Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Arcsecond-Scale X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy of SS 433 with Chandra HETG

T0 review · 2 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 SS 433's arcsecond-scale X-ray emission is dominated by non-thermal processes.

desk verdict Solid SS 433 study with a genuinely new non-thermal spectral result, but the mono-energetic PSF assumption needs robustness tests before the claim is settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19042 v2 pith:JBPAQQ5Z submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.HE

Yusuke Sakai , Shinya Yamada , Haruka Sakemi , Mami Machida , Taichi Igarashi , Ryota Hayakawa , Miho Tan , Taisei Furuyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SS433X-rayjetsChandraHETGRichardson-LucydeconvolutionEDSERsubpixelrepositioningnon-thermalemissionprecessingbinaries
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

SS 433 is a Galactic X-ray binary whose relativistic jets precess with a 162-day period, but at the arcsecond scale the bright core has made the jet's own X-ray emission hard to isolate. This paper analyzes the deepest available Chandra HETG observation, taken in 2014 during an orbital eclipse when the jets were nearly perpendicular to the line of sight. Using energy-dependent subpixel repositioning plus Richardson-Lucy deconvolution, it reveals two knot-like structures roughly 1.7 arcseconds east and west of the core, consistent with the kinematic precession model and an ejection age of about 200 days. After subtracting the core light that leaks into the outer regions through the telescope PSF, the outer X-ray spectra show no iron lines and require a power-law component, implying a dominant non-thermal contribution at arcsecond scales. The result matters because it turns a previously ambiguous, core-contaminated signal into a concrete, testable picture of where and how SS 433's jets emit X-rays.

What carries the argument

The central object is an imaging chain, not a single identity: EDSER (energy-dependent subpixel event repositioning), which uses the detector's charge-diffusion model to assign each photon a subpixel impact position, followed by Richardson-Lucy deconvolution, an iterative Poisson-aware algorithm that sharpens the image by convolving a trial image with the PSF and comparing to the data. The PSF is a ray-trace simulation of the telescope optics evaluated at one energy, 3.7 keV, and the stopping point of 30 iterations is set by a reduced-chi-squared convergence rule. This same PSF is integrated over the East and West extraction regions to compute the core-leakage fractions $p_{\rm center\to east}\sim0.130$ and $p_{\rm center\to west}\sim0.114$, which are subtracted before the no-iron-line conclusion is drawn. The second load-bearing object is the kinematic precession model (jet speed $0.2602c$, precession period $162.15$ days, half-opening angle $19.85^\circ$, inclination $78.83^\circ$), whose sky projection, corrected by the light-travel-time relation $\tau=t_{\rm age}/(1-\beta_\ell)$, lets the knot positions be translated into an ejection age.

