Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Multiwavelength Observations of the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070 in the Rebrightening Phase

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MAXI J1820+070's faint rebrightening state is powered by a radiatively inefficient accretion flow, not a truncated standard disk.

desk verdict Useful new multiwavelength data on a rebrightening BHXB, but the RIAF interpretation is not uniquely supported and the model-exclusion argument has a scaling-law extrapolation and a numerical slip. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11442 v1 pith:63EMAWD5 submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.HE

Tomohiro Yoshitake , Megumi Shidatsu , Yoshihiro Ueda , Shin Mineshige , Katsuhiro L. Murata , Ryo Adachi , Hiroyuki Maehara , Daisaku Nogami
show 9 more authors
Hitoshi Negoro Nobuyuki Kawai Masafumi Niwano Ryohei Hosokawa Tomoki Saito Yumiko Oasa Takuya Takarada Takumi Shigeyoshi OISTER Collaboration
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords MAXIJ1820+070blackholeX-raybinaryradiativelyinefficientaccretionflowadvection-dominatedspectralenergydistributionjetsynchrotronradiationH-alphaemissionlinerebrightening
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports quasi-simultaneous near-infrared, optical, UV, and X-ray observations of the Galactic black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1820+070 taken on 2019 May 10–13, about 60 days after the onset of its first rebrightening. The authors argue that the spectral energy distribution at this epoch, which shows an optical-to-X-ray luminosity ratio of roughly 8, is dominated by a radiatively inefficient accretion flow (RIAF) whose thermal synchro-cyclotron emission peaks in the optical band, with a normalized mass accretion rate of about $10^{-3}$. A separate blue power-law component in the optical–UV range is most likely synchrotron radiation from the jet, and the weak narrow H$\alpha$ emission requires cooler material beyond the RIAF. If this picture is right, it shows that a black hole binary can spend a rebrightening phase with its inner region in a hot, inefficient accretion state rather than a standard disk, and it provides a quantitative accretion-rate estimate for that state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radiatively inefficient accretion flow (RIAF), specifically the advection-dominated accretion flow spectrum calculated by Manmoto et al. (1997): thermal electrons in the hot, low-density flow emit synchro-cyclotron radiation that peaks near the optical band, while the X-rays come from thermal bremsstrahlung plus Comptonized synchro-cyclotron photons. To scale that template from the reference black hole mass and accretion rate to MAXI J1820, the paper uses the ADAF scaling laws of Mahadevan (1997): synchro-cyclotron luminosity $\propto m^{0.5}\dot{m}^{1.5}$, peak frequency $\propto m^{-0.5}\dot{m}^{0.5}$, and bremsstrahlung luminosity $\propto m\,\dot{m}^2$, where $m=M/M_\odot$ and $\dot{m}=\dot{M}c^2/(8L_{\rm Edd})$. Fixing $m=7$ and setting $\dot{m}=10^{-3}$ predicts optical-band luminosity $\sim1.3\times10^{34}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, peak frequency $\log\nu_P\sim15$, and X-ray luminosity $\sim1.2\times10^{32}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, consistent with the observed $3\times10^{33}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, $\log\nu_P\sim14.2$, and $7\times10^{32}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ within factors of about 6. The alternative truncated standard disk is represented by the multi-color disk (diskbb) model, whose best-fit inner radius $R_{\rm in}=6.3\times10^5\ \mathrm{km}$ and temperature $T_{\rm in}=5.9\times10^{-4}\ \mathrm{keV}$ imply $\dot{m}\sim0.04$, which overproduces the observed luminosities under the same scalings.

What would settle it

Measure the sub-millimeter-to-radio spectrum predicted by the RIAF-plus-jet model at the same epoch: the RIAF synchro-cyclotron component should produce a self-absorbed spectrum connecting smoothly below the optical peak at $E_{\rm cut}\approx6\times10^{-4}\ \mathrm{keV}$, whereas the truncated-disk-plus-jet alternative requires a substantially different low-frequency excess. A second decisive observation is fast UV/optical polarimetry: jet synchrotron radiation should show rapid variability and polarization on timescales of minutes to hours, while the RIAF thermal component should be steady and unpolarized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During 2019 May 10–13, MAXI J1820 had an optical-to-X-ray luminosity ratio of about 8, far larger than the ratios of $4\times10^{-2}$ (low/hard state) and $6\times10^{-3}$ (high/soft state) measured in the initial 2018 outburst. The primary near-infrared-to-UV SED is reproduced by a cutoff power law with photon index $\Gamma=-0.232$ and cutoff energy $E_{\rm cut}=6.0\times10^{-4}\ \mathrm{keV}$, matching the theoretical RIAF synchro-cyclotron spectrum with a luminosity peak in the optical band. Using the advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) scaling laws with black hole mass $7\,M_\odot$, the authors find that a normalized accretion rate $\dot{m}\equiv \dot{M}c^2/(8L_{\rm Edd})=10^{-3}$ reproduces the observed optical and X-ray luminosities within factors of about 6. The statistically equally good truncated hot standard-disk fit is rejected because its inferred $\dot{m}\sim0.04$ would, under the same RIAF scalings, overproduce the observed luminosities by orders of magnitude. A blue power-law component with $\Gamma=1.4$ dominates the UV and is attributed to jet synchrotron emission; since it does not smoothly connect to the X-ray power law, the X-rays are mainly from the RIAF itself. The weak narrow H$\alpha$ line constrains its innermost emitting radius to $\gtrsim2\times10^4\,r_g$, indicating cool outermost material that a single RIAF solution does not provide.

