A Real-Time Jet Laboratory in Swift J1727.8-1613

Alexandra J. Tetarenko; Arash Bahramian; Callan M. Wood; David M. Russell; Diego Altamirano; Dipankar Maitra; Elmar K\"ording; Francesco Carotenuto; Gregory R. Sivakoff; Hongmin Cao

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 28 references

A Real-Time Jet Laboratory in Swift J1727.8-1613

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

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

Pith's one-line read Repeated ejection events from the black-hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613 show that the same accreting black hole can produce both mildly and highly relativistic jets, implying the inner accretion flow, not fixed parameters like mass…

desk verdict A rich VLBI dataset with careful modeling, but the mildly-vs-highly-relativistic dichotomy depends on a 5.5 kpc distance that the paper never justifies against the 3.7 kpc used in the authors' earlier papers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04296 v1 pith:GGCC6RCA submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.HE

Callan M. Wood , James C. A. Miller-Jones , Arash Bahramian , Steven J. Tingay , Sara E. Motta , Hongmin Cao , Thomas D. Russell , Francesco Carotenuto

show 11 more authors

Pikky Atri Diego Altamirano Alexandra J. Tetarenko Rob Fender Elmar Körding Dipankar Maitra Sera Markoff David M. Russell Gregory R. Sivakoff Roberto Soria Valeriu Tudose

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords stellar-massblackholesradiojetsrelativisticverylongbaselineinterferometrylow-massX-raybinariestransientsources

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

During the 2023–2024 outburst of the black-hole X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613, the authors tracked nine discrete jet knots with very long baseline interferometry and measured their motions, sizes, and flux changes directly in the visibility data. They show that the same source, with the same black-hole mass, spin, and spin-orbit geometry, repeatedly launched both mildly relativistic (with $\beta\Gamma<1$) and highly relativistic (with $\beta\Gamma>2$) ejecta over a few weeks. Because those fixed parameters cannot explain the spread, the paper argues that the state of the inner accretion flow and jet launching region at each ejection determines the jet's speed. This matters because it moves jet-speed explanations from permanent system properties toward transient accretion dynamics, and because the intra-observation light curves reveal hour-scale variability that ordinary imaging misses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is time-dependent visibility model fitting: analytical Gaussian components whose positions, sizes, and flux densities are allowed to evolve during an observation are fit directly to the interferometric visibilities, with the flux evolution parameterised as a piecewise linear light curve. For the first time the paper applies this to model transient jet knot light curves non-parametrically within a single observation. The kinematic conversion uses the standard relation between observed proper motion and intrinsic speed for an approaching knot, $\beta=\beta_{\rm app}/(\sin i+\beta_{\rm app}\cos i)$, together with the upper limit $i_{\max}=2\arctan(1/\beta_{\rm app})$ for apparently superluminal knots; a posterior over inclinations, sampled with a 20° lower limit from the dynamical mass function and a distance posterior, yields the intrinsic-speed distributions.

What would settle it

Detect a receding counterpart to any of the nine knots with a measured proper motion and flux density; the approaching/receding pair then gives the inclination uniquely. If that inclination falls outside the 20–66 degree range or differs significantly between knots, the common-axis assumption, and with it the intrinsic-speed separation, would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Over one outburst, Swift J1727.8-1613 ejected at least nine discrete radio knots that the paper tracks as ballistic, approaching components. Using time-dependent visibility modelling, the paper measures proper motions, sizes, and piecewise light curves for each knot, infers precise ejection dates, and converts proper motions into intrinsic speeds. It finds a clear split: some knots are mildly relativistic (intrinsic speed $\beta\sim0.5-0.7$) while others are highly relativistic ($\beta\gtrsim0.94$), with bulk Lorentz factors up to $\Gamma\sim3.5$. Since the accreting black hole's mass, spin, and spin-orbit misalignment are constant throughout the outburst, the paper concludes those fixed parameters do not uniquely determine transient jet speeds and Lorentz factors. It also derives a posterior upper limit on the jet inclination (50th, 84th, and 99th percentiles of 40°, 50°, and 66°) and finds no single consistent X-ray intensity or hardness signature for ejection.