What would settle it

Recompute the deconvolution and the East/West leakage subtraction using energy-resolved PSFs evaluated at the iron-line energies (6.4, 6.7, and 6.95 keV); if the two knots disappear under the energy-resolved PSF, or if the leakage fractions at those energies exceed the assumed $\sim0.11$--$0.13$ enough to hide the Fe lines, the non-thermal conclusion fails. A direct check would be a new Chandra observation at the same precession phase with the jets even closer to the sky plane, asking whether the two knots appear without any deconvolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the apparent arcsecond-scale X-ray emission of SS 433 is not simply scattered core light or purely thermal jet plasma. In the 2014 observation (Obs. ID 15781, $\sim$140 ks, orbital eclipse, precession phase 0.43--0.44), EDSER repositioning and 30 Richardson-Lucy iterations produce two knot-like structures at $\sim$1.7 arcsec ($\sim 10^{17}$ cm) east and west of the core. Overlaid on the kinematic precession model with the light-travel-time correction $\tau = t_{\rm age}/(1-\beta_\ell)$, both knots fall on the predicted helical jet paths and share an ejection age $t_{\rm age}\sim 200$ days. Spectra extracted from the East and West regions, after subtracting PSF leakage fractions of $\sim$0.130 and $\sim$0.114 of the core spectrum, contain no Fe lines, while the core spectrum is well fitted by thermal plasma plus a fluorescent Fe I K$\alpha$ line; a power-law component with photon index $\Gamma\simeq 1.9$--$2.0$ is required in the outer regions. The paper interprets this as thermal emission dominating the core and non-thermal, likely synchrotron, emission dominating the arcsecond-scale jet, and notes that the X-ray/radio spectral index from the ratio map, $\alpha\sim 0.6$--$0.9$, is consistent with that interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated point-spread function at a single energy, 3.7 keV, accurately matches the true Chandra HETG zeroth-order PSF after EDSER over the full 0.5--8 keV band, because that PSF is used both to deconvolve the image into knots and to compute the core-leakage fractions whose subtraction leaves the outer spectra with no iron lines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two knots being symmetric in position and sharing one ejection age implies that a single ejection event around 200 days before the 2014 observation produced observable X-ray structure on both sides of the core.
  • The absence of Fe lines in the outer regions after PSF subtraction implies that the arcsecond-scale X-ray emission cannot be modeled as thermal plasma alone; any complete jet model must include a non-thermal power-law component.
  • The measured X-ray decay timescale, $\tau'=35.3\pm3.3$ days, being shorter than the radio value of $55.9\pm1.7$ days, implies that X-ray-emitting electrons lose energy on a faster timescale, which constrains cooling in the jet if radio and X-rays share an electron population.
  • The visibility modulation seen across 24 observations implies that single-epoch images of SS 433's jets are phase-dependent: knots will be easiest to detect during eclipse and when Doppler beaming is minimized.
  • The spatial match between the X-ray knots and radio contours at similar precession phase implies that simultaneous future radio/X-ray observation can map the transition from core thermal to jet non-thermal emission directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: if a single synchrotron electron population emits both bands, the faster X-ray decay can be converted into a magnetic-field estimate, since synchrotron cooling scales as $t_{\rm cool}\propto B^{-3/2}\nu^{-1/2}$; a multi-epoch simultaneous radio/X-ray campaign would test this directly.
  • Our inference: the EDSER-plus-Richardson-Lucy pipeline should transfer to other X-ray binaries whose bright cores mask faint jets; applied with energy-resolved PSFs, it could resolve arcsecond knots in systems where pile-up previously blocked spatially resolved spectroscopy.
  • Our inference: the single-energy PSF assumption is the point most likely to affect the scientific conclusion, so redoing the leakage subtraction with energy-resolved PSFs at 6.4, 6.7, and 6.95 keV would either harden or overturn the non-thermal interpretation of the outer spectra.
  • Our inference: the 24-epoch dataset contains far more precession-phase information than the single epoch analyzed in detail here, so a systematic multi-epoch deconvolution could yield a tomographic map of SS 433's ejection history.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a spatial and spectral analysis of arcsecond-scale X-ray emission from SS 433 using zeroth-order Chandra HETG data, focusing on a 138 ks observation from 2014 (Obs. ID 15781). The authors apply energy-dependent subpixel event repositioning (EDSER) and Richardson-Lucy (RL) deconvolution with a MARX-simulated PSF at a monochromatic energy of 3.7 keV. They report two knotty east/west structures at ~1.7 arcsec from the core, consistent with the external kinematic precession model for an ejection age of ~200 days. Spatially resolved zeroth-order spectra of the East and West regions, after subtracting PSF-leaked core light using model-derived leakage fractions p_center->east ~ 0.130 and p_center->west ~ 0.114, show no significant Fe lines and require a power-law component, leading the authors to suggest a dominant non-thermal contribution to the outer X-ray emission. The analysis is complemented by a comparison with VLA radio data at a similar precession phase, a discussion of phase-dependent jet visibility, and an exponential decay timescale for the brightness profile.