Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neutrino Emissions from Tidal Disruption Remnants

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tidal disruption remnants are predicted to be neutrino sources invisible in gamma rays.

desk verdict A serious analytic model of TDE remnant neutrinos with distinctive light-curve predictions, but the headline energies are internally inconsistent and rest on unvalidated parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10882 v2 pith:VXF7FEPK submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-ph

Kimitake Hayasaki , Ryo Yamazaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph
keywords tidaldisruptioneventshigh-energyneutrinosmagneticallyarresteddisksradiativelyinefficientaccretionflowsstochasticparticleaccelerationsupermassiveblackholesneutrinoastrophysicspiondecay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the debris left behind when a star is torn apart by a supermassive black hole can act as a high-energy neutrino factory. It identifies three phases in which protons are plausibly accelerated to ultrarelativistic energies by magnetic turbulence: the super-Eddington phase of a magnetically arrested disk (MAD), and the radiatively inefficient accretion flow (RIAF) phase in both MAD and non-MAD states. In these sites, charged pions from proton-proton collisions decay into neutrinos with predicted peak energies from about 67 TeV to several PeV, and with distinctive time decays such as $t^{-65/24}$ and $t^{-10/3}$. Because the accompanying gamma rays are absorbed, these remnants would be hidden neutrino sources that could contribute to the diffuse neutrino flux without visible gamma-ray counterparts.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on second-order Fermi acceleration of protons in magnetic turbulence, with acceleration time $t_{\rm acc} = \zeta^{-1}(r/c)(v_A/c)^{-2}(r_L/r)^{2-s}\gamma^{2-s}$, adopting turbulence amplitude $\zeta=0.1$ and spectral index $s=5/3$. The maximum proton energy is set by equating this acceleration time to the fastest competing timescale at each site: spatial diffusion in the non-MAD RIAF, Compton drag or synchrotron cooling in the super-Eddington MAD, and synchrotron cooling in the radiatively inefficient MAD. For MAD states, the magnetic field is enhanced by the magnetically arrested disk condition, $B_{\rm MAD}^2 = 2\sqrt{2\pi}(\alpha/\epsilon)(H/r)\rho_p v_{\rm ff}^2$, roughly $\sqrt{\alpha/\epsilon}$ times the equipartition field. The proton-proton cross section and proton injection spectra then convert these maximum energies into neutrino spectra and light curves.