Load-bearing premise

All nine knots are assumed to have been ejected along the same jet axis at nearly the same tilt angle, an assumption based on their position angles agreeing to within about 2.5 degrees; if the jet axis wobbled by more than a few degrees between ejections, the intrinsic speeds derived from the proper motions would be systematically wrong and the claimed fast/slow split could erode.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single broad radio flare can hide several distinct ejections: around each of the two prominent state transitions the source launched multiple knots over several days, so daily-cadence monitoring undercounts transient jets.
There is no reproducible X-ray intensity or hardness signature that marks ejection in this source; jets were launched at different X-ray luminosities and hardness ratios across the outburst.
Fixed parameters (black-hole mass, spin, spin-orbit misalignment) cannot set transient jet speed; the geometry and dynamics of the inner accretion flow at the time of ejection must play a significant role.
Intra-observation, non-parametric light curves reveal hour-scale flux variability that static imaging smears out, so time-dependent visibility modelling is required to recover the real-time behaviour of these ejecta.
The continuous jet's radio photosphere shifts upstream as the source fades, consistent with a luminosity-dependent core shift of the kind predicted from jet-synchrotron models.

Reading between the lines

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

One direct extension is to analyse dense X-ray timing (not just intensity/hardness) around each of the eight dated ejections; the paper's own discussion suggests rms suppression or type-B QPO appearances, which it could not test for the later knots because of sparse timing data, might be the hidden signature.
A single-source speed distribution of this kind is a sharper test for jet-launch models than population averages, because it controls for mass, spin, and geometry; a natural next step is to compare the inferred per-knot Lorentz factors with the modelled inner-disk/corona state at each ejection time.
If the common-axis assumption holds, the inclination posterior (upper limits 40–66 degrees) is a prediction for future orbital measurements of the binary; an independent spectroscopic inclination outside this range would force a re-derivation of all the intrinsic speeds.
The short 20-minute 8.3 GHz flare followed by a delayed 2.3 GHz flare in the re-established core suggests a propagation delay; simultaneous multi-frequency VLBI on a re-brightening source could catch such a feature and measure its apparent speed directly.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the take: this is a genuinely rich VLBI campaign, and the authors extract nearly everything possible from the data. But the headline claim — that Swift J1727.8-1613 launched both mildly and highly relativistic jets in a single outburst — rests on a distance choice that the paper never defends against the alternative used in the authors' own earlier papers.

What's new: nine jet knots tracked with intra-observation precision, precise ejection dates, and the first non-parametric piecewise light curves of jet-knot flux density from visibility fitting. The modeling is careful and the self-calibration systematics are handled better than most VLBI papers. The discussion of accretion/ejection coupling is thorough, and the paper is transparent about what could not be modeled, including the second EVN observation.

Where it's soft: first, the distance. The paper adopts 5.5 kpc (Burridge et al. 2025) and notes that a smaller distance would make all knots slower, but it never addresses that Mata Sánchez et al. (2025) give 3.7±0.3 kpc for the same source — a value outside the adopted posterior. At 3.7 kpc, knots 3, 4, and 6 have β_app ≈1.6–1.8, and with the authors' own inclination sampling, their βΓ medians land around 1.7–2.1. The clean βΓ>2 category becomes marginal or disappears. The qualitative conclusion that the knots have different speeds survives, but the specific "highly relativistic" label does not. That needs to be addressed, either with a robust distance argument or a softened claim.

Second, the shared-inclination assumption. The paper states it plainly: knots 5–7 had their position angle fixed to 180°, and all knots are assumed to share an inclination. The tight PA distribution supports this, but if the jet axis wobbles by more than a few degrees, the intrinsic speed posteriors for individual knots shift. It is acknowledged but not stress-tested.

Third, the data and code are not shipped. For a method built on a relatively new visibility-fitting technique, "available on reasonable request" is a real weakness. The piecewise light curves are new and should be reproducible.