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper provides an important step in resolving the long-standing ambiguity about the thermal versus non-thermal origin of arcsecond-scale X-ray emission in SS 433, with implications for jet physics and particle acceleration in microquasars. The work is also methodologically interesting as an application of EDSER and RL deconvolution to HETG zeroth-order data, and the comparison with an external kinematic model avoids circularity. The paper is clearly written, the data reduction is documented, and the statistical errors are carefully reported. The main spectral conclusion—absence of Fe lines in the outer regions and presence of a power-law component—is, however, contingent on the reliability of the PSF model used for both deconvolution and core-leakage subtraction; this is the principal weakness that needs to be addressed before the non-thermal interpretation can be considered robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Section 2.2.1] The leakage fractions p_center->east ~0.130 and p_center->west ~0.114, which are subtracted from the outer-region spectra before concluding that Fe lines are absent, are computed from a MARX PSF simulated at a single energy of 3.7 keV, while the core spectrum is dominated by Fe K photons at 6.4–6.7 keV. The Chandra HETG zeroth-order PSF is known to have significant energy dependence, and the core fraction of the PSF changes with energy; hence the leakage fraction at Fe-line energies may differ substantially from the 3.7 keV value. If the true Fe K leakage is larger than the adopted value, residual Fe lines would remain in the East/West spectra and could imitate a power-law continuum over the fitted 2–7.5 keV band; if it is smaller, the subtraction would artificially erase real Fe lines. The paper does not provide an energy-resolved PSF check (e.g., a MARX simulation at 6.4 keV) or an injection/recovery test to validate the leakage subtraction. Because the non-thermal outer-spectrum claim directly rests on this subtraction, this issue is load-bearing for the central spectral conclusion.
  2. [Section 2.2.1 and Appendix 1] The RL deconvolution that produces the two knotty structures at ~1.7 arcsec uses the same monochromatic 3.7 keV MARX PSF. The stopping rule at 30 iterations is justified by a reduced chi-square convergence criterion and by a PSF deconvolution test in Appendix 4, but no independent validation shows that the knots are real rather than artifacts of deconvolution with a potentially mismatched PSF. An injection/recovery simulation—inserting simulated point-like or knot-like sources with known positions and fluxes into the observed event data and running the full EDSER+RL pipeline—would directly test whether the pipeline recovers such structures and whether the chosen iteration count suppresses or creates spurious features. Such a test is particularly important because the paper itself notes in Appendix 4 that the RL image is 'a plausible approximation' rather than a definitive reconstruction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Figure 8] The X-ray/radio ratio map in Figure 8(c) is constructed from observations separated by ~6 years (2014 Chandra and 2003 VLA) with slightly different precession phases (0.43 vs 0.47) and different orbital phases. Although the authors acknowledge the non-simultaneity, a sentence in the text or caption quantifying the possible positional/phase misalignment and its effect on the ratio map would improve clarity.
  2. [Appendix 3] The beaming correction in Equation (A4) adopts n=2 and alpha = Gamma-1 = 0.9, where Gamma = 1.9 is taken from the paper's own spectral fit. It would be helpful to state explicitly that the correction is therefore model-dependent and to note how the brightness profile would change if, for example, alpha were varied within the 90% confidence range.
  3. [Table 3 and Section 4.4] The lower limits on Abapec and Agau in the East and West regions are consistent with zero at 90% confidence, so the statement in the abstract that 'Fe lines are not evident' is appropriate, but the conclusion section's phrasing 'no Fe lines' could be slightly softened to 'no significant Fe lines' to match the non-detection nature of the measurement.
  4. [Appendix 4] The definition of the 1-sigma extent for the original and deconvolved PSF is clear, but it would be useful to report whether this measure is circular or elliptical and whether the same value 0.246 arcsec is used in the correction factor calculation in Appendix 3; the text implies this but does not explicitly restate it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central imaging and spectral claims rest on external calibrations, external model parameters, and fixed PSF-based corrections.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The kinematic precession model (Section 3.3, Eqs. 1-5) uses externally published parameters from Gies et al. (2002), Stirling et al. (2002), and Goranskij (2011), and is not fitted to the Chandra image; the tage ~ 200 day assignment is an interpretation of where the deconvolved knots fall on the externally parameterized helix. The Richardson-Lucy deconvolution uses a MARX-simulated 3.7 keV PSF and an iteration count chosen by a reduced chi-squared convergence criterion (Appendix 1), neither of which is derived from the final scientific claims. The core-leakage subtraction in Section 3.4 uses PSF-integrated fractions pcenter->east ~ 0.130 and pcenter->west ~ 0.114; these are fixed by the PSF rather than free parameters tuned to remove Fe lines, so the outer-region power-law result is not forced by construction. The exponential decay timescale in Section 4.2 is a fit to the corrected brightness profile; although the beaming correction in Appendix 3 uses the paper's own best-fit photon index Gamma ~ 1.9, the decay timescale is not algebraically determined by Gamma, and the comparison to radio decay is external. The Sakai et al. (2024) self-citation in Appendix 4 is a methodological pointer, and the computation is described in the paper itself. Thus the central claims are self-contained against external benchmarks; the mono-energetic PSF assumption is a calibration and modeling concern affecting robustness, but it is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims lean on externally measured jet geometry and standard X-ray spectral models, which is appropriate. The largest unverified burden is the monochromatic MARX PSF assumption and the absence of injected-source tests for the deconvolution.

