Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

The radio properties of quasi-periodic X-ray eruption sources

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across a radio census of all 12 quasi-periodic X-ray eruption sources, none shows radio emission tied to the X-ray flares; the faint radio glow in five sources instead matches tidal disruption outflows.

desk verdict A useful first radio census of all 12 QPE sources that overreaches in the abstract and leans on a shaky outflow-energy estimate; the empirical catalogue is solid, the theory argument needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14417 v1 pith:3GCI2GIS submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.HE

A. J. Goodwin , R. Arcodia , G. Miniutti , J.C.A Miller-Jones , S. van Velzen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicX-rayeruptionsradiotransientstidaldisruptioneventssupermassiveblackholesvariabilitycompactsourcesgalacticnuclei
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

Quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions (QPEs) are repeating soft X-ray flares from the nuclei of low-mass galaxies, and the physical driver that powers them is still contested. This paper brings together all existing and newly obtained radio observations of the 12 known QPE sources to ask whether the same mechanism also launches radio-emitting outflows. Five of the twelve hosts contain compact, faint radio sources with luminosities of roughly $\nu L_\nu \sim 5\times10^{36}$ to $5\times10^{38}$ erg/s and optically thin spectra that resemble the radio emission of tidal disruption events (TDEs) more than ordinary active galactic nuclei. The decisive result is a null result: no radio variability tracks the X-ray flares, and radio luminosity correlates with neither flare properties nor host properties. If the paper is right, QPE eruptions do not drive strong jets or outflows, and the radio emission is a fossil of some earlier accretion event.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first complete radio catalogue of the 12 confirmed QPE sources, combining new ATCA and VLA observations with archival data from VLASS, RACS, MeerKAT, GMRT, and VLBA. Three tools applied to that catalogue carry the argument: a variability statistic $V = [(S_{\max}-\sigma_{S\max}) - (S_{\min}+\sigma_{S\min})]/[(S_{\max}-\sigma_{S\max}) + (S_{\min}+\sigma_{S\min})]$ that flags significant radio flux changes; power-law spectral fits $F_\nu = A\nu^\alpha$ that separate optically thin synchrotron emission from self-absorbed or young outflows; and Pearson correlation tests connecting radio luminosity to QPE and host properties. Together these tools separate what is tied to the flares, which is nothing in the radio, from what is tied to the nuclear environment, which is a compact, faint, TDE-like radio source.

What would settle it

Simultaneously monitor a bright QPE source, such as RX J1302 or GSN 069, in X-rays and at 5-10 GHz over several complete eruption cycles with sub-10 microJy sensitivity; a radio flare appearing in phase with the X-ray flares at more than $3\sigma$ significance would refute the claim that the eruption mechanism produces no strong radio-emitting outflows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the mechanism producing quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions does not generate strong radio-emitting outflows. Across the full sample of 12 bona-fide QPE sources, only five show compact radio counterparts, all weak ($\nu L_\nu \sim 5\times10^{36}$ to $5\times10^{38}$ erg/s) and confined to the galactic nucleus, while seven are undetected. The detected sources show no radio variability correlated with the eruptions, and Pearson tests find no statistically significant correlation between radio luminosity and QPE duration, recurrence time, energy, X-ray luminosity, black-hole mass, galaxy mass, or star-formation rate. That absence of correlation, together with the compactness of the radio sources, makes ordinary AGN jet activity an unlikely explanation. The paper concludes that the radio emission is instead consistent with outflows from a recent tidal disruption event or accretion episode that preceded the eruptions, in the known TDE hosts and the AGN-like hosts alike.

