

    Mu \ n oz-Darias T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879L...4M 879, L4

    2019 doi

  67. [82]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...452..710N 452, 710

    1995 doi

  68. [83]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444..606O 444, 606

    Offringa A. R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444..606O 444, 606

    2014 doi

  69. [84]

    D., Altamirano D., Ak T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.3894O 514, 3894

    \"O zbey Arabac M., Kalemci E., Din c er T., Bailyn C. D., Altamirano D., Ak T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.3894O 514, 3894

    2022 doi

  70. [85]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490L..62P 490, L62

    Paice J. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490L..62P 490, L62

    2019 doi

  71. [86]

    S., Russell T

    Parikh A. S., Russell T. D., Wijnands R., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Sivakoff G. R., Tetarenko A. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878L..28P 878, L28

    2019 doi

  72. [87]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3330P 429, 3330

    Perrott Y. C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3330P 429, 3330

    2013 doi

  73. [88]

    F., Baglio M

    Pirbhoy S. F., Baglio M. C., Russell D. M., Bramich D. M., Saikia P., Yazeedi A. A., Lewis F., 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13451....1P 13451

    2020

  74. [89]

    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

  75. [90]

    M., Bahramian A., Miller-Jones J

    Plotkin R. M., Bahramian A., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Reynolds M. T., Atri P., Maccarone T. J., Shaw A. W., Gandhi P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3784P 503, 3784

    2021 doi

  76. [91]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44...49R 44, 49

    2006 arXiv

  77. [92]

    Rodriguez J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5db5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889...58R 889, 58

    2020 doi

  78. [93]

    M., Fender R

    Russell D. M., Fender R. P., Hynes R. I., Brocksopp C., Homan J., Jonker P. G., Buxton M. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10756.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371.1334R 371, 1334

    2006

  79. [94]

    M., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..815R 429, 815

    Russell D. M., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..815R 429, 815

    doi

  80. [95]

    M., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768L..35R 768, L35

    Russell D. M., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768L..35R 768, L35

    doi

  81. [96]

    D., Soria R., Miller-Jones J

    Russell T. D., Soria R., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Curran P. A., Markoff S., Russell D. M., Sivakoff G. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.1390R 439, 1390

    2014 doi

  82. [97]

    M., et al., 2019a, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..278R 340, 278

    Russell D. M., et al., 2019a, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201913610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AN....340..278R 340, 278

    doi

  83. [98]

    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

  84. [99]

    M., Baglio M

    Russell D. M., Baglio M. C., Lewis F., 2019c, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12534....1R 12534

  85. [100]

    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

  86. [101]

    Saikia P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ce1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...932...38S 932, 38

    2022 doi

  87. [102]

    M., Pirbhoy S

    Saikia P., Russell D. M., Pirbhoy S. F., Baglio M. C., Bramich D. M., Alabarta K., Lewis F., Charles P., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4543S 524, 4543

    doi

  88. [103]

    M., Pirbhoy S

    Saikia P., Russell D. M., Pirbhoy S. F., Baglio M. C., Bramich D. M., Alabarta K., Lewis F., Charles P., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949..104S 949, 104

    doi

  89. [104]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  90. [105]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  91. [106]

    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

  92. [107]

    L., Adachi R., Kawai N., Ueda Y., Negoro H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874..183S 874, 183

    Shidatsu M., Nakahira S., Murata K. L., Adachi R., Kawai N., Ueda Y., Negoro H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874..183S 874, 183

    2019 doi

  93. [108]

    D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3114S 428, 3114

    Staley T. D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.3114S 428, 3114

    2013 doi

  94. [109]

    B., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PASP..102..932S 102, 932

    Stetson P. B., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PASP..102..932S 102, 932

    1990 doi

  95. [110]

    M., Spencer R

    Stirling A. M., Spencer R. E., de la Force C. J., Garrett M. A., Fender R. P., Ogley R. N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04821.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.327.1273S 327, 1273

    2001

  96. [111]

    Sugizaki M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASJ...63S.635S 63, S635

    2011 doi

  97. [112]

    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

  98. [113]

    E., Dubus G., Lasota J

    Tetarenko B. E., Dubus G., Lasota J. P., Heinke C. O., Sivakoff G. R., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480....2T 480, 2

    doi

  99. [114]

    E., Lasota J

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

    doi

  100. [115]

    J., Casella P., Miller-Jones J

    Tetarenko A. J., Casella P., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Sivakoff G. R., Tetarenko B. E., Maccarone T. J., Gandhi P., Eikenberry S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.2987T 484, 2987

    2019 doi

  101. [116]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3862T 504, 3862

    Tetarenko A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3862T 504, 3862

    2021 doi

  102. [117]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..105T 867, 105

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..105T 867, 105

    2018 doi

  103. [118]

    Torres M. A. P., Casares J., Jim \'e nez-Ibarra F., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Armas Padilla M., Jonker P. G., Heida M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab39df , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L..21T 882, L21

    2019 doi

  104. [119]

    Torres M. A. P., Casares J., Jim \'e nez-Ibarra F., \'A lvarez-Hern \'a ndez A., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Armas Padilla M., Jonker P. G., Heida M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab863a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..37T 893, L37

    2020 doi

  105. [120]

    Tremou E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493L.132T 493, L132

    2020 doi

  106. [121]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae88a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L...9T 867, L9

    Tucker M. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae88a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L...9T 867, L9

    2018 doi

  107. [122]

    Veledina A., Poutanen J., Vurm I., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.3196V 430, 3196

    2013 doi

  108. [123]

    Veledina A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..75V 623, A75

    2019 doi

  109. [124]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..614V 503, 614

    Vincentelli F. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..614V 503, 614

    2021 doi

  110. [125]

    D., Raymond J

    Vrtilek S. D., Raymond J. C., Garcia M. R., Verbunt F., Hasinger G., Kurster M., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...235..162V 235, 162

    1990

  111. [126]

    Wang J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abec79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910L...3W 910, L3

    2021 doi

  112. [127]

    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

  113. [128]

    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

  114. [129]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L...9W 971, L9

    Wood C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L...9W 971, L9

    2024 doi

  115. [130]

    Yan Z., Yu W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01333.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427L..11Y 427, L11

    2012

  116. [131]

    arXiv:2507.00532

    Yang P., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250700532Y p. arXiv:2507.00532

    2025 doi arXiv

  117. [132]

    You B., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-021-21169-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatCo..12.1025Y 12, 1025

    2021 doi

  118. [133]

    Zwart J. T. L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13953.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1545Z 391, 1545

    2008

  119. [134]

    de Haas S. E. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..521D 502, 521

    2021 doi

  120. [135]

    E., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...290..133V 290, 133

    van Paradijs J., McClintock J. E., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...290..133V 290, 133

    1994

Pith tools

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