What would settle it

Take a well-observed TDE with a known black hole mass and search for neutrinos at the predicted peak energies: a super-Eddington MAD case should show neutrinos near 67 TeV decaying as $t^{-65/24}$, and an RIAF case should show 0.35 PeV neutrinos decaying as $t^{-10/3}$. A measured light curve following $t^{-5/3}$, or no neutrinos in a stacked sample of comparable events, would contradict the proposed acceleration balance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that three states of a tidal disruption remnant are promising neutrino emitters. In the super-Eddington MAD state, protons reach about $0.35\,\mathrm{PeV}\,(M_{\rm bh}/10^{7.7}M_\odot)^{41/48}$ when synchrotron cooling limits acceleration, and neutrinos peak near $67\,\mathrm{TeV}\,(M_{\rm bh}/10^{7.7}M_\odot)^{41/48}$; for $M_{\rm bh}\gtrsim10^{7.7}M_\odot$ the neutrino light curve decays as $t^{-65/24}$, while at lower masses Compton drag limits protons to roughly TeV energies and the decay follows $t^{-5/3}$. In the non-MAD RIAF phase, the proton cutoff is about $0.45\,\mathrm{PeV}\,(M_{\rm bh}/10^7M_\odot)^{5/3}$, the neutrino peak is near $0.35\,\mathrm{PeV}\,(M_{\rm bh}/10^7M_\odot)^{5/3}$, and the light curve decays as $t^{-10/3}$, which would identify a RIAF as TDE-born. In the radiatively inefficient MAD state, protons can reach about $25\,\mathrm{PeV}$ and neutrinos about $4.8\,\mathrm{PeV}$, though with a luminosity too low for current detectors. In all three cases, the pion-decay gamma rays are trapped, so the sources would appear as neutrino-only beacons.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions hinge on the adopted magnetic turbulence amplitude $\zeta=0.1$ and the assumed magnetic field strengths; if turbulence is weaker or the fields are lower, protons cool or escape before reaching PeV energies and the predicted neutrino signals disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A super-Eddington MAD TDE around a black hole above about $10^{7.7}M_\odot$ should be detectable as a neutrino source peaking near 67 TeV, with an unusually steep $t^{-65/24}$ decay that stands out from the standard $t^{-5/3}$ fallback.
  • A TDE-origin RIAF should produce a neutrino light curve $\propto t^{-10/3}$ peaking near 0.35 PeV, giving a direct way to tell a leftover TDE disk from a long-lived low-luminosity AGN disk.
  • Because pion-decay gamma rays are absorbed in all three sites, any neutrinos detected from these remnants would arrive without a GeV-TeV gamma-ray counterpart, marking them as hidden sources.
  • The predicted neutrino luminosities approach the Eddington luminosity in the super-Eddington MAD case, placing detectable events within roughly a gigaparsec for current neutrino telescopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a stacked search for neutrinos from optically and UV-selected TDEs that lack gamma-ray counterparts would test the hidden-source prediction more powerfully than chasing single events, because the per-event rate is low.
  • Beyond the paper: the $t^{-10/3}$ RIAF signature could be checked retrospectively, since known TDEs from years ago should now be in their RIAF phase and archival neutrino data could be re-analyzed for a delayed component.
  • Beyond the paper: the same acceleration-and-cooling balance should apply to any transient that passes from super-Eddington to RIAF accretion, including stellar-mass black hole outbursts, producing analogous neutrino light curves on much shorter timescales.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies high-energy neutrino production in tidal disruption remnants by considering four evolutionary phases plus the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state. It computes, with a single-zone model and stochastic (Fermi-II) acceleration, the maximum proton energy and neutrino spectrum for six sites, concluding that the super-Eddington MAD phase and the RIAF phases of both non-MAD and MAD disks are the promising neutrino emitters. The predicted peak neutrino energies scale steeply with black hole mass, and the light curves have distinctive decay indices (t^-65/24 for the super-Eddington MAD, t^-10/3 for the non-MAD RIAF). The paper also estimates gamma-ray opacity, baryon loading, detection horizons, and the diffuse neutrino background contribution.