Load-bearing premise

The central inference depends on the assumption that flare-driven outflows, if they existed, would be bright enough to detect in the available observations and would be active while those observations were taken; only two sources have simultaneous radio and X-ray coverage, and most non-detections reach only tens to hundreds of microJy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QPE flare models that predict a radio-bright jet or outflow per eruption are disfavoured; the star-disk collision energy budget worked out in the paper ($\sim10^{44}$ erg) falls orders of magnitude short of detectable radio emission.
  • The radio sources in QPE hosts can be read as remnants of recent tidal disruptions, strengthening the claim that QPEs occur in nuclei that have undergone a TDE-like accretion event.
  • QPE hosts are not, in the radio, a typical AGN population: the missing correlation between radio luminosity and black-hole mass rules out standard radio-loud AGN activity as the origin of the detected emission.
  • The 5/12 radio detection rate is consistent with the roughly 40-50% rate seen in optical and X-ray selected TDE samples, so QPE hosts and TDE hosts show similar radio behaviour.
  • Future radio searches for QPEs should target compact, sub-mJy nuclear sources rather than bright jets, and need high-resolution or VLBI follow-up to distinguish them from star formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test left implicit: only two sources, GSN 069 and RX J1302, have simultaneous radio and X-ray coverage, and only over a limited number of flares; dense simultaneous monitoring could still catch radio emission fainter than the current limits.
  • Because the collision-model ejecta energy is so small, the null radio result is expected in that model, which means the present data do not yet discriminate cleanly between the star-disk collision and disk-instability pictures.
  • If compact radio sources really do trace recent TDEs in QPE hosts, radio surveys could be used to identify candidate QPE systems after the X-ray flares have faded and to measure the rate of recent TDEs in low-mass galactic nuclei.
  • The persistent X-ray-detected outflow in GSN 069, with kinetic power near $10^{39}{-}10^{41}$ erg/s, hints that low-level outflows may be common in QPE hosts; late-time radio monitoring could reveal whether such outflows re-energise the compact radio sources over years.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper compiles the radio properties of the 12 known quasi-periodic X-ray eruption (QPE) sources, combining new ATCA and VLA observations with archival and previously published data. The authors detect weak, compact, nuclear radio sources in 5/12 objects, measure or constrain their spectral indices, search for radio variability and for correlations with QPE flare and host-galaxy properties, and compare the sample with known TDE radio samples. They conclude that the radio sources resemble TDE outflows rather than AGN jets, that there is no correlation between radio luminosity and QPE properties, and that the absence of variable radio emission implies that the QPE mechanism does not generate strong radio-emitting outflows. The theoretical estimate in Section 5.3.1 is used to argue that star-disk collision ejecta would be too weak to detect.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, this is a useful reference catalogue: it collects all radio measurements and upper limits for the small QPE population, applies standard CASA reduction procedures, and makes explicit comparisons with optical and X-ray selected TDE samples. The detection rate of 42% and the luminosity range being consistent with TDEs are valuable population-level facts, and the authors are appropriately careful about the confused eRO-QPE2 measurement and the limited spectral coverage. However, the central interpretation is currently overstated in two places: the abstract claims 'no radio variability' while Table 2 shows significant variability for three sources, and the theoretical estimate in Section 5.3.1 relies on an unjustified deceleration assumption. The no-correlation claims are also based on only five detections. The paper has clear value as an observational study, but the strong version of the central conclusion needs revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [5.3.1, Eq. (4)] The estimate E ~ 1e44 erg is not derived from a deceleration calculation. The authors take the launch velocity from Eq. (3), which is ~0.3-0.6c, and then replace it with v_shock = c sqrt(R_g/R_shock) ~ 0.005c at R_shock ~ 1e16 cm, implicitly assuming that the ejecta decelerates to roughly the local escape speed by that radius. No deceleration mechanism is specified, and for m_ej ~ 1e-5 Msun in a typical CNM the Sedov-Taylor deceleration radius is of order 1e17 cm or larger, so the ejecta should retain a large fraction of its launch velocity at 1e16 cm. An energy-conserving estimate gives ~1e48 erg, not 1e44 erg. Because this four-order-of-magnitude difference directly controls whether flare-driven outflows would be detectable, the conclusion that the non-detections are consistent with the disk-collision model is not currently supported. The argument needs either a proper deceleration model with an explicit density profile and inferred shock radius, or a much more cautious statement that detectability cannot be robustly predicted.
  2. [Abstract; Section 3.3, Table 2] The abstract states 'We find no radio variability', but this is contradicted by the authors' own analysis: Table 2 reports V > 0 for RX J1301.9+2747 (V = 0.06 and 0.23), AT2019qiz (V = 0.70), and AT2019vcb (V > 0.33), and Section 3.1 describes those sources as showing statistically significant variability. The correct statements are that GSN 069 shows no significant variability over the observed baseline and that eRO-QPE2 is inconclusive. The physically meaningful claim is 'no radio variability correlated with the X-ray QPE flares', not 'no radio variability'. The abstract and the opening of Section 5.3 should be reworded accordingly.
  3. [Section 4] The no-correlation conclusions rest on Pearson correlation tests with only N = 5 detections and p-values ranging from 0.23 to 0.68. Such tests have very low power, so the absence of a statistically significant correlation does not establish that no correlation exists. The abstract's phrase 'no correlation between radio emission and the X-ray QPE properties' should be softened to 'no statistically significant correlation was found in the current small sample'. This is load-bearing because the no-correlation result is one of the two empirical pillars for the claim that the QPE mechanism does not produce strong radio outflows.
  4. [Sections 3.3 and 5.3] The temporal coverage is too sparse to support the strong conclusion that the flare mechanism does not generate radio-emitting outflows. Simultaneous radio and X-ray coverage exists only for GSN 069 and RX J1302, while the non-detections for the other seven sources have 3-sigma limits of roughly 30-470 microJy and are not contemporaneous with observed flares. Flare-driven outflows could be fainter than these limits, or bright only briefly at epochs not sampled. This limitation should be stated explicitly in the discussion and the central conclusion should be correspondingly qualified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Figure 3] The text and caption say 'four radio-detected sources' and 'each of the four sources', but five radio-detected sources are plotted and discussed (eRO-QPE2, RX J1302, GSN 069, AT2019qiz, and AT2019vcb). Please correct the count.
  2. [Introduction and Section 5.2] There are small typographical errors, including 'instabilties' in the Introduction and 'sigificantly' in Section 5.2. The names AT2019qiz and AT2019vcb should also be typeset consistently without the stray space ('A T2019qiz').
  3. [Table 3 and Appendix 2] The table uses both 'RX J1301.9+2747' and the text uses 'Rx J1302'; please standardize the source naming in the table, text, and figure labels.
  4. [Section 5.2] The discussion of the cooling break says 'for the cooling break to be above the observed frequency of 5-6 GHz, the outflow must be less than about 250 d old', but the subsequent sentence notes that this depends on the assumed electron energy index p. Please make this caveat more prominent, since the conclusion that the sources are too old for a TDE-like outflow depends on an uncertain spectral evolution model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an observational compilation whose central inference rests on measured non-detections and published external comparison samples, not on fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: 5/12 QPE sources are radio-detected, the sources are compact and faint, and no radio variability or correlation with X-ray QPE properties is found. These conclusions follow from the tabulated observations and the variability statistic in Eq. (2), not from fitting parameters to force a particular outcome. The comparison to TDEs uses published external samples (Cendes et al. 2024; Goodwin et al. 2025), and although Goodwin et al. (2025) shares the first author, it is an independent published dataset used as a benchmark for luminosity, detection rate, and spectral index; it is not used to define the present result. The theoretical estimate in Section 5.3.1 uses literature values for ejected mass (Yao et al. 2025) and an assumed shock radius, with Eq. (4) setting the shock velocity to the local escape speed; this is a physical modeling assumption rather than a definitional or fitted step, and any concern about its validity is a correctness issue, not circularity. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-called-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational result (5/12 detections, compact nuclear radio sources) depends only on the standard radio data reduction. The interpretive claims about the QPE mechanism and TDE-like origin rest on several adopted literature parameters and small-sample statistical assumptions, listed above.