Bottom line: this paper deserves careful peer review and will be heavily cited for its observational results. The referee should push on the distance prior and ask for a robustness test against 3.7 kpc. With that addressed, it is a solid contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents an intensive VLBI campaign on the black-hole LMXB Swift J1727.8-1613 during its 2023-2024 outburst, combining VLBA, LBA, and EVN observations. The authors detect and model nine discrete jet knots using time-dependent visibility model fitting, measuring proper motions, sizes, ejection dates, and intra-observation flux-density light curves (the latter via new piecewise linear fits). From the proper motions they derive intrinsic speeds and Lorentz factors, concluding that the source launched both mildly relativistic (βΓ<1) and highly relativistic (βΓ>2) ejecta throughout the outburst, and they infer a posterior distribution for the jet inclination with 50th/84th/99th percentiles of 40°/50°/66°. The paper also reports repeated quenching and re-establishment of the continuous jet, a luminosity-dependent core shift, and the absence of a consistent X-ray ejection signature.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a rare and important constraint: a single LMXB with presumably fixed black-hole mass, spin, and spin-orbit misalignment producing transient ejecta across a wide range of Lorentz factors would challenge simple models that tie jet speed primarily to those fixed parameters. The methodological advance of time-dependent visibility fitting with non-parametric piecewise light curves is significant and the observational campaign is comprehensive. The analysis is generally careful about systematic errors—notably the use of the check source to estimate phase-referencing errors—and the kinematic relations (Eqs. 2 and 3) are standard and correctly applied. However, the central βΓ>2 classification depends sensitively on the adopted distance, and the paper does not adequately address the discrepancy with the distance used in the authors' own earlier work on the same source.

major comments (3)

[§5.2.2, Fig. 15, Table 5] The central claim that Swift J1727.8-1613 launched highly relativistic ejecta with βΓ>2 is not robust to the choice of distance. The paper adopts d=5.5+1.4−1.1 kpc (Burridge et al. 2025), but the authors' earlier analyses of this source (Wood et al. 2024, 2025) and the dynamical study of Mata Sánchez et al. (2025) used d=3.7±0.3 kpc, which lies outside the 16th percentile of the adopted posterior. The paper acknowledges this distance in the discussion but never addresses the discrepancy or demonstrates that the conclusions are independent of it. At d=3.7 kpc, the apparent speeds of knots 3, 4, and 6 become βapp≈1.63, 1.72, and 1.80, respectively. Feeding these into the same inclination sampling as §5.2.2 gives marginal βΓ distributions for these knots with medians around or below 2, so the clean βΓ>2 dichotomy erodes. Since the abstract and Section 6 explicitly quantify the result as βΓ>2, the authors must either justify the 5.5 kpc distance, propagate the 3.7 kpc case through the full analysis, or weaken the claim to a continuous range of βΓ without the sharp βΓ>2 boundary.
[§5.2.2] The inference that the nine jet knots have different intrinsic speeds relies on the assumption that they all share the same inclination angle. The paper justifies this in §5.2.1 by the small scatter in position angles (≲2.5°), but position-angle consistency does not constrain the inclination angle of the jet axis; a few degrees of inclination wobble between ejection events would change the βΓ values inferred from Eq. (2) for individual knots and could partially or fully erase the separation into mildly and highly relativistic groups. The paper does not test this possibility, for example by repeating the intrinsic-speed posterior with a prior that allows small run-to-run inclination variations. Given that the central claim is that the spread in speeds is not due to fixed parameters, the robustness of the conclusion to modest inclination variability should be demonstrated.
[§4.5.1 vs. §5.2.2 and Table 5] There is an internal inconsistency in the treatment of knot 0. In §4.5.1 the authors state that knot 0 was more likely a downstream shock or jet-ISM interaction and therefore exclude it from the computed ejection dates. However, knot 0 is still included among the nine 'transient jet knots' whose proper motions are used to derive intrinsic speeds in Figure 15 and Table 5, and it contributes to the 'mildly relativistic ejecta' population. If knot 0 is not a discrete transient ejectum, it should not be used to characterize the range of jet speeds; if it is, the earlier discussion should be revised. At minimum, the role of knot 0 in the intrinsic-speed sample needs to be clarified and justified.

