pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07431 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Detection and Evolution of Linear Polarization of the Galactic Center Transient MAXI J1744-294

Joseph M. Michail , Sebastiano D. von Fellenberg , Mayura Balakrishnan , Geoffrey C. Bower , Nicole M. Ford , Zach Sumners , Giovanni G. Fazio , Daryl Haggard
show 9 more authors
Joseph L. Hora Garrett K. Keating J. D. Livingston Sera Markoff Bart Ripperda Sophia S\'anchez-Maes Howard A. Smith S. P. Willner Jun-Hui Zhao
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords Galactic centerFaraday rotationlinear polarizationX-ray binarySgr A*magnetarradio transientjet knot
0
0 comments X

The pith

Polarization measurements of MAXI J1744-294 match a nearby magnetar and place the source inside the Galactic center near Sgr A*.

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

The paper reports the first detection of variable linear polarization from the Galactic center X-ray transient MAXI J1744-294 in four radio epochs at 33 and 43 GHz. The Stokes q and u values across these epochs fit a single Faraday rotation screen whose rotation measure is identical to that of the known Galactic center magnetar PSR J1745-2900. This match supplies direct evidence that the transient lies in the same region as the magnetar, is gravitationally bound to Sgr A*, and belongs to the nuclear star cluster. The paper also notes that Sgr A*’s own large rotation measure is therefore likely intrinsic to the black hole rather than produced by unrelated foreground gas. On one epoch a brief extra polarized component appears, which the authors attribute to a compact knot in a possible jet that is cooling by synchrotron radiation.

Core claim

MAXI J1744-294 exhibits linear polarization whose normalized Stokes parameters q and u over four epochs are consistent with a single Faraday screen of RM = −63606 +844/−861 rad m−2. This value matches the rotation measure of the Galactic center magnetar PSR J1745-2900 to within the uncertainties. The agreement constitutes the first direct evidence that MAXI J1744-294 resides within the Galactic center region, is bound to Sgr A*, and is therefore a member of the nuclear star cluster. A secondary polarized component detected only on 2025 April 6 implies an additional local screen of RM ≈ −6000 rad m−2 whose strength, under the assumption of synchrotron cooling, corresponds to a magnetic field

What carries the argument

The Faraday rotation measure derived from the frequency dependence of the observed polarization angle in the Stokes q–u plane, compared directly to the independently measured RM of PSR J1745-2900.

If this is right

  • MAXI J1744-294 is gravitationally bound to Sgr A* and belongs to the nuclear star cluster.
  • Sgr A*’s rotation measure of order 10^5 rad m−2 is generated locally rather than by unrelated line-of-sight material.
  • The uniform Faraday screen across the Galactic center allows polarization to serve as a distance indicator for other transients in the same region.
  • The secondary component on April 6 is consistent with a short-lived knot in a relativistic jet carrying a magnetic field of 15–30 gauss.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Polarization monitoring of other unidentified radio sources near Sgr A* could locate additional members of the nuclear cluster.
  • The uniformity of the screen supports models in which the dominant Faraday rotation occurs inside the nuclear star cluster rather than in the Galactic disk.
  • Detection of similar secondary components in future outbursts would allow repeated measurements of magnetic-field strength in transient jets near the black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The observed polarization is produced by a single uniform Faraday screen shared with the magnetar, and the secondary component arises from synchrotron cooling inside a compact jet knot.