Significance. The strength of the paper is that it maps the parameter space of TDE remnants in a transparent, analytic way and produces falsifiable predictions: the mass-scaled peak energies, the t^-10/3 light curve, and the t^-65/24 decay are concrete signatures that can be tested by future surveys. The model is constructed before the diffuse-flux comparison, so the predictions are not tuned to an observable. The main weakness is that the absolute energies and luminosities are controlled by three uncalibrated parameters (zeta=0.1, plasma beta=3, eta_cr=0.1), with the acceleration-time balance entering through Eqs. (33), (31), and (47). If these parameters are off by modest factors, the non-MAD RIAF prediction falls below 10 TeV. The paper is therefore a useful framework, but its quantitative claims are conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1–2.3, Eqs. (33), (31), (47)] The absolute maximum proton energy in the non-MAD RIAF case is set by the uncalibrated combination gamma_diff ∝ ζ^3 β_p^-2 (Eq. 47, with the plasma beta entering through Eq. 31 and ζ through Eq. 33). The text states 'Throughout this paper, ζ = 0.1 is adopted' immediately after Eq. (33), and uses β_p = 3, but no observational or numerical constraint on ζ in TDE disks is provided. Lowering ζ from 0.1 to 0.03 alone reduces E_p,diff from 0.45 PeV to about 12 TeV, and raising β_p from 3 to 27 reduces it to about 5.6 TeV; either change moves the predicted 0.35 PeV neutrino peak below 10 TeV and removes one of the three claimed promising sites. Please add a sensitivity study over ζ and β_p (and, for the luminosities, over η_cr = 0.1) or explicitly frame all absolute values as conditional on these parameters.
  2. [Abstract, §3, §5 (item 5)] The headline neutrino energy of the super-Eddington MAD case is quoted with inconsistent normalizations: the abstract gives E_ν,pk ≈ 67 TeV (M_bh/10^7.7 M_sun)^(41/48), Section 3 gives E_ν,pk ≈ 80 TeV (M_bh/10^7 M_sun)^(41/48), and Section 5 Conclusion item 5 gives ≈ 67 TeV (M_bh/10^7 M_sun)^(41/48). If E_p,sync ≈ 0.35 PeV at 10^7.7 M_sun and E_ν,pk ≈ 0.19 E_p,sync, the value at 10^7 M_sun would be about 17 TeV, not 80 TeV. Please unify the prefactor and the mass normalization, and recompute the associated numerical values.
  3. [Abstract; §4; §5, item 7] The abstract lists the radiatively inefficient MAD RIAF as one of the 'three promising cases', but Conclusion 7 states that its neutrino luminosity is 'too weak to be detected with the current sensitivity of IceCube', and Section 4's detection-rate estimates only cover the super-Eddington MAD and the non-MAD RIAF. This is an internal inconsistency in the paper's central claim; please either define 'promising' as 'produces neutrinos regardless of detectability' and state this explicitly, or remove the radiatively inefficient MAD from the list of promising cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (31), (47), (48)] The magnetic field strength B and the plasma beta (called 'B' in Eq. 31) use overlapping notation; for example, Eq. (47) uses (B/3) for the plasma beta while B elsewhere denotes the field. Please use distinct symbols (e.g., script B for plasma beta) throughout.
  2. [Eq. (28) and reference list] There are typographical artifacts: the text around Eq. (28) duplicates 'mfb', and the reference 'Stawarz, /suppress L.' contains a LaTeX command that should be removed.
  3. [Fig. 2] The labels in panel (b) of Figure 2 appear garbled in the provided electronic version; please verify the figure rendering.
  4. [§4] The diffuse-flux estimate for the super-Eddington MAD assumes that 'about 1% of the observed TDE rate experiences the super-Eddington MAD state' without justification; adding a brief rationale or an explicit uncertainty would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: the neutrino spectral predictions are outputs of assumed microphysics and external timescale formulas; the self-citations are peripheral, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central predictions (Ep,diff in the non-MAD RIAF, Ep,sync in the super-Eddington and radiatively inefficient MAD states) are obtained by equating the stochastic acceleration time of equation (33) with diffusion, synchrotron, or Compton-drag timescales (equations 36, 37, 35). These timescale formulae are taken from external references (Kimura et al. 2015; Becker et al. 2006; Stawarz & Petrosian 2008), and no IceCube event, no individual TDE, and no diffuse-flux measurement is used to set them. The parameters zeta = 0.1, beta_plasma = 3, and eta_cr = 0.1 are declared fiducial assumptions, not fitted to the predicted neutrino energies; their sensitivity is real but it is assumption-dependence, not circularity. The diffuse-flux comparison in Section 4 is made after the model is constructed, using the model's own luminosities, so it is a consistency check rather than a fitted input. The self-citations (Hayasaki et al. 2013, 2016 for debris circularization; Hayasaki et al. 2018 for marginally hyperbolic TDEs) influence the phase timeline and the early RIAF onset, but they do not enter the equations determining the quoted proton and neutrino energies (equations 47, 55, 58), so they are not load-bearing for the central claim. A separate consistency issue exists in the quoted super-Eddington MAD neutrino peak energy (67 TeV in the abstract and conclusions versus 80 TeV in Section 3, with different mass normalizations), but this is a numerical/typographical inconsistency, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions are scaling relations built from adopted parameter values and prior disk, turbulence, and MAD models. No target observable is used to set these values, so the ledger is long but not circular. The most influential free parameters are zeta, plasma beta, and eta_cr.