minor comments (3)

[Section 6] There is a typo: '50circ' should read '50°' in the sentence about the inclination upper limits.
[§5.2.2] The text says 'We did not incorporate any distance uncertainty in Figure 14' and then later samples the distance posterior; this is clear, but the reader would benefit from a sentence explaining that Figure 14 is a fixed-distance illustration while Figure 15 and Table 5 include distance uncertainty.
[Table 2 and §4.2.2] The fixed position angle for knots 5–7 is marked with an asterisk, but the table footnote only says 'Fixed parameter.' Since the fixing was non-trivial and required assuming motion along the jet axis, the footnote should refer the reader to §4.2.2 where the systematic error treatment is described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the jet-speed and inclination inferences are standard transformations of measured proper motions with no fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that Swift J1727.8-1613 launched both mildly relativistic (beta*Gamma < 1) and highly relativistic (beta*Gamma > 2) ejecta and that fixed system parameters do not uniquely determine jet speeds—are derived from measured VLBI proper motions via the standard kinematic relations in Eqs. (1)-(3). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the proper motions are measured quantities, and the posterior on maximum inclination is itself estimated from the fastest proper motion using the analytic formula imax = 2*arctan(1/beta_app), which is a rearrangement of the same equation. The intrinsic-speed distributions are then obtained by sampling inclination angles between a conservatively chosen 20-degree lower bound and this data-driven maximum, which is a transparent inference procedure rather than a circular one. The paper's self-citations are to the authors' earlier method papers (Wood et al. 2023, 2024, 2025) for the time-dependent visibility-modeling technique and prior observations of the same source; these are legitimate methodological references, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The distance choice (5.5 kpc from Burridge et al. 2025 rather than the 3.7 kpc used in earlier papers) affects the quantitative beta*Gamma values and is a genuine robustness concern, but it is a physical/calibration uncertainty, not a circularity: the derivation does not assume the conclusion it is trying to prove, and changing the distance would change the resulting speeds in a well-defined, non-tautological way. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations, to its own input.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central inference rests on standard kinematic formulas, a published distance, and three stated assumptions about the system geometry and priors. The absence of free parameters in the derivation is notable, but the inclination prior and the shared-axis assumption are the main load-bearing inputs.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Distance to Swift J1727.8-1613 is 5.5 +1.4/-1.1 kpc from Burridge et al. (2025).
All apparent speeds and i_max values scale with distance. The qualitative mild/relativistic separation survives the distance uncertainty, but the posterior percentiles shift.
domain assumption All nine jet knots were ejected along the same inclination angle.
The paper assumes this because the position angles are consistent to about 2.5 degrees (Section 5.2.2). If false, the intrinsic speed comparison could be invalid.
domain assumption The inclination is greater than 20 degrees, based on the dynamical mass function f(M) = 2.77 +/- 0.09 solar masses.
Below 20 degrees the black-hole mass would exceed 70 solar masses, deemed unlikely. This truncates the inclination prior.
domain assumption Jet knots move ballistically from the core to their observed positions.
Ejection dates are computed by extrapolating separation and proper motion to zero separation. If a knot is an internal shock, the inferred 'ejection date' is not a launch time.
standard math The noise on the complex visibilities is circularly Gaussian.
This is the assumed likelihood for the nested sampling model fitting.
ad hoc to paper Isotropic prior on inclination between 20 degrees and i_max.
The posterior distributions for intrinsic speed are prior-dominated, although the fast/slow separation is robust to the prior choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Real-Time Jet Laboratory in Swift J1727.8-1613." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGCC6RCA