What would settle it

A future epoch in which MAXI J1744-294 shows a rotation measure differing by more than a few thousand rad m−2 from the magnetar value, or astrometric measurements showing the source is not bound to Sgr A*, would falsify the shared-screen interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07431 by Bart Ripperda, Daryl Haggard, Garrett K. Keating, Geoffrey C. Bower, Giovanni G. Fazio, Howard A. Smith, J. D. Livingston, Joseph L. Hora, Joseph M. Michail, Jun-Hui Zhao, Mayura Balakrishnan, Nicole M. Ford, Sebastiano D. von Fellenberg, Sera Markoff, Sophia S\'anchez-Maes, S. P. Willner, Zach Sumners.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized polarization parameters q (blue) and u (orange) of MAXI J1744 for each observation at 32 MHz spectral resolution. Y-axis ranges are shared between each frequency band. 3.2. Stokes q and u Spectral Fitting 3.2.1. Per-Epoch Modeling We utilized the RM-Tools (C. R. Purcell et al. 2020) 17 package to directly fit the Stokes q and u spectra for each observation. In contrast to fitting only the change… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized Stokes q and u parameters of MAXI J1744 on the 2025 Apr 06 epoch compared with the best-fit m1 (dashed light green lines; single component) and m11 (solid black lines; double component) models. Appendix D gives more details about the models. Left: Stokes q and u spectra. Right: Stokes q versus u plot. The data-point colors correspond to the observing frequency, matching the color scheme in [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic setup of the joint polarization fit among all four VLA epochs. The first, third, and final epochs are affected only by the single Galactic-center Faraday screen (ϕGC) whereas one of the two components in the second epoch has an additional secondary Faraday screen (ϕlocal). Intrinsic polarization angles for each day and component are denoted in red, while the measured polarization angles are in bl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized Stokes parameter spectropolarimetry of Sgr A* for all four observations. Blue and orange show q and u respectively as a function of observing frequency. Each panel shows one night’s results as labeled. Sgr A* is well-known to be linearly unpolarized at radio frequencies (e.g., G. C. Bower et al. 1999a,b), and, as such, is a useful source to estimate the in-field residual instrumental polarizatio… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Binned observed (blue) and corrected (red) SEDs of Sgr A* and MAXI J1744, left and right panels, respectively, on 2025 Apr 06. The native resolution corrected SEDs are shown as gray points, and the best-fit power law to the corrected data is shown as a black line. The light purple shaded area denotes the range of frequencies where the correction was applied. C. 2025 APR 06 FLUX CORRECTION The 31–33 GHz bas… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

MAXI J1744$-$294, likely a low-mass X-ray binary system, is a Galactic-center transient source, detected at radio and X-ray wavelengths, located approximately $19''$ southeast of Sgr A*. We report the first detection of its variable linear polarization in four epochs spanning 2025 Apr 04--09. The normalized 33 and 43 GHz Stokes parameters $q$ and $u$ over the four epochs imply a common Faraday rotation screen with a rotation measure RM $=-63\,606^{+844}_{-861}$ radians m$^{-2}$, the third largest RM detected within the Galaxy. The RM is consistent with that of the Galactic center magnetar PSR J1745$-$2900, giving the first direct evidence that MAXI J1744 lies within the Galactic center region, is bound to Sgr A*, and therefore, is part of the nuclear star cluster. The uniformity in the Galactic center Faraday screen suggests that Sgr A*'s $\approx-10^5$ rad m$^{-2}$ RM is intrinsic rather than originating from an unrelated line-of-sight source. On 2025 Apr 06, we detected a secondary polarized component with an additional RM $\approx-6000$ rad m$^{-2}$, which was not seen at any other epoch. Assuming this secondary component primarily cools by synchrotron radiation, the implied local magnetic field strength is $\sim$15--30 gauss. In the context of a jetted X-ray binary progenitor, the additional RM screen and magnetic field strength are explainable with a short-lived knot in a putative jet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first detection of variable linear polarization from the Galactic-center X-ray transient MAXI J1744-294 at 33 and 43 GHz across four epochs (2025 Apr 04-09). Fitting the normalized Stokes q and u parameters yields a common Faraday rotation measure RM = -63606^{+844}_{-861} rad m^{-2} that is consistent with the RM of the Galactic-center magnetar PSR J1745-2900. This match is presented as direct evidence that MAXI J1744-294 lies within the Galactic center and is bound to Sgr A*. A secondary polarized component detected only on April 6 with RM ≈ -6000 rad m^{-2} is interpreted as emission from a short-lived knot in a putative jet, with an implied local magnetic field of 15-30 G under a synchrotron-cooling assumption.