free parameters (4)
  • Ejected mass per disk collision, m_ej = 1e-5 Msun (assumed from Yao et al. 2025)
    Used in Section 5.3.1 to estimate the energy of an outflow from a star-disk collision. This value is adopted from the literature, not measured here, and the conclusion that 1e44 erg is far below TDE energies is robust to order-of-magnitude changes.
  • Shock radius, R_shock = 1e16 cm (assumed)
    Assumed typical early TDE outflow radius in Section 5.3.1 to compute v_shock about 0.005c. This affects the energy estimate but not the qualitative conclusion that flare outflows would be radio-faint.
  • Electron energy index, p = 2.7 (adopted from TDE literature)
    Used in Section 5.2 to interpret whether the observed spectral indices are consistent with old synchrotron outflows. If p were lower, the expected spectral index would be flatter, weakening the cooling-break argument.
  • SMBH mass for outflow estimate, M_SMBH = 1e6 Msun (assumed)
    Used in Equations 3 and 4 in Section 5.3.1 to estimate v_launch and v_shock. The choice of mass changes the inferred velocities but not the order-of-magnitude energy deficit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The radio emission is associated with the nuclei of the QPE host galaxies and therefore at the host redshifts.
    Flux densities are converted to luminosities using host galaxy redshifts in Table 1. A chance superposition of a background source would break the luminosity and compactness arguments.
  • ad hoc to paper The variability statistic V > 0 indicates statistically significant variability.
    Equation (2) defines V from the extremes of the flux density measurements. This is not a standard chi-square or structure-function test, and the threshold is introduced ad hoc in Section 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Pearson correlation tests on five detected sources are informative for the no-correlation conclusions.
    Section 4 reports p-values of 0.23 to 0.68 from N=5. With such a small sample the tests have very low power, so the absence of a significant correlation is a weak constraint.
  • domain assumption The Granot and Sari (2002) synchrotron model with frequency ordering nu_m < nu_a < nu_c applies to these sources.
    Used in Section 5.2 to translate spectral indices into physical expectations about cooling breaks and outflow ages.
  • ad hoc to paper AGN are very rarely compact on scales below 1 kpc, so 3/3 compact sources is unlikely in a random AGN sample.
    Section 5.1 asserts this without a quantitative probability calculation. The comparison to AGN compactness statistics is not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The radio properties of quasi-periodic X-ray eruption sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3GCI2GIS