@misc{pith2026260804296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Real-Time Jet Laboratory in Swift J1727.8-1613},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGCC6RCA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04296}
}

read the original abstract

We present the results of our intensive VLBI campaign on the black-hole low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB) Swift J1727.8-1613 during its 2023-2024 outburst. We observed the repeated quenching and re establishment of the highly-extended continuous jet during several transitions between hard-intermediate and soft-intermediate states, and the repeated ejection of transient jets. Using time-dependent visibility model fitting, we tracked the motion of nine discrete jet knots, obtaining some of the most precise measurements of transient jet proper motions and ejection dates in an LMXB. These ejecta were only detectable for a short time with VLBI, and some showed rapid intra-observation flux density variability that was not captured in image reconstructions. For the first time, we use time-dependent visibility modelling to fit a piecewise model for the jet knot flux densities, allowing us to create complex, non-parametric light curves of their intra-observation variability. We observed the launching of multiple ejecta across several state transitions, however, we could not identify a consistent signature of jet ejection in the available X-ray intensity or hardness data. We constrained the intrinsic speeds and bulk Lorentz factors of the jet knots, finding that Swift J1727.8-1613 launched both mildly relativistic and highly relativistic ejecta throughout its outburst. We used their proper motions to constrain a posterior distribution for the maximum inclination angle of the jet axis, which had 50th, 84th, and 99th percentiles of 40{\deg}, 50{\deg}, and 66{\deg}, respectively. These unique observations of the repeated ejection of transient jets by a single LMXB reveal that fixed parameters such as black-hole mass, black-hole spin, and spin-orbit misalignment do not uniquely determine the varying properties of transient jets, particularly their speeds and Lorentz factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04296 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overall X-ray and radio evolution of Swift J1727.8-1613 and the 15 VLBI observations taken during the peak of the 2023 outburst. The top panel shows the 2-4 keV MAXI/GSCa X-ray light curve (Matsuoka et al. 2009), the second panel shows the MAXI/GSC X-ray hardness ratio, and the third panel shows the overall radio light curves presented in Hughes et al. (2025), re-scaled to 8.4 GHz. The vertical coloured bars in the … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Montage of images from our VLBI campaign during the 2023/2024 outburst of Swift J1727.8-1613. Time progresses down the left column and then down the right column. These static reconstructions show the evolution of the continuous jet and the ejection of multiple transient jet knots. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** A 4.9-GHz EVN image of Swift J1727.8-1613 on 2023 September 26. The colour scale shows the intensity in mJy beam−1 , and the contours are at ±σ × √ 2 n for n = 3, 4, 5, ... where σ is the noise level of the image shown in the label. The image is rotated counter-clockwise by 90◦ , as shown by the compass, and the ellipse in the lower right corner shows the restoring beam of the image. The observation details are give… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Light curves of knot 4 on 2023 September 22 (MJD 60209), derived from a model fit to observation BM538C. We used a piecewise linear flux density evolution, where we fit for the flux density at six fixed nodes (shown by the markers) and linearly interpolated between tho…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visibility amplitudes from north-south baselines in the 4.9-GHz EVN observation of Swift J1727.8-1613 on 2023 October 5 (RM019). The observation is centred at 4.93 GHz, unlike the VLBA and LBA observations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Series of DIFMAP images made with the intra-European baselines at the end of our second EVN observation of Swift J1727.8-1613 (RM019), taken on 2023 October 5 (MJD 60222) at a central frequency of 4.93 GHz. Each image is made from ∼ 20 minutes of data, and is comprised…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Images of Swift J1727.8-1613 following the first reported state transition and associated radio flaring on 2023 October 5 (MJD 60222). For each image, the colour scale shows the intensity in mJy beam−1 , and the contours are at ±σ × √ 2 n for n = 3, 4, 5, ... where σ i…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: shows DIFMAP images of the two observations taken after the second reported hard-intermediate to soft-intermediate state transition. The images both show a bright, resolved, southern knot south of the core, which had switched off since our previous observation. If the…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: , which show that during the first observation the jet knot was rapidly increasing in flux density, while it was much more steady in the second observation. This explains the higher noise level and more prominent image artefacts in the first image of this 2023-10-17 =…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: An image of Swift J1727.8-1613 following the reverse transition in March 2024. The contours mark ±σ × √ 2 n where n = 3, 4, 5, ..., and σ is the rms noise shown in the upper right of the image. The ellipse in the lower right corner shows the restoring beam. The image …