free parameters (7)
  • kT (thermal plasma temperature, HEG) = 8.7 +1.9 -1.2 keV
    Fitted to HEG spectra and then fixed while analyzing zeroth-order Center, East, and West spectra; drives the thermal flux attributed to each region.
  • zb and zr (jet Doppler redshifts) = 0.056 +/- 0.006 and -0.003 +0.006 -0.005
    Fitted in the HEG model; used as evidence of consistency with the precession model rather than as a prediction.
  • sigma_vjet (velocity broadening) = 2.7 +1.4 -1.0 x 10^3 km/s
    Fitted velocity broadening in the bvapec components.
  • A_bapec, A_gau, A_pl (spectral normalizations) = Values in Table 3
    Normalizations of thermal plasma, Fe I Kalpha gaussian, and powerlaw for Center, East, and West are fit to zeroth-order spectra after freezing HEG parameters.
  • Gamma (powerlaw photon index) = 1.7 fixed for Center; 2.0 +0.3 -0.2 East; 1.9 +0.4 -0.2 West
    Photon index drives spectral index alpha = Gamma - 1 used in Doppler beaming corrections and the X-ray to radio ratio map.
  • tau' exponential decay timescale = 35.3 +/- 3.3 days
    Fit to the corrected eastern jet brightness profile and compared with the radio value of 55.9 +/- 1.7 days from Bell et al. (2011).
  • PSF leakage fractions pcenter->east and pcenter->west = ~0.130 and ~0.114
    Computed by integrating a MARX PSF map over the extraction regions; these fractions directly determine the subtracted core spectrum and hence the no-Fe-line conclusion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kinematic precession model parameters from Gies et al. (2002), Stirling et al. (2002), and Hjellming & Johnston (1981): Pprec=162.15 d, v=0.2602c, theta=19.85 deg, i=78.83 deg, chi=98.2 deg.
    Used as external inputs for the modeled helix in Figures 1 and 6; not fitted in this paper.
  • domain assumption Doppler beaming corrections assume continuous jet flow n=2 and spectral index alpha = Gamma - 1 = 0.9 taken from this paper's spectral fit.
    Appendix 3 and Equation A4; the corrected brightness decay and the expected east/west flux ratio depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption MARX zeroth-order PSF simulated at a single energy, 3.7 keV, accurately represents the EDSER-repositioned Chandra PSF across 0.5-8 keV.
    Section 2.2.1 and Appendix 4; used for the RL deconvolution, leakage fractions, and the 0.246 arcsec resolution estimate.
  • domain assumption Collisionally ionized thermal plasma (bvapec) with solar abundances and NH=1e22 cm^-2 is an adequate spectral model for the jet emission.
    Section 3.4, based on Marshall et al. (2002); if the plasma is not in collisional ionization equilibrium or abundances differ, the thermal fractions change.
  • domain assumption Richardson-Lucy deconvolution converges to the maximum likelihood sky, and stopping at 30 iterations does not produce significant artifacts.
    Appendix 1 defines a chi-squared convergence criterion, but no injected-source tests are shown to verify the recovered knot morphology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Arcsecond-Scale X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy of SS 433 with Chandra HETG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBPAQQ5Z