@misc{pith2026250614417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The radio properties of quasi-periodic X-ray eruption sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3GCI2GIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14417}
}
read the original abstract

Quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions (QPEs) are a new class of repeating nuclear transient in which repeating X-ray flares are observed coming from the nuclei of generally low mass galaxies. Here we present a comprehensive summary of the radio properties of 12 bona-fide quasi-periodic eruption sources, including a mix of known tidal disruption events (TDEs) and AGN-like hosts. We include a combination of new dedicated radio observations and archival/previously published radio observations to compile a catalogue of radio observations of each source in the sample. We examine the overall radio properties of the sample and compare to the radio properties of known TDEs, given the apparent link between QPEs and TDEs. Overall we find compact, weak radio sources associated with 5/12 of the QPE sources and no signatures of strong AGN activity via a luminous radio jet. We find no radio variability or correlation between radio emission and the X-ray QPE properties, implying that the mechanism that produces the X-ray flares does not generate strong radio-emitting outflows. The compactness of the radio sources and lack of correlation between radio luminosity and SMBH mass is very unusual for AGN, but the radio spectra and luminosities are consistent with outflows produced by a recent TDE (or accretion event), in both the known TDE sources as well as the AGN-like sources in the sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DESI Legacy Survey DR8-DR10 optical images (Dey et al., 2019) of the host galaxies of eRO-QPE2, GSN 069, RX J1302, and AT2019vcb. The ATCA 5.5 GHz (eRO-QPE2 and GSN 069) and VLA 6 GHz (RX J1302 and AT2019vcb) radio contours are overlaid in blue, with the radio beam size indicated in the bottom left corner. The radio sources are all compact and localised to the nuclei of the host galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 5–6 GHz radio lightcurves of the 5 radio-detected QPE sources in our sample. Inverted triangles indicate 3σ upper limits and the open cir￾cle indicates the measured flux density affected by confusion with nearby sources. AT2019qiz and RxJ1302 show statistically significant radio variabil￾ity, while GSN 069 is constant over the 5 yr baseline observed. AT2019vcb showed statistically significant variability at 10 G… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radio spectra of the four radio-detected QPE sources. In each plot the solid line shows the simple power-law model used to constrain the spectral index, α, for each source, where Fν ∝ να. Inverted triangles indicate 3σ upper limits. For AT2019qiz two spectra are plotted and labelled by days since optical discovery of the TDE. We plot only the ATCA observation taken in December 2023 for eRO-QPE2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The QPE flare recurrence time (trecurr) and flare duration (tdur) for each of the 12 QPEs in our sample. Stars indicated QPE sources associated with a compact radio source while circles indicate radio-undetected QPE sources. We find no correlation between the presence …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The QPE peak 0.2-2 keV X-ray luminosity (left panel) and quiescent 0.2-2 keV X-ray luminosity (right panel) plotted against 5.5 GHz radio luminosity for the 12 QPE sources in the sample. We find no statistically significant correlation between the radio and X-ray lumin…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top row: The QPE properties: total energy radiated, duration, and recurrence time plotted against the observed 5.5 GHz radio luminosity for the 12 QPEs in the sample. We find no correlation between radio luminosity and any of the QPE properties examined. Bottom row: Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The peak observed radio luminosity distribution of the radio-detected QPE sources (solid purple line) and upper limits (dashed purple line). For comparison, the peak observed radio luminosity distribution of the X-ray selected TDE population from Goodwin et al. (…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The DESI Legacy DR8 optical image of 2MASX J02344872-4419325, the host galaxy of eRO-QPE2, and the ATCA 5.5 GHz radio contours overlaid. The pink contours show the lower resolution ATCA observations from June 2022 whereas the blue contours show the higher resolution AT…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJ, 819, L25