free parameters (9)
  • zeta (turbulence amplitude) = 0.1
    Adopted after equation (33); directly sets the stochastic acceleration timescale and shifts the maximum proton energy in all three promising cases.
  • s (turbulence spectral index) = 5/3
    Adopted in equations (41), (45), (52), and elsewhere; controls the shape of the spectra and the light-curve power-law indices.
  • plasma beta (script B) = 3
    Used in the equipartition magnetic field estimate in equation (31) and in many numerical normalizations; sets the field strength in the non-MAD cases.
  • alpha (viscosity parameter) = 0.1
    Used in the standard disk density and infall estimates in equations (17)-(19) and in the RIAF density normalization.
  • beta (penetration factor) = 1
    Used throughout to set the pericenter radius and density normalizations; all quoted energies and light curves depend on this choice.
  • eta_cr (proton injection efficiency) = 0.1
    Adopted as a fiducial value in Section 3; sets the absolute proton and neutrino luminosity scale in every scenario.
  • epsilon (MAD diffusion velocity normalization) = 0.01
    Used in equations (48)-(50) to set the MAD magnetic field strength and density; the super-Eddington MAD neutrino energy scales strongly with this parameter.
  • eta_MAD (radiative efficiency in MAD) = 0.15
    Taken from McKinney et al. (2015) and used in the Compton drag estimate in equation (52).
  • eta_circ (circularization efficiency) = 0.1
    Used in equation (10) to set the circularization timescale and the duration of the first phase; secondary to the neutrino predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The TDE mass fallback rate follows the standard t^-5/3 decline and the disk evolves through the four phases of equation (16).
    Used in equations (8)-(16) to define the super-Eddington and RIAF windows; if the fallback or circularization differs, the phase timing changes.
  • domain assumption Second-order Fermi acceleration by magnetic turbulence with the Kimura et al. (2015) timescale operates in TDE disks.
    Equation (33) is the basis for all maximum proton energies; this is a strong modeling assumption about the presence and spectrum of turbulence in TDE remnants.
  • domain assumption The MAD magnetic field is estimated by equating gravitational force per unit area with magnetic pressure, with radial diffusion speed epsilon v_ff.
    Equation (48) gives the enhanced field in the MAD state; the super-Eddington MAD results depend on this scaling.
  • domain assumption Protons are injected with efficiency eta_cr = 0.1 and follow the distribution functions of Becker et al. (2006) and Stawarz & Petrosian (2008).
    Equations (60) and (66) set the spectral shapes and normalizations; the neutrino luminosities scale linearly with eta_cr.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field in non-MAD disks is in energy equipartition with plasma beta = 3.
    Equation (31) sets the field strength in the RIAF and super-Eddington non-MAD cases; the proton energies scale as powers of this field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Emissions from Tidal Disruption Remnants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXF7FEPK

@misc{pith2026190810882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Emissions from Tidal Disruption Remnants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXF7FEPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10882}
}
abstract

We study high-energy neutrino emissions from tidal disruption remnants (TDRs) around supermassive black holes. The neutrinos are produced by the decay of charged pions originating in ultrarelativistic protons that are accelerated there. In the standard theory of tidal disruption events (TDEs), there are four distinct phases from debris circularization of stellar debris to super- and sub-Eddington to radiatively inefficient accretion flows (RIAFs). In addition, we consider the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state in both the super-Eddington accretion and RIAF phases. We find that there are three promising cases to produce neutrino emissions: the super-Eddington accretion phase of the MAD state and the RIAF phases of both the non-MAD and MAD states. In the super-Eddington MAD state, the enhanced magnetic field makes it possible to accelerate the protons to $E_{p,max}~0.35 PeV (M_bh/10^{7.7}M_\odot)^{41/48}$ with the other given appropriate parameters. The neutrino energy is then $E_{\nu,pk}~67 TeV (M_bh/10^{7.7}M_\odot)^{41/48}$ at the peak of the energy spectrum. For $M_bh\gtrsim10^{7.7} M_\odot$, the neutrino light curve is proportional to $t^{-65/24}$, while it follows the standard $t^{-5/3}$ decay rate for $M_bh<10^{7.7} M_\odot$. In both cases, the large luminosity and characteristic light curves diagnose the super-Eddington MAD state in TDEs. In the RIAF phase of the non-MAD state, we find $E_{p, max}~0.45 PeV (M_bh/10^7M_\odot)^{5/3}$ and $E_{\nu,pk}~0.35 PeV (M_bh/10^7M_\odot)^{5/3}$, and its light curve is proportional to $t^{-10/3}$. This indicates that one can identify whether the existing RIAFs are the TDE origin or not. TDRs are potentially a population of hidden neutrino sources invisible in gamma rays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Dependence of the characteristic timescales normalized by t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The differential luminosity spectra of the protons and neutr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the Blueprint of Active Galaxies Producing Neutrinos