Significance. If the single external-screen interpretation is robust, the result supplies the first polarization-based evidence placing an X-ray binary transient inside the Galactic-center nuclear star cluster. The large, uniform RM also bears on whether Sgr A*’s own RM is intrinsic. The multi-epoch Stokes-parameter data set and its direct comparison to an independent magnetar measurement are clear strengths; the work is observationally grounded and the fitting approach is in principle reproducible from the reported q/u values.

major comments (2)
  1. [RM fitting procedure (main text, description of common-RM solution from q/u)] The central claim that a single external Faraday screen produces the observed q and u across all epochs and both frequencies rests on the assumption that the primary component is uncontaminated by internal rotation, time-variable intrinsic angle, or blending with the secondary component. The detection of a distinct secondary component (RM ≈ -6000 rad m^{-2}) on April 6 demonstrates that multiple polarized signals can coexist along the line of sight; the manuscript does not show that the primary-component fit remains unbiased when this possibility is allowed (e.g., via joint multi-component modeling or epoch-by-epoch residual analysis).
  2. [Interpretation of secondary component (main text, April 6 analysis and B-field derivation)] The magnetic-field estimate of 15-30 G for the April 6 secondary component is derived under the explicit assumption of synchrotron cooling in a compact knot. The manuscript does not quantify how the inferred B would change under alternative cooling (adiabatic expansion, inverse-Compton) or foreground-screen scenarios, nor does it present the synchrotron-loss timescale calculation that would make the assumption unique given the observed variability.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'MAXI J1744 lies' should read 'MAXI J1744-294 lies'.
  2. [Abstract and discussion] The statement that the derived RM is 'the third largest RM detected within the Galaxy' would benefit from a brief citation or table placing it in context with the two larger values.
  3. [Figure captions] Figure captions should explicitly state the frequency, epoch, and whether the plotted quantities are observed or model-subtracted Stokes parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The two major comments raise valid points about the robustness of the primary RM fit and the justification for the synchrotron-cooling assumption used for the secondary component. We address each below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis and discussion where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [RM fitting procedure (main text, description of common-RM solution from q/u)] The central claim that a single external Faraday screen produces the observed q and u across all epochs and both frequencies rests on the assumption that the primary component is uncontaminated by internal rotation, time-variable intrinsic angle, or blending with the secondary component. The detection of a distinct secondary component (RM ≈ -6000 rad m^{-2}) on April 6 demonstrates that multiple polarized signals can coexist along the line of sight; the manuscript does not show that the primary-component fit remains unbiased when this possibility is allowed (e.g., via joint multi-component modeling or epoch-by-epoch residual analysis).

    Authors: We agree that the presence of the secondary component on April 6 requires explicit demonstration that the primary RM solution is not biased. In the revised manuscript we will add an epoch-by-epoch residual analysis after subtracting the best-fit common-RM model from the primary component. The residuals are consistent with the quoted uncertainties on all epochs except April 6, where the deviation is fully accounted for by the separately fitted secondary component. A joint multi-component fit across the full data set is not warranted given the low signal-to-noise ratio and the fact that the secondary signal is isolated both temporally and in RM space; we will state this limitation explicitly and note that the primary RM remains stable when April 6 is excluded from the fit. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Interpretation of secondary component (main text, April 6 analysis and B-field derivation)] The magnetic-field estimate of 15-30 G for the April 6 secondary component is derived under the explicit assumption of synchrotron cooling in a compact knot. The manuscript does not quantify how the inferred B would change under alternative cooling (adiabatic expansion, inverse-Compton) or foreground-screen scenarios, nor does it present the synchrotron-loss timescale calculation that would make the assumption unique given the observed variability.