@misc{pith2026250719042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Arcsecond-Scale X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy of SS 433 with Chandra HETG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBPAQQ5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19042}
}
abstract

We present a spatial and spectral analysis of arcsecond-scale X-ray emission in SS 433 using zeroth-order data from Chandra High-Energy Transmission Grating (HETG) observations. The analysis is based on 24 observations acquired between 1999 and 2024, comprising a total exposure of $\sim$850 ks and covering a wide range of orbital and precessional phases. Among these, the $\sim$140 ks observation from 2014 was analyzed in detail for this study. This data provides the best statistics and was taken when the jets were nearly perpendicular to the line of sight and the accretion disk was eclipsed. By applying an energy-dependent subpixel event repositioning algorithm and the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution, we enhanced the spatial resolution and revealed eastern and western knot-like structures at a distance of $\sim$1.7 arcsec ($\sim 10^{17}$ cm) from the core. These features are consistent with the kinematic precession model, and the positions of the knots suggest that they were ejected approximately 200 days prior to the observation. A comparison with VLA radio data obtained at a similar precessional phase shows that the X-ray emission extends east-west on a scale comparable to that of the radio emission. While the core is bright in both X-rays and radio, the brightness contrast between the knots and the core is smaller in X-rays than in radio. Spatially resolved spectroscopy indicates that prominent Fe lines in the core X-ray spectrum are well explained by thermal plasma emission. In contrast, Fe lines are not evident in the outer regions after accounting for potential core contamination, suggesting a dominant contribution from non-thermal processes. These findings imply that the arcsecond-scale X-ray structures may vary observationally with viewing conditions or precessional phase, but likely reflect a relatively stable jet-driving mechanism operating within the SS 433 system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three-dimensional visualization of kinematic precession model of SS 433, constructed using parameters listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Relationship between precession phase (ϕprec) and orbital phase (ϕorb) observed with Chandra HETG. Error bars represent duration of each observation. (b) Predicted redshift variations based on relativistic precession motion of jets, calculated using Equation (2). Eastern jet (zb) and western jet (zr) are shown in cyan and magenta, respectively. Right￾hand vertical axes indicate redshifted emission-line energies … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chandra HETG zeroth-order images in the 0.5–8 keV band, reconstructed at 1/4 pixel scale. Each panel corresponds to a different observation, with the Obs. ID indicated at the top. The four rectangular regions—Esubpx, Wsubpx, Nsubpx, and Ssubpx—are centered at positions offset by 19 subpixels from the brightest central pixel, with a rotation angle of 98.2◦ (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Flux ratio between jet axis (Esubpx + Wsubpx) and orthogo￾nal axis (Nsubpx + Ssubpx), measured from 1/4-pixel resolution images in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zeroth-order image of Obs. ID 15781 (0.5–8 keV), observed in 2014 and displayed at the detector’s native pixel scale of 0. ′′492. Three rectangular regions denote the areas selected for spectral analysis. (b) Sub-pixel image (1/4 pixel scale) reconstructed using the ED…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) RL-deconvolved image from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral fits to HETG/HEG and zeroth-order data (2–7.5 keV) using an absorbed thermal plasma plus power-law model with a Gaussian Fe I Kα component: tbabs*(bvapec_b + bvapec_r + gauss + powerlaw). Zeroth-order fit was constrained using HEG spectra, with linked and fixe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) shows the total intensity map derived from VLA observations (see Section 2.3 for details). To visualize the signal relative to the background noise, contours are overplotted based on the RMS noise level. Although standard radio analyses typically focus on features …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reduced chi-squared χ 2,(r) red as a function of RL iterations for Obs. ID 15781. (b) Absolute rate of change δχ2,(r) red with respect to itera￾tions. At iteration 30 (dashed line), χ 2,(30) red = 1.18, and δχ2,(30) red = 0.0057, following the convergence criterion des…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) displays the zeroth-order PSF at a 1/4 pixel scale, simulated using simulate_psf in CIAO for Obs. ID 15781 with a monochromatic energy of 3.7 keV. After applying 30 iterations of the RL method, the deconvolved PSF is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O., & Margon, B

    Abell, G. O., & Margon, B. 1979, Nature, 279, 701

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 82

    2018

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    1996

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    R., Roberts, D

    Bell, M. R., Roberts, D. H., & Wardle, J. F. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 118

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    M., & Bowler, M

    Blundell, K. M., & Bowler, M. G. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, L159