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Neutrinos from active galaxies are produced in compact X-ray-bright coronae within about ten Schwarzschild radii of the black hole, and such sources may supply the diffuse neutrino flux.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

    Aab, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al.\ 2017, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 2017, 38

    2017

  4. [4]

    G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., et al.\ 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 021103

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., et al.\ 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 021103

    2013

  5. [5]

    A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J

    Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., & Szuszkiewicz, E.\ 1988, , 332, 646

    1988

  6. [6]

    Alves Batista, R., & Silk, J.\ 2017, , 96, 103003

    2017

  7. [7]

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

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

    2016

  8. [8]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 38

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 38

    2014

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Auchettl, K., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E.\ 2017, , 838, 149

    2017

  2. [10]

    Baerwald, P., Bustamante, M., & Winter, W.\ 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 62, 66

    2015

  3. [11]

    A., Le, T., & Dermer, C

    Becker, P. A., Le, T., & Dermer, C. D.\ 2006, , 647, 539

    2006

  4. [12]

    Biehl, D., Boncioli, D., Lunardini, C., & Winter, W.\ 2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 10828

    2018

  5. [13]

    Biehl, D., Boncioli, D., Fedynitch, A., et al.\ 2018, , 611, A101

    2018

  6. [14]

    S., Ruzmaikin A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan G. S., Ruzmaikin A. A., 1974, Ap&SS, 28, 45

    1974

  7. [15]

    et al, 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2253

    Bonnerot, C. et al, 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2253

    2016

  8. [16]

    M., & Lodato, G.\ 2017, , 464, 2816

    Bonnerot, C., Rossi, E. M., & Lodato, G.\ 2017, , 464, 2816

    2017

  9. [17]

    C., Levan, A

    Brown, G. C., Levan, A. J., Stanway, E. R., et al.\ 2015, , 452, 4297

    2015

  10. [18]

    N., Kennea, J

    Burrows, D. N., Kennea, J. A., Ghisellini, G., et al.\ 2011, , 476, 421

    2011

  11. [19]

    B., Krimm, H

    Cenko, S. B., Krimm, H. A., Horesh, A., et al.\ 2012, , 753, 77

    2012

  12. [20]

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., Gezari, S., et al.\ 2014, , 780, 44

    2014

  13. [21]

    C., & Miller, M

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., & Miller, M. C.\ 2015, , 812, L39

    2015

  14. [22]

    Dai, L., & Fang, K.\ 2017, , 469, 1354

    2017

  15. [23]

    C., Roth, N., et al.\ 2018, , 859, L20

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., et al.\ 2018, , 859, L20

    2018

  16. [24]

    D., Miller, J

    Dermer, C. D., Miller, J. A., & Li, H.\ 1996, , 456, 106

    1996

  17. [25]

    L., Brandt W

    Donley J. L., Brandt W. N., Eracleous M., Boller T., 2002, AJ, 124, 1308

    2002

  18. [26]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S.\ 1989, , 346, L13

    1989

  19. [27]

    R., & Gruzinov, A.\ 2009, , 693, 329

    Farrar, G. R., & Gruzinov, A.\ 2009, , 693, 329

    2009

  20. [28]

    R., & Piran, T.\ 2014, arXiv:1411.0704

    Farrar, G. R., & Piran, T.\ 2014, arXiv:1411.0704

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gallegos-Garcia, M., Law-Smith, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E.\ 2018, , 857, 109

    2018

  22. [30]

    C., Milliard, B., et al.\ 2006, , 653, L25

    Gezari, S., Martin, D. C., Milliard, B., et al.\ 2006, , 653, L25

    2006

  23. [31]

    2012, Nature, 485, 217

    Gezari, S., Chornock, R., Rest, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 217