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Shift in the position of the core of Swift J1727.8-1613 from the first observations on 2023 August 30 (MJD 60186) with the VLBA (BM538A) and the LBA (V456H). The black line and shaded grey region show the proper motion of Swift J1727.8-1613 measured by Gaia (µα cos δ …

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: shows that the nine jet knots must either have different intrinsic speeds, be at different inclination angles, or both. They 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Inclination Angle, i ( ◦) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Intrinsic Jet Speed, β Knot 0 Knot 1 Knot 2 Knot 3 Knot 4 Knot 5…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Marginal posterior distribution of the maximum inclination angle of the jet axis computed from equation 3 by sampling from the fastest jet knot proper motion posteriors and with a distance of 5.5 +1.4 −1.1 kpc (Burridge et al. 2025). The y-axis shows probability densi…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Posterior distributions of the expected receding/approaching flux density ratios for the nine detected and modelled approaching jet knots, plotted logarithmically. The flux density ratios are calculated from equation 5 using the sampled intrinsic jet speeds and incli…

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: The FWHM size and separation of the nine detected and modelled transient jet knots. For the elliptical Gaussian jet knots, we plot the FWHM size perpendicular to the jet axis. The dashed lines show constant projected opening angles of 1 ◦ , 2 ◦ , 5 ◦ , 10◦ , and 15◦ .…

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: The ejection dates of the eight jet knots given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

O., & Margon, B

Abell, G. O., & Margon, B. 1979, Nature, 279, 701, doi: 10.1038/279701a0 Bahramian, A., Tremou, E., Tetarenko, A. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, L7, doi:

doi:10.1038/279701a0 1979
[3]

P., McCollough, M., et al

1093/mnras/stt493 Brocksopp, C., Fender, R. P., McCollough, M., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 765, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05230.x Burridge, B. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae11a0 Cao, H., Yang, J., Frey, S., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 987, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ ade0ab Cao, J.-Y ., Liao, J.-...

arXiv 2002
[4]

2026, A&A, 707, A151, doi:

1093/mnras/stac329 Carotenuto, F., Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A151, doi:

work page 2026
[5]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi:

1051/0004-6361/202557140 Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi:

work page 2021
[6]

J., Sanchez-Ramirez, R., Caballero-Garcia, M

1093/mnras/stab864 Castro-Tirado, A. J., Sanchez-Ramirez, R., Caballero-Garcia, M. D., et al. 2023, A Real-Time Jet Laboratory in Swift J1727.8-1613 27 The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16208, 1 Charlot, P., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A159, doi:

work page 2023
[7]

1051/0004-6361/202038368 Chauhan, J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Anderson, G. E., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e045, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.38 Clark, B. G. 1980, A&A, 89, 377 Cooper, A. J., Matthews, J. H., Carotenuto, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi:

doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.38 2021
[8]

1093/mnras/staf1085 Corbel, S., & Fender, R. P. 2002, ApJ, 573, L35, doi: 10.1086/341870 Corbel, S., Fender, R. P., Tomsick, J. A., Tzioumis, A. K., & Tingay, S. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1272, doi: 10.1086/425650 Corbel, S., Fender, R. P., Tzioumis, A. K., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, 251, doi:

doi:10.1086/341870 2002
[9]

2002, Science, 298, 196, doi: 10.1126/science.1075857 Corbel, S., Kaaret, P., Jain, R

48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003460 —. 2002, Science, 298, 196, doi: 10.1126/science.1075857 Corbel, S., Kaaret, P., Jain, R. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 43, doi: 10.1086/321364 Corbel, S., Aussel, H., Broderick, J. W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, L107, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt018 Coriat, M., Fender, R. P., Tasse, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1672, doi:

arXiv 2002

Show all 28 references

[10]

3847/2041-8213/accde1 Belloni, T. M. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Belloni, V ol. 794, 53, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8 3 Belloni, T. M., & Motta, S. E. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 440, Astrophysics of Black Hole...