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    1996, A&A, 312, 306

    Brinkmann, W., Aschenbach, B., & Kawai, N. 1996, A&A, 312, 306

    1996

  8. [8]

    Brinkmann, W., Kawai, N., Matsuoka, M., & Fink, H. H. 1991, A&A, 241, 112

    work page 1991

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    R., Davis, J

    Canizares, C. R., Davis, J. E., Dewey, D., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1144

    2005

  2. [10]

    2020, New Astronomy Reviews, 89, 101542

    Cherepashchuk, A., Postnov, K., Molkov, S., Antokhina, E., & Belinski, A. 2020, New Astronomy Reviews, 89, 101542

    2020

  3. [11]

    Crampton, D., & Hutchings, J. B. 1981, ApJ, 251, 604

    1981

  4. [12]

    E., Bautz, M

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

    2012

  5. [13]

    M., Holdaway, M., Goss, W

    Dubner, G. M., Holdaway, M., Goss, W. M., & Mirabel, I. F. 1998, AJ, 116, 1842

    1998

  6. [14]

    S., Cameron, P

    Eikenberry, S. S., Cameron, P. B., Fierce, B. W., et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 1027

    2001

  7. [15]

    N., Connors, A., Karovska, M., & van Dyk, D

    Esch, D. N., Connors, A., Karovska, M., & van Dyk, D. A. 2004, ApJ, 610, 1213

    2004

  8. [16]

    N., Ford, H

    Evans, I. N., Ford, H. C., & Hui, X. 1989, ApJ, 347, 68

    1989

  9. [17]

    2006, The Jets and and Supercritical Accretion Disk in SS433, arXiv:astro-ph/0603390

    Fabrika, S. 2006, The Jets and and Supercritical Accretion Disk in SS433, arXiv:astro-ph/0603390

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S., Gaensler, B

    Farnes, J. S., Gaensler, B. M., Purcell, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4777

    2017

  11. [19]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, V ol. 6270, SPIE, 62701V , proc. SPIE 6270

    2006

  12. [20]

    1986, Astrophys

    Gehrels, N. 1986, Astrophys. J., 303, 336

    1986

  13. [21]

    R., McSwain, M

    Gies, D. R., McSwain, M. V ., Riddle, R. L., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 566, 1069

    2002

  14. [22]

    Goranskij, V . P. 2011, Photometric Mass Estimate for the Compact Component of SS 433: And Yet It Is a Neutron Star, arXiv:1110.5304

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W., Reynolds, S

    Grefenstette, B. W., Reynolds, S. P., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 15 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 402

    2015

  16. [24]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 510

    Hayakawa, R., Yamada, S., Suda, H., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 510

    2022

  17. [25]

    C., Gies, D

    Hillwig, T. C., Gies, D. R., Huang, W., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 615, 422

    2004

  18. [26]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1981, ApJL, 246, L141 —. 1988, ApJ, 328, 600

    1981

  19. [27]

    I., Anderson, S

    Katz, J. I., Anderson, S. F., Margon, B., & Grandi, S. A. 1982, ApJ, 260, 780 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2025), Vol. 00, No. 0 13

    2025

  20. [28]

    Kawai, N., Matsuoka, M., Pan, H.-C., & Stewart, G. C. 1989, PASJ, 41, 491

    1989

  21. [29]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, psaf059 —

    Kayama, K., Tanaka, T., Uchida, H., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, psaf059 —. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 74, 1143

    2025

  22. [30]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1414

    Khabibullin, I., Medvedev, P., & Sazonov, S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1414

    2016

  23. [31]

    I., & Sazonov, S

    Khabibullin, I. I., & Sazonov, S. Y . 2017, Astronomy Letters, 43, 388

    2017

  24. [32]

    S., Murase, K., & Mészáros, P

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Mészáros, P. 2020, ApJ, 904, 188

    2020

  25. [33]

    1994, PASJ, 46, L147

    Kotani, T., Kawai, N., Aoki, T., et al. 1994, PASJ, 46, L147

    1994

  26. [34]

    H., Prigozhin, G

    Li, J., Kastner, J. H., Prigozhin, G. Y ., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 610, 1204

    2004

  27. [35]