    2012

  24. [32]

    Gu \'e pin, C., Kotera, K., Barausse, E., et al.\ 2018, , 616, A179

    2018

  25. [33]

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Rosswog, S., & Kasen, D.\ 2009, , 705, 844

    2009

  26. [34]

    D., & Berger, E.\ 2016, , 822, 48

    Guillochon, J., McCourt, M., Chen, X., Johnson, M. D., & Berger, E.\ 2016, , 822, 48

    2016

  27. [35]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 909

    Hayasaki, K., Stone, N., Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 909

    2013

  28. [36]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 3760

    Hayasaki, K., Stone, N., Loeb, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3760

    2016

  29. [37]

    Hayasaki, K., Zhong, S., Li, S., et al.\ 2018, , 855, 129

    2018

  30. [38]

    W.-S., Prieto, J

    Holoien, T. W.-S., Prieto, J. L., Bersier, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3263

    2014

  31. [39]

    W.-S., Kochanek, C

    Holoien, T. W.-S., Kochanek, C. S., Prieto, J. L., et al.\ 2016, , 455, 2918

    2016

  32. [40]

    Hung, T., Gezari, S., Blagorodnova, N., et al.\ 2017, , 842, 29

    2017

  33. [41]

    IceCube Collaboration, et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05792

    2019

  34. [42]

    Jiang, Y.-F., Guillochon, J., & Loeb, A.\ 2016, , 830, 125

    2016

  35. [43]

    W., 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.02845

    Jiang Y.-F., Stone J., Davis S. W., 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.02845

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. Kato, J. Fukue, S. Mineshige,

  37. [45]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V. V.\ 2006, , 74, 034018

    2006

  38. [46]

    S., Murase, K., & Toma, K.\ 2015, , 806, 159

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Toma, K.\ 2015, , 806, 159

    2015

  39. [47]

    S., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2004, , 615, 855

    Kobayashi, S., Laguna, P., Phinney, E. S., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2004, , 615, 855

    2004

  40. [48]

    S.\ 2016, , 458, 127

    Kochanek, C. S.\ 2016, , 458, 127

    2016

  41. [49]

    S.\ 2016, , 461, 371

    Kochanek, C. S.\ 2016, , 461, 371

    2016

  42. [50]

    Komossa, J

    S. Komossa, J. Greiner, Astron. Astrophys. 349, L45 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Komossa S., Bade N., 1999, A&A, 343, 775

    1999

  44. [52]

    Genzel., et al., Mon

    R. Genzel., et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 317, 348 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    R., & Pringle, J

    Lodato, G., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E.\ 2009, , 392, 332

    2009

  46. [54]

    Lunardini, C., & Winter, W.\ 2017, , 95, 123001

    2017

  47. [55]

    J. G. Hills, Nature 254, 295 (1975)

    1975

  48. [56]

    Di Matteo, V

    T. Di Matteo, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, Nature 433, 604 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Merritt, M

    D. Merritt, M. Y. Poon, Astrophys. J. 606, 788 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    Mahadevan, R.\ 1997, , 477, 585

    1997

  51. [59]

    P., Ulmer, M

    Maksym, W. P., Ulmer, M. P., Eracleous, M. C., Guennou, L., & Ho, L. C.\ 2013, , 435, 1904

    2013

  52. [60]

    D., Avara M

    Marshall M. D., Avara M. J., McKinney J. C., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1837

    2018

  53. [61]

    C., Tchekhovskoy A., Blandford R

    McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., Blandford R. D., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083

    2012

  54. [62]

    C., Dai L., Avara M

    McKinney J. C., Dai L., Avara M. J., 2015, MNRAS, 454, L6

    2015

  55. [63]

    M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2017, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 67, 45

    2017

  56. [64]

    M.\ 2010, , 81, 062002

    Merritt, D., Alexander, T., Mikkola, S., & Will, C. M.\ 2010, , 81, 062002

    2010

  57. [65]

    J., Cole R

    Moore C. J., Cole R. H., Berry C. P. L., 2015, CQGra, 32, 15014

    2015

  58. [66]