Load-bearing premise

The central interpretation depends on assuming that the standard theoretical scaling relations for radiatively inefficient accretion flows apply to this source at this epoch, including the fixed optical spectral slope taken from a reference ADAF spectrum; if those scalings are not valid here, the inferred accretion rate of about $10^{-3}$ and the rejection of the truncated-disk model collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inner accretion flow of MAXI J1820 during the 2019 rebrightening was a RIAF with normalized accretion rate of about $10^{-3}$, not a standard disk reaching the innermost stable orbit.
  • The truncated hot standard-disk interpretation is unlikely, because its inferred accretion rate would make the source orders of magnitude brighter in the optical and X-ray bands than observed.
  • The UV-excess power-law component is jet synchrotron radiation, while the similarly sloped X-ray power law is not connected to it, so the X-rays are primarily produced in the RIAF rather than in the jet.
  • The H$\alpha$ emitting region lies at radii $\gtrsim2\times10^4\,r_g$, requiring cool, optically thick or thin material at the outermost disk even while the inner flow is a hot RIAF.
  • With an optical-to-X-ray ratio near 8, the rebrightening state is structurally distinct from both the low/hard and high/soft states observed earlier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not pursue this, but the same RIAF scaling test could be applied to other dim rebrightenings of black hole binaries: if the optical peak tracks $E_{\rm cut}\propto\dot{m}^{0.5}$ across epochs, the accretion-rate dependence of disk truncation could be mapped without detailed spectral fitting.
  • A direct extension would be simultaneous radio-to-submillimeter coverage: the RIAF synchro-cyclotron spectrum should extend smoothly below the optical peak, whereas a truncated disk plus a stronger jet would produce a different low-frequency excess.
  • The two-component optical–UV SED implies that single-component fits to optical SEDs of faint black hole binaries can bias inferred disk temperatures and truncation radii by ignoring the jet's power-law contribution.
  • Time-resolved polarimetry or fast photometry in the UV could test the jet attribution directly: the jet component should vary and be polarized on short timescales, while the RIAF synchro-cyclotron component should be comparatively steady.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports quasi-simultaneous near-infrared, optical, UV, and X-ray observations of the black hole X-ray binary MAXI J1820+070 taken in 2019 May, during the decay of the first rebrightening phase, together with an optical spectrum from the Seimei telescope. The authors fit the NIR-to-UV SED with two competing models: RIAF synchro-cyclotron emission plus a power law (Model 1), and a truncated hot standard disk (MCD) plus a power law (Model 2). Both models are reported to fit equally well, but the authors favor Model 1 on the basis of ADAF scaling laws, deriving a mass accretion rate of mdot ~ 1e-3 and rejecting Model 2 because its MCD-inferred mdot ~ 0.04 would overproduce the optical and X-ray luminosities if the inner flow were an RIAF. They also detect a weak and narrow H-alpha line and constrain its inner emitting radius to be >= 2e4 gravitational radii, concluding that the outer disk is not described by a single RIAF solution.