    F., Liu, R.-Y ., et al

    Li, J., Torres, D. F., Liu, R.-Y ., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1177

    2020

  28. [36]

    J., Blundell, K

    Lockman, F. J., Blundell, K. M., & Goss, W. M. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 381, 881

    2007

  29. [37]

    E., Ostrowski, M., et al

    Marchenko, V ., Harris, D. E., Ostrowski, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 11

    2017

  30. [38]

    1984, ARA&A, 22, 507

    Margon, B. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 507

    1984

  31. [39]

    L., Canizares, C

    Marshall, H. L., Canizares, C. R., Hillwig, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 75

    2013

  32. [40]

    L., Canizares, C

    Marshall, H. L., Canizares, C. R., & Schulz, N. S. 2002, ApJ, 564, 941 Martí, J., Bujalance-Fernández, I., Luque-Escamilla, P. L., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A40

    2002

  33. [41]

    S., Khabibullin, I

    Medvedev, P. S., Khabibullin, I. I., & Sazonov, S. Y . 2019, Astronomy Letters, 45, 299

    2019

  34. [42]

    2002, Science, 297, 1673

    Migliari, S., Fender, R., & Méndez, M. 2002, Science, 297, 1673

    2002

  35. [43]

    P., Blundell, K

    Migliari, S., Fender, R. P., Blundell, K. M., Méndez, M., & Van Der Klis, M. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 358, 860

    2005

  36. [44]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Migliari, S., Fender, R. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1141

    2008

  37. [45]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 272

    Morii, M., Maeda, Y ., Awaki, H., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 272

    2024

  38. [46]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 149

    Ohmura, T., Ono, K., Sakemi, H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 149

    2021

  39. [47]

    Richardson, W. H. 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917- 1983), 62, 55

    1972

  40. [48]

    H., Wardle, J

    Roberts, D. H., Wardle, J. F. C., Bell, M. R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1918

    2010

  41. [49]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 59

    Sakai, Y ., Yamada, S., Sato, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 59

    2023

  42. [50]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 245

    Sakai, Y ., Yamada, S., Sato, T., Hayakawa, R., & Kominato, N. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 245

    2024

  43. [51]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 27

    Sakemi, H., Machida, M., Akahori, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 27

    2018

  44. [52]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 338

    Sakemi, H., Machida, M., Yamamoto, H., & Tachihara, K. 2023, PASJ, 75, 338

    2023

  45. [53]

    A., & Vardi, Y

    Shepp, L. A., & Vardi, Y . 1982, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1, 113

    1982

  46. [54]

    1997, ApJ, 484, 108

    Sikora, M., Madejski, G., Moderski, R., & Poutanen, J. 1997, ApJ, 484, 108

    1997

  47. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1791

    Sobolenko, M., Kompaniiets, O., Berczik, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1791

    2022

  48. [56]

    Spencer, R. E. 1984, MNRAS, 209, 869

    1984

  49. [57]

    L., Pantin, E., & Murtagh, F

    Starck, J. L., Pantin, E., & Murtagh, F. 2002, PASP, 114, 1051

    2002

  50. [58]

    M., Jowett, F

    Stirling, A. M., Jowett, F. H., Spencer, R. E., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 337, 657

    2002

  51. [59]

    M., Spencer, R

    Stirling, A. M., Spencer, R. E., Cawthorne, T. V ., & Paragi, Z. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1239

    2004

  52. [60]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 146

    Sudoh, T., Inoue, Y ., & Khangulyan, D. 2020, ApJ, 889, 146

    2020

  53. [61]

    Tashiro, M. S. 2022, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31, 2230001

    2022

  54. [62]

    C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Team, T. C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

    2022

  55. [63]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 109 van der Laan, H

    Thimmappa, R., Stawarz, U., Marchenko, V ., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 109 van der Laan, H. 1966, Nature, 211, 1131

    2020

  56. [64]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 75

    Wang, J., Fabbiano, G., Risaliti, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 75

    2011

  57. [65]

    G., Willingale, R., Grindlay, J

    Watson, M. G., Willingale, R., Grindlay, J. E., & Seward, F. D. 1983, ApJ, 273, 688

    1983

Pith tools

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