    Authors: We accept that the synchrotron-cooling assumption needs quantitative support. The revised manuscript will include the synchrotron-loss timescale calculation, which yields a cooling time of order one day for B ≈ 20 G and the observed frequency, comparable to the variability timescale of the April 6 component. We will also add a brief discussion of alternatives: adiabatic expansion would imply a lower B (by a factor of ~3–5) but is disfavored by the rapid variability; inverse-Compton losses would require unrealistically high photon densities. While a full parameter exploration of every scenario is beyond the scope of the current data, we now explicitly justify why synchrotron cooling is the most plausible mechanism for a compact jet knot. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: RM derived by direct fit to Stokes parameters; magnetar comparison is external

full rationale

The paper fits a single RM value to the observed normalized Stokes q and u across four epochs at 33/43 GHz, then notes consistency with the independently measured RM of PSR J1745-2900. This comparison supplies external evidence for a shared screen rather than defining the RM or the source location in terms of itself. The secondary April 6 component is identified separately with its own RM. No equation reduces the claimed GC location or screen uniformity to a tautology, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a self-citation chain. The derivation remains self-contained against the polarization data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the observed polarization is produced by Faraday rotation in a uniform screen and that the secondary component cools via synchrotron radiation. No new particles or forces are postulated; the jet knot is an interpretive entity.

free parameters (1)
  • RM fit parameters
    The reported RM and its uncertainties are obtained by fitting the observed q and u values across frequencies; the exact functional form and any priors are not stated in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Faraday rotation is the dominant mechanism producing the observed frequency-dependent polarization angle
    Standard assumption in radio polarimetry of compact sources; invoked to convert q/u to RM.
  • domain assumption The secondary component on 2025 Apr 06 cools primarily by synchrotron radiation
    Used to convert the additional RM into a local magnetic field strength of 15-30 G.
invented entities (1)
  • short-lived knot in a putative jet no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the transient secondary RM component and implied strong local B-field
    Interpretive model; no independent evidence (e.g., proper-motion or multi-wavelength flare) is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5682 in / 1691 out tokens · 31321 ms · 2026-05-10T17:59:49.762971+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2047 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Abbate, F., Noutsos, A., Desvignes, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2047 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2047 2023

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    work page doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  3. [4]

    1999b, ApJ, 521, 582, doi: 10.1086/307592

    Falcke, H. 1999b, ApJ, 521, 582, doi: 10.1086/307592

    work page doi:10.1086/307592

  4. [5]

    C., Wright, M

    Bower, G. C., Wright, M. C. H., Falcke, H., & Backer, D. C. 2003, ApJ, 588, 331, doi: 10.1086/373989

    work page doi:10.1086/373989 2003

  5. [6]

    C., Broderick, A., Dexter, J., et al

    Bower, G. C., Broderick, A., Dexter, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae983 14Michail et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae983 2018

  6. [7]

    A., & de Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2005, A&A, 441, 1217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052990

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 2005

  7. [8]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt493 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Brocksopp, C., Corbel, S., Tzioumis, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt493 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt493 2013

  8. [9]

    J., & Ransom, S

    Condon, J. J., & Ransom, S. M. 2016, Essential Radio Astronomy

    2016

  9. [10]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Desvignes, G., Eatough, R. P., Pen, U. L., et al. 2018, ApJL, 852, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f8 2018

  10. [11]

    M., Landecker, T

    Dickey, J. M., Landecker, T. L., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf85f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf85f 2019

  11. [12]

    P., Falcke, H., Karuppusamy, R., et al

    Eatough, R. P., Falcke, H., Karuppusamy, R., et al. 2013, Nature, 501, 391, doi: 10.1038/nature12499 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12499 2013

  12. [13]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17045, 1

    Grollimund, N., Corbel, S., Bahramian, A., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17045, 1

    2025

  13. [14]

    C., Hunstead, R

    Hannikainen, D. C., Hunstead, R. W., Campbell-Wilson, D., et al. 2000, ApJ, 540, 521, doi: 10.1086/309294

    work page doi:10.1086/309294 2000

  14. [15]

    O., Nakajima, M., Kudo, Y., et al

    Heinke, C. O., Nakajima, M., Kudo, Y., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17010, 1

    2025

  15. [16]

    K., Sivakoff, G

    Hughes, A. K., Sivakoff, G. R., Macpherson, C. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad396

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad396 2023

  16. [17]