Significance. The empirical results are valuable: the optical-to-X-ray luminosity ratio of about 8 is strikingly different from the canonical low/hard and high/soft states, and the H-alpha line detection during a rebrightening phase adds an observational constraint on the outer disk. The paper is transparent in reporting that Models 1 and 2 fit the SED with comparable quality, which is a strength. If the RIAF interpretation can be put on firmer footing, this would be a notable example of a very low-luminosity RIAF-dominated state in a black hole X-ray binary. However, the central claim currently rests on discarding an equally good alternative model through an extrapolated scaling argument that is not yet rigorously justified; therefore the significance of the paper depends on whether that load-bearing step can be strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 4.1.2]
  2. [Section 4.1.2 and Section 3.2.4]
  3. [Section 4.1.1 and Section 3.2.2]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2]
  2. [Section 3.2.2]
  3. [References]
  4. [Introduction]
  5. [Section 4.3]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The RIAF interpretation is a model comparison against external theoretical ADAF spectra; no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central inference (RIAF with mdot ~ 1e-3 plus a jet power law) is obtained by fitting empirical models (cutoffpl, diskbb, powerlaw) to multiwavelength data and then comparing the fitted component properties to independent theoretical ADAF spectra (Manmoto et al. 1997, Mahadevan 1997). The mass accretion rate is not a fitted parameter; it is a round-number comparison point chosen so that the theoretical SED reproduces the observed peak frequency and luminosities within factors of 6. This is a genuine external comparison, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The rejection of the truncated standard-disk model (Model 2) uses the same scaling laws to test internal consistency: the mdot inferred from diskbb parameters would, if the inner flow is RIAF, overproduce the observed optical and X-ray luminosities. That argument assumes the applicability of ADAF scaling laws at mdot=0.04, which is an extrapolation and a correctness risk, but it is not circular because the mdot estimate and the RIAF prediction are computed from different physical models (standard disk vs. ADAF). The paper does cite work co-authored by one of its authors (Manmoto et al. 1997; Kato et al. 2008), but these are independent, published theoretical calculations and textbooks, not uniqueness theorems or ansatze invented for this paper; the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. A numerical inconsistency in converting Rin to gravitational radii (Section 4.1.2) is noted but does not affect the logical structure of the argument. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on an adopted RIAF/ADAF framework, including a fixed spectral slope, and on prior measurements of distance, mass, inclination, extinction, and companion star properties. No new particles, forces, or geometric entities are introduced by the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • RIAF cutoff power-law photon index = -0.232 (fixed from Manmoto et al. 1997, Figure 8)
    Adopted a priori from a theoretical ADAF SED, not fitted to the data; sets the spectral slope of the RIAF synchro-cyclotron component in Model 1.
  • RIAF cutoff energy E_cut = 6.0+1.0-0.6 x 10^-4 keV
    Fitted to the NIR-UV SED; locates the peak of the RIAF synchro-cyclotron component.
  • Optical-UV power-law photon index = 1.4+0.4-0.9
    Fitted blue power-law component used to infer jet synchrotron emission; the uncertainty is large.
  • Mass accretion rate mdot = ~1e-3
    Inferred by matching ADAF scaling-law predictions to the observed optical and X-ray luminosities and peak frequency; not independently measured.
  • Truncated hot disk parameters (Tin, Rin) = Tin ~ 5.9e-4 keV, Rin ~ 6.3e5 km
    Best-fit MCD parameters defining the alternative scenario that is rejected in Section 4.1.2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption RIAF/ADAF spectral model of Manmoto et al. (1997) applies to the inner accretion flow at this low luminosity.
    Used in Sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.1 to identify the optical peak as synchro-cyclotron and to estimate mdot; not independently established for this epoch.
  • domain assumption Mahadevan (1997) scaling laws for ADAF hold for this flow.
    Used in Section 4.1.1 to predict the mass accretion rate; inherits the ADAF assumptions about viscosity, magnetic field, and geometry.
  • domain assumption Adopted system parameters M = 7-8 Msun, i = 69-77 degrees, D = 3 kpc from Torres et al. (2019a) and Gandhi et al. (2019).
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to convert fluxes to luminosities and radii.
  • domain assumption Interstellar extinction E(B-V) = 0.16 and hydrogen column NH = 1.1e21 cm^-2 from Baglio et al. (2018) and Uttley et al. (2018).
    Fixed in all fits; uncertainty in these values propagates into the SED shape and component luminosities.
  • domain assumption Companion star is a K4V star with Tbb = 4700 K and radius 0.65 Rsun.
    Added as a blackbody component in the SED fits; it is small but not negligible at optical wavelengths.
  • domain assumption The H-alpha line profile can be modeled with an irradiated disk line (diskline) with emissivity index alpha = -3, fixed inclination 70 degrees, and fixed outer radius.
    Underlies the Rin > 2e4 rg lower limit in Section 3.3; a different emissivity law or geometry would change the constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiwavelength Observations of the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070 in the Rebrightening Phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63EMAWD5

@misc{pith2026241211442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiwavelength Observations of the Black Hole X-ray Binary MAXI J1820$+$070 in the Rebrightening Phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63EMAWD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11442}
}
abstract