    Murase, K.\ 2008, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 201

    2008

  59. [67]

    Murase, K., & Fukugita, M.\ 2019, , 99, 63012

    2019

  60. [68]

    Murase, K., Guetta, D., & Ahlers, M.\ 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 071101

    2016

  61. [69]

    Murase, K., & Ioka, K.\ 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 121102

    2013

  62. [70]

    V., Abramowicz M

    Narayan R., Igumenshchev I. V., Abramowicz M. A., 2003, PASJ, 55, L69

    2003

  63. [71]

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I.\ 1994, , 428, L13

    1994

  64. [72]

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

    1995

  65. [73]

    L. E. Strubbe, E. Quataert, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 400, 2070 (2009)

    2009

  66. [74]

    Ohsuga, M

    K. Ohsuga, M. Mori, T. Nakamoto, S. Mineshige, Astrophys. J. 628, 368 (2005)

    2005

  67. [75]

    Wilms et al., Mon

    J. Wilms et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 328, L27 (2001)

    2001

  68. [76]

    Phinney, E. S. 1989, in IAU Symp. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. Morris (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 543

    1989

  69. [77]

    N., Kovetz, E

    Pfeffer, D. N., Kovetz, E. D., & Kamionkowski, M.\ 2017, , 466, 2922

    2017

  70. [78]

    M., & Shiokawa, H.\ 2015, , 806, 164

    Piran, T., Svirski, G., Krolik, J., Cheng, R. M., & Shiokawa, H.\ 2015, , 806, 164

    2015

  71. [79]

    J., 1998, Nature 333, 523

    Rees, M. J., 1998, Nature 333, 523

    1998

  72. [80]

    D., Read, A

    Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Esquej, P., et al.\ 2012, , 541, A106

    2012

  73. [81]

    Senno, N., Murase, K., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2017, , 838, 3

    2017

  74. [82]

    H., Cheng, R

    Shiokawa, H., Krolik, J. H., Cheng, R. M., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C.\ 2015, , 804, 85

    2015

  75. [83]

    Stone, N., Sari, R., Loeb, A., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1809

    2013

  76. [84]

    Stone, N., Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 859

    2016

  77. [85]

    Stawarz, ., & Petrosian, V.\ 2008, , 681, 1725

    2008

  78. [86]

    Thompson, C., & Blaes, O.\ 1998, , 57, 3219

    1998

  79. [87]

    R., 2014, ApJ, 792, 53

    van Velzen, S., Farrar, G. R., 2014, ApJ, 792, 53

    2014

  80. [88]

    E., Stone, N

    van Velzen, S., Anderson, G. E., Stone, N. C., et al.\ 2016, Science, 351, 62

    2016

  81. [89]

    Vink\'o, J., et al., 2015, ApJ, 798, 12

    2015

  82. [90]

    M., et al.\ 2015, , 798, 12

    Vink \'o , J., Yuan, F., Quimby, R. M., et al.\ 2015, , 798, 12

    2015

  83. [91]

    Wang, J., Merritt, D., 2004, ApJ, 600, 149

    2004

  84. [92]

    S.\ 2011, , 84, 081301

    Wang, X.-Y., Liu, R.-Y., Dai, Z.-G., & Cheng, K. S.\ 2011, , 84, 081301

    2011

  85. [93]

    Wang, X.-Y., & Liu, R.-Y.\ 2016, , 93, 083005

    2016

  86. [94]

    Wang, J.-M., & Zhou, Y.-Y.\ 1999, , 516, 420

    1999

  87. [95]

    ya ., 2006, ApJ, 648, 523

    Watarai K.-. ya ., 2006, ApJ, 648, 523

    2006

  88. [96]

    Waxman, E.\ 1995, , 75, 386

    1995

  89. [97]

    Waxman, E., & Loeb, A.\ 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87, 071101

    2001

  90. [98]

    A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A

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

    2011

  91. [99]

    T., Murase, K., Oikonomou, F., & Li, Z.\ 2017, , 96, 063007

    Zhang, B. T., Murase, K., Oikonomou, F., & Li, Z.\ 2017, , 96, 063007

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.