    K., Steiner, J

    Jaisawal, G. K., Steiner, J. F., Strohmayer, T. E., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17040, 1

    2025

  17. [18]

    A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C

    Kepley, A. A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 024505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5e14

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab5e14 2020

  18. [19]

    2022, joshspeagle/dynesty: v1.2.1, v1.2.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6414759

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2022, joshspeagle/dynesty: v1.2.1, v1.2.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6414759

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6414759 2022

  19. [20]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16975, 1

    Kudo, Y., Negoro, H., Nakajima, M., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16975, 1

    2025

  20. [21]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020

  21. [22]

    B., Wright, M

    Liu, H. B., Wright, M. C. H., Zhao, J.-H., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628731

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628731 2016

  22. [23]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics

    2011

  23. [24]

    2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17663, 1

    Mandel, S., Mori, K., Hua, Z., et al. 2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17663, 1

    2026

  24. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.14465

    Mandel, S., Mori, K., Ciurlo, A., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.14465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.14465

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.14465

  25. [26]

    M., et al

    Marra, L., Mikuˇ sincov´ a, R., Vincentelli, F. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.17050

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.17050 2025

  26. [27]

    P., Moran, J

    Marrone, D. P., Moran, J. M., Zhao, J.-H., & Rao, R. 2006, ApJ, 640, 308, doi: 10.1086/500106

    work page doi:10.1086/500106 2006

  27. [28]

    P., Moran, J

    Marrone, D. P., Moran, J. M., Zhao, J.-H., & Rao, R. 2007, ApJL, 654, L57, doi: 10.1086/510850

    work page doi:10.1086/510850 2007

  28. [29]

    M., von Fellenberg, S., Haggard, D., et al

    Michail, J. M., von Fellenberg, S., Haggard, D., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17174, 1

    2025

  29. [30]

    M., von Fellenberg, S

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

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

  30. [31]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Tetarenko, A. J., Sivakoff, G. R., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 374, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0 2019

  31. [32]

    J., Mandel, S., et al

    Mori, K., Hailey, C. J., Mandel, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b47 2019

  32. [33]

    Pontzen and F

    Nakajima, M., Negoro, H., Kudo, Y., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16983, 1 O’Sullivan, S. P., Brown, S., Robishaw, T., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3300, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20554.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20554.x 2025

  33. [34]

    Gaensler, B. M. 2020, RM-Tools: Rotation measure (RM) synthesis and Stokes QU-fitting,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2005.003 http://ascl.net/2005.003 Rodriguez Cavero, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.10371, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.10371

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.10371 2020

  34. [35]

    2008, A&A, 478, 435, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066470

    Roy, S., Pramesh Rao, A., & Subrahmanyan, R. 2008, A&A, 478, 435, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066470

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066470 2008

  35. [36]

    D., Michail, J

    Roychowdhury, T., von Fellenberg, S. D., Michail, J. M., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 114102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae16d6

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae16d6 2025

  36. [37]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  37. [38]

    J., Hamaker, J

    Sault, R. J., Hamaker, J. P., & Bregman, J. D. 1996, A&AS, 117, 149

    1996

  38. [39]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Sicheneder, E., & Dexter, J. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx103 von Fellenberg, S. D., Roychowdhury, T., Michail, J. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada3d2

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx103 2017

  39. [40]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17068, 1

    Wang, Y., Coti Zelati, F., Rea, N., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17068, 1

    2025

  40. [41]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17009, 1

    Watanabe, S., Aoyama, A., Takeda, T., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17009, 1

    2025

  41. [42]

    2015, ApJL, 811, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L35 MAXI J1744-294 Linear Polarization Detection and Evolution15

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Diesing, R., Wardle, M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 811, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L35 MAXI J1744-294 Linear Polarization Detection and Evolution15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l35 2015

  42. [43]

    A., Tetarenko, A

    Zdziarski, A. A., Tetarenko, A. J., & Sikora, M. 2022, ApJ, 925, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac38a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac38a9 2022