We report the results of quasi-simultaneous multiwavelength (near-infrared, optical, UV, and X-ray) observations of the Galactic X-ray black hole binary MAXI J1820+070 performed in 2019 May 10-13, $\sim 60$ days after the onset of the first rebrightening phase. It showed a much larger optical-to-X-ray luminosity ratio ($\sim 8$) than in the initial outburst epoch. The primary components of the spectral energy distribution (SED) can be best interpreted by radiatively inefficient accretion flow (RIAF) spectrum showing a luminosity peak in the optical band. By comparison with theoretical calculations, we estimate the mass accretion rate to be $\dot{M}/(8 L_{\rm Edd}/c^2) \sim 10^{-3}$, where $c$ is the light speed and $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity. In addition to the RIAF emission, a blue power-law component is detected in the optical-UV SED, which is most likely synchrotron radiation from the jet. The optical spectrum taken at the Seimei telescope shows a weak and narrow H$\alpha$ emission line, whose emitting region is constrained to be $\gtrsim 2 \times 10^{4}$ times the gravitational radius. We suggest that the entire disk structure cannot be described by a single RIAF solution but cooler material responsible for the H$\alpha$ emission must exist at the outermost region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11442 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top) g’-band optical light curve of MAXI J1820 from the OISTER collaboration (Adachi et al. in prep). (Bottom) X-ray light curve in 2–10 keV from the MAXI/GSC. MJD 58200 corresponds to 2019 March 23. The yellow line presents our observation epoch (2019 May 11 = MJD 58614). was performed in the last part of the decay phase of the first rebrightening, with the g’-band magnitude of ∼ 16 mag. 3.2 Multi-wavelength SED … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) folded (instrumental response included) X-ray spectrum with the best-fit absorbed power-law model (top) and the residuals (bottom). (b) infrared to UV SED where extinction is not corrected. by the radius of the emission region. The companion star of MAXI J1820 is suggested to be a K4V star (Torres et al. 2019b), whose surface temperature is ∼ 4700 K. Hence, we fixed Tbb at 4700 K, and assumed a typical stellar r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: the SED data with the best-fit redden*(powerlaw+cutoffpl+bbodyrad) model (Model 1) in the NIR to UV band and the unfolded spectrum with the best-fit TBabs*power-law model (Section 3.2.1) in X-rays, all corrected for the interstellar absorption and extinction. The individual components are separately plotted. Middle: the data versus model ratio of the redden*(cutoffpl+bbodyrad) model (in the infrared to UV band)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Seimei/KOOLS-IFU spectrum of MAXI J1820, taken on 2019 May 11. The magnified image presents the Seimei spectrum around the Hα line and the best-fit diskline model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Atri, P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L81

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    C., Russell, D

    Baglio, M. C., Russell, D. M., & Lewis, F. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11418, 1

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Barden, S. C., ed. 1995, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 2476, Fiber Optics in Astronomical Applications, ed. S. C. Barden, 56–67

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    M., Shaw, A

    Bernardini, F., Russell, D. M., Shaw, A. W., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, L5

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    S., Fender, R

    Bright, J. S., Fender, R. P., Motta, S. E., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 697

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Buisson, D. J. K., Fabian, A. C., Barret, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1350

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Chaty, S. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1314, International Conference on Binaries: in celebration of Ron Webbink’s 65th Birthday, ed. V . Kalogera & M. van der Sluys, 277– 284

    work page 2010

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Craine, D. L. C. E. R., ed. 1994, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. C. E. R. Craine, 87–97 —. 2010, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ...

    1994

  2. [10]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  3. [11]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11400, 1

    Denisenko, D. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11400, 1

    2018

  4. [12]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1

    Done, C., Gierli´nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1

    2007

  5. [13]

    1993, ApJ, 403, 684

    Ebisawa, K., Makino, F., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1993, ApJ, 403, 684

    1993

  6. [14]

    A., McClintock, J

    Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865

    1997

  7. [15]

    Gandhi, P., Rao, A., Johnson, M. A. C., Paice, J. A., & Maccarone, T. J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2642 Gierli´nski, M., Done, C., & Page, K. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 753 —. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1106

    2019

  8. [16]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 697

    Hiroi, K., Moritani, Y ., Nogami, D., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 697

    2009

  9. [17]

    Ishiguro, M., Takahashi, J., Zenno, T., Tokimasa, N., & Kuroda, T. 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

    2008

  11. [19]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11399, 1

    Kawamuro, T., Negoro, H., Yoneyama, T., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11399, 1

    2018

  12. [20]