2010
[11]

J., Fender, R

1093/mnras/stz099 Cowie, F. J., Fender, R. P., Heywood, I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, L37, doi:

2025
[12]

2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/ s41586-023-06479-6 Davidson, E

1093/mnrasl/slaf097 Cui, Y ., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/ s41586-023-06479-6 Davidson, E. M., Chauhan, J., Lohfink, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 54, doi:

2023
[13]

T., Tingay, S

3847/1538-4357/ae0a4d Deller, A. T., Tingay, S. J., Bailes, M., & West, C. 2007, PASP, 119, 318, doi: 10.1086/513572 Deller, A. T., Brisken, W. F., Phillips, C. J., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 275, doi:

2007 doi
[14]

F., & Rodr´ıguez, L

1086/658907 Dhawan, V ., Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr´ıguez, L. F. 2000, ApJ, 543, 373, doi:

2000
[16]

P., Garrington, S

1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x Fender, R. P., Garrington, S. T., McKay, D. J., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 865, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02364.x Fender, R. P., Homan, J., & Belloni, T. M. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1370, doi:

2004
[17]

P., & Motta, S

1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14841.x Fender, R. P., & Motta, S. E. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/ s41550-025-02665-w Fender, R. P., Mooley, K. P., Motta, S. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1836 Fomalont, E. B., Geldzahler, B. J., & Bradshaw, C. F. 200...

2009
[19]

2006, ApJ, 636, 316, doi: 10.1086/497954 Hjellming, R

48550/arXiv.2508.01384 Heinz, S. 2006, ApJ, 636, 316, doi: 10.1086/497954 Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1981, ApJ, 246, L141, doi: 10.1086/183571 Hjellming, R. M., & Rupen, M. P. 1995, Nature, 375, 464, doi: 10.1038/ 375464a0 H¨ogbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417 Homan, J.,...

2006 arXiv
[20]

2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi:

3847/1538-4357/ade2e6 Ingram, A., Bollemeijer, N., Veledina, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 76, doi:

2024
[21]

R., & Motta, S

3847/1538-4357/ad3faf Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, New A Rev., 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j. newar.2020.101524 Jeffrey, R. M., Blundell, K. M., Trushkin, S. A., & Mioduszewski, A. J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1322 Jin, P., M´endez, M., Garc´ıa, F., Alta...

2019
[22]

A., & Swift Team

1038/s41586-018-0803-x Kennea, J. A., & Swift Team. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 34540, 1 Liao, J., Chang, N., Cui, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ add264 Liu, H.-X., Xu, Y .-J., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03834, doi: 10.48550...

2023 doi arXiv
[23]

1093/mnras/stx1864 Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2024, in Proceedings of the 16th EVN Symposium, ed. E. Ros, P. Benke, S. A. Dzib, I. Rottmann, & J. A. Zensus, 25–30 Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Altamirano, D., et al. 2023a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16271, 1 Miller-Jones,...

2024
[24]

1051/0004-6361/202450566 Prabu, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2570 Pradel, N., Charlot, P., & Lestrade, J. F. 2006, A&A, 452, 1099, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361:20053021 Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Lister, M...

2023 doi
[25]

A., & McClintock, J

1088/0004-637X/700/1/137 Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/ annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 Rib´o, M., Dhawan, V ., & Mirabel, I. F. 2004, in European VLBI Network on New Developments in VLBI Science and Technology, 111–112, doi:

2006 arXiv
[26]

48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0412657 Rodriguez, J., Corbel, S., & Tomsick, J. A. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1032, doi: 10.1086/ 377478 Rodr´ıguez, L. F., & Mirabel, I. F. 1999, ApJ, 511, 398, doi: 10.1086/306642 —. 2025, ApJ, 986, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adda33 Rushton, A. P., Miller-Jones, ...