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 81

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    M., & Ulvestad, J

    Anderson, J. M., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2005, ApJ, 627, 674

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704

    2021

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 662, A49

    Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Ponti, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A49

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25

    2005

  7. [7]

    D., Gilfanov, M

    Bykov, S. D., Gilfanov, M. R., Sunyaev, R. A., & Medvedev, P. S. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 30 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Cendes, Y., Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 127

    work page 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16650, 1

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K., Laskar, T., & Goodwin, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16650, 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 28

    2022

  3. [11]

    2021, ApJ, 921, L40

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, L40

    2021

  4. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 12

    Chakraborty, J., Arcodia, R., Kara, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 12

    2024

  5. [13]

    2025, ApJ, 983, L39

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, L39

    2025

  6. [14]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 18

    2024

  7. [15]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  8. [16]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100

    2023

  9. [17]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2

    2020

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 692, A15

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., Arcodia, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A15

    2024

  11. [19]

    J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5328

    2022

  12. [20]

    J., Anderson, G

    Goodwin, A. J., Anderson, G. E., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7123

    2024

  13. [21]

    J., Burn, M., Anderson, G

    Goodwin, A. J., Burn, M., Anderson, G. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08426

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, arXiv:2504.07169

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C., & Ulvestad, J

    Ho, L. C., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2001, ApJS, 133, 77

    2001

  16. [24]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1269

    2023

  17. [25]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120

    2020

  18. [26]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 170

    Kosec, P., Pasham, D., Kara, E., & Tombesi, F. 2023, ApJ, 954, 170

    2023

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 10

    Kosec, P., Kara, E., Brenneman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 10

    2025

  20. [28]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

    2020

  21. [29]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34

    2023

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 86

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 86

    2023

  23. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247

    2023

  24. [32]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048

    2020

  25. [33]

    M., Kaastra, J

    Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J. S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 542

    2015

  26. [34]

    2023, A&A, 670, A93

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A93

    2023

  27. [35]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381

    2019

  28. [36]

    2025, A&A, 693, A179

    Miniutti, G., Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A179

    2025

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456

    Mummery, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67

    2011

  31. [39]

    A., et al

    Newsome, M., Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 258

    2024

  32. [40]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804

    2024

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 32

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2023, ApJ, 952, 32

    2023

  34. [42]

    2022, ApJ, 928, L18

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, ApJ, 928, L18

    2022

  35. [43]

    R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al

    Pasham, D. R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 88

    2023

  36. [44]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152

    2023

  37. [45]

    Raj, A., & Nixon, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 82 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Hernández-García, L., Bernal, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A157

    2021

  38. [46]

    W., Wang, T

    Shu, X. W., Wang, T. G., Jiang, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 3

    2017

  39. [47]

    2020, A&A, 641, A167 Suková, P., Zajaček, M., Witzany, V., & Karas, V

    Sniegowska, M., Czerny, B., Bon, E., & Bon, N. 2020, A&A, 641, A167 Suková, P., Zajaček, M., Witzany, V., & Karas, V. 2021, ApJ, 917, 43 van Velzen, S., Anderson, G. E., Stone, N. C., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 62

    2020

  40. [48]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 225

    Wang, M., Yin, J., Ma, Y., & Wu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 933, 225

    2022

  41. [49]

    R., Jalan, P., Rakshit, S., & Arcodia, R

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., Jalan, P., Rakshit, S., & Arcodia, R. 2022, A&A, 659, L2

    2022

  42. [50]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816

    2019

  43. [51]

    D., Zabludoff, A

    Wevers, T., French, K. D., Zabludoff, A. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, L23

    2024

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 115

    Yang, L., Shu, X., Zhang, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 115

    2022

  45. [53]

    Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C

    Yao, P. Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C. J. 2025, ApJ, 978, 91

    2025

  46. [54]

    A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 425

    2011

  47. [55]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Zhao, Z. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Zou, Y. C., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, A&A, 661, A55

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.