    2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C, 28, 755

    Kotani, T., Kawai, N., Yanagisawa, K., et al. 2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C, 28, 755

    2005

  13. [21]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94

    Ma, X., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94

    2021

  14. [22]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 585

    Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 585

    1997

  15. [23]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 585

    Makishima, K., Takahashi, H., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 585

    2008

  16. [24]

    1997, ApJ, 489, 791

    Manmoto, T., Mineshige, S., & Kusunose, M. 1997, ApJ, 489, 791

    1997

  17. [25]

    2001, A&A, 372, L25

    Markoff, S., Falcke, H., & Fender, R. 2001, A&A, 372, L25

    2001

  18. [26]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 102

    Matsubayashi, K., Ohta, K., Iwamuro, F., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 102

    2019

  19. [27]

    2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999

    2009

  20. [28]

    2011, PASJ, 63, S623

    Mihara, T., Nakajima, M., Sugizaki, M., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, S623

    2011

  21. [29]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Fender, R. P., & Nakar, E. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1432

    2006

  22. [30]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    1984

  23. [31]

    Nakahira, S., Ebisawa, K., Negoro, H., et al. 2013, J. Space Sci. Informatics, 2, 29

    2013

  24. [32]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710

    1995

  25. [33]

    2020, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, V ol

    Oasa, Y ., Ushioda, K., Shibata, Y ., et al. 2020, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, V ol. 11447, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 114475Z Paczy´nski, B. 1971a, ARA&A, 9, 183 —. 1971b, ARA&A, 9, 183

    2020

  26. [34]

    A., Gandhi, P., Shahbaz, T., et al

    Paice, J. A., Gandhi, P., Shahbaz, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, L62

    2019

  27. [35]

    V ., et al

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., Berdyugin, A. V ., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 874 S´anchez-Sierras, J., & Mu˜noz-Darias, T. 2020, A&A, 640, L3

    2022

  28. [36]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  29. [37]

    W., Plotkin, R

    Shaw, A. W., Plotkin, R. M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 34

    2021

  30. [38]

    L., et al

    Shidatsu, M., Nakahira, S., Murata, K. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 183

    2019

  31. [39]

    2011, PASJ, 63, S785

    Shidatsu, M., Ueda, Y ., Tazaki, F., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, S785

    2011

  32. [40]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 26

    Shidatsu, M., Ueda, Y ., Nakahira, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 26

    2013

  33. [41]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 54

    Shidatsu, M., Nakahira, S., Yamada, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 54

    2018

  34. [42]

    2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Shimokawabe, T., Kawai, N., Kotani, T., et al. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1000, Gamma-ray Bursts 2007, ed. M. Galassi, D. Palmer, & E. Fenimore, 543–546

    2008

  35. [43]

    Takahashi, J., Zenno, T., & Ishiguro, M. 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    E., Shaw, A

    Tetarenko, B. E., Shaw, A. W., Manrow, E. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3406

    2021

  37. [45]

    E., Sivakoff, G

    Tetarenko, B. E., Sivakoff, G. R., Heinke, C. O., & Gladstone, J. C. 2016, ApJS, 222, 15

    2016

  38. [46]

    A., Yamaoka, K., Corbel, S., et al

    Tomsick, J. A., Yamaoka, K., Corbel, S., et al. 2009, ApJL, 707, L87

    2009

  39. [47]

    Torres, M. A. P., Casares, J., Jim ´enez-Ibarra, F., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L37 —. 2019b, ApJL, 882, L21

    2020

  40. [48]

    A., Shappee, B

    Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., Holoien, T. W. S., et al. 2018, ApJL, 867, L9

    2018

  41. [49]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11423, 1

    Uttley, P., Gendreau, K., Markwardt, C., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11423, 1

    2018

  42. [50]

    V ., Kosenkov, I

    Veledina, A., Berdyugin, A. V ., Kosenkov, I. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A75

    2019

  43. [51]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  44. [52]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Yanagisawa, K., Kuroda, D., Yoshida, M., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1279, Deciphering the Ancient Universe with Gamma-ray Bursts, ed. N. Kawai & S. Nagataki, 466–468

    2010

  45. [53]

    2007, Physica E Low- Dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, 40, 434

    Yatsu, Y ., Kawai, N., Shimokawabe, T., et al. 2007, Physica E Low- Dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, 40, 434

    2007

  46. [54]

    2005, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 38, 117

    Yoshida, M. 2005, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 38, 117

    2005

  47. [55]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 1025

    You, B., Tuo, Y ., Li, C., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 1025

    2021

  48. [56]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.