2003 arXiv
[27]

D., Carotenuto, F., Miller-Jones, J

1093/mnras/sts377 Russell, T. D., Carotenuto, F., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16552, 1 Russell, T. D., Soria, R., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2498 Russell, T. D., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Curra...

2024
[28]

J., Sivakoff, G

3847/2041-8213/ad402e Tetarenko, A. J., Sivakoff, G. R., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/30 —. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1048 —. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2853 Tetarenko, A. J., Casella, P....

2015 doi
[29]

2010, MNRAS, 409, L64, doi:

1017/pasa.2015.13 Yang, J., Brocksopp, C., Corbel, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L64, doi:

2015
[30]

2024, ApJ, 970, L33, doi: 10.3847/ 2041-8213/ad60bd Yu, W

1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00948.x Yang, Z.-X., Zhang, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, L33, doi: 10.3847/ 2041-8213/ad60bd Yu, W. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16276, 1 Yu, W., Bu, Q.-C., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4624, doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stae835 Zdziarski...

2010
[31]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11945, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11945 Zhu, H., & Wang, W

3847/2041-8213/ade13b Zhang, X., Yu, W., Carotenuto, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11945, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11945 Zhu, H., & Wang, W. 2024, ApJ, 968, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ce4 Zhu, H., Wang, W., & Zhu, Z. 2024, ApJ, 974, 303, doi: 10.3847/1538-435...

2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

O., & Margon, B

Abell, G. O., & Margon, B. 1979, Nature, 279, 701, doi: 10.1038/279701a0 Bahramian, A., Tremou, E., Tetarenko, A. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, L7, doi:

doi:10.1038/279701a0 1979

[2] [3]

P., McCollough, M., et al

1093/mnras/stt493 Brocksopp, C., Fender, R. P., McCollough, M., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 765, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05230.x Burridge, B. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae11a0 Cao, H., Yang, J., Frey, S., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 987, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ ade0ab Cao, J.-Y ., Liao, J.-...

arXiv 2002

[3] [4]

2026, A&A, 707, A151, doi:

1093/mnras/stac329 Carotenuto, F., Zhang, L., Altamirano, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A151, doi:

work page 2026

[4] [5]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi:

1051/0004-6361/202557140 Carotenuto, F., Corbel, S., Tremou, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 444, doi:

work page 2021

[5] [6]

J., Sanchez-Ramirez, R., Caballero-Garcia, M

1093/mnras/stab864 Castro-Tirado, A. J., Sanchez-Ramirez, R., Caballero-Garcia, M. D., et al. 2023, A Real-Time Jet Laboratory in Swift J1727.8-1613 27 The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16208, 1 Charlot, P., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A159, doi:

work page 2023

[6] [7]

1051/0004-6361/202038368 Chauhan, J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Anderson, G. E., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e045, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.38 Clark, B. G. 1980, A&A, 89, 377 Cooper, A. J., Matthews, J. H., Carotenuto, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi:

doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.38 2021

[7] [8]

1093/mnras/staf1085 Corbel, S., & Fender, R. P. 2002, ApJ, 573, L35, doi: 10.1086/341870 Corbel, S., Fender, R. P., Tomsick, J. A., Tzioumis, A. K., & Tingay, S. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1272, doi: 10.1086/425650 Corbel, S., Fender, R. P., Tzioumis, A. K., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, 251, doi:

doi:10.1086/341870 2002

[8] [9]

2002, Science, 298, 196, doi: 10.1126/science.1075857 Corbel, S., Kaaret, P., Jain, R

48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003460 —. 2002, Science, 298, 196, doi: 10.1126/science.1075857 Corbel, S., Kaaret, P., Jain, R. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 43, doi: 10.1086/321364 Corbel, S., Aussel, H., Broderick, J. W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, L107, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt018 Coriat, M., Fender, R. P., Tasse, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1672, doi:

arXiv 2002