Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Late-time Evolution and Instabilities of Tidal Disruption Disks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that debris disks left by tidal disruption events do not fade steadily: about 100 days after the disruption they become thermally unstable and cycle between super-Eddington flares and slowly re-brightening low states for…

desk verdict A clear, honest semi-analytic survey of TDE disk thermal cycles; the physics is standard, the predictions are concrete, and the central caveat is openly acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01922 v2 pith:X4OE6IZI submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.HE

Anthony L. Piro , Brenna Mockler This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsaccretiondisksthermalinstabilitysuper-Eddingtonalpha-diskviscositylate-timeTDEemissiondelayedradioflaresfallback
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

The paper argues that the debris disk left after a star is torn apart does not settle into a steady fading flow. Roughly $100$ days after the disruption, the disk becomes thermally unstable and then cycles between a short, super-Eddington high-accretion state and a long, dim low-accretion state for up to about ten years. In the high state the disk launches outflows of $\sim10^{-3}$ to $10^{-1}\,M_\odot$ at speeds of $\sim0.03$ to $0.3c$ over one to two days, and collisions between successive ejections could be the source of delayed radio flares. In the low state, continued fallback slowly rebuilds the disk and its optical/UV luminosity climbs to $\sim10^{41}$ to $10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, matching late-time observations. If this picture is right, several long-standing puzzles of late-time TDE emission would be different manifestations of a single recurring disk instability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the thermal instability of a radiation-pressure-dominated, radiatively cooled accretion disk. The model is a one-zone disk: it tracks total disk mass and angular momentum at a characteristic radius $R_d$, with the accretion rate set by local energy balance $9\nu\Sigma\Omega^2/8 = acT^4/(3\kappa\Sigma) + \dot M c_s^2 \xi/(2\pi R_d^2)$, and uses the $\alpha$-disk viscosity $\nu=\alpha P/(\Omega\rho)$ with the total pressure $P=P_g+P_r$. Along a sequence of equilibrium solutions, the branch with $dT/d\Sigma<0$ is thermally unstable, so when the evolving disk crosses into that region it cycles counterclockwise in the $\Sigma$–$T$ plane. The one-zone time evolution determines when the disk enters the unstable region and therefore sets the onset, duration, and recurrence of the flares.

What would settle it

Monitor one TDE from roughly $100$ days to $10$ years after disruption with UV/optical cadence of days. The model predicts repeated abrupt brightenings by more than an order of magnitude lasting one to two days, each followed by a slow rise over months to years. A light curve with no such repeated cycles, or with the first state transition arriving more than about a year after disruption for a $10^6\,M_\odot$ black hole, would contradict the model; so would a decade of radio monitoring with no delayed flares despite repeated predicted high states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a standard $\alpha$-disk with viscosity proportional to the total (gas plus radiation) pressure, $\nu=\alpha P/(\Omega\rho)$, is thermally unstable in the radiation-pressure-dominated regime, and TDE disks necessarily enter this regime because fallback keeps feeding them for months to years. On the unstable branch, heating and cooling no longer balance stably: the disk jumps to a hot, super-Eddington state, drains its mass quickly, then drops to a cool low state where fallback slowly rebuilds it until the next jump. The authors find the cycles typically begin $\sim100$ days after the TDE and continue for up to $\sim10$ years, with the high states lasting only about one to two days and ejecting $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-1}\,M_\odot$ at $0.03$ to $0.3c$. Using OPAL opacities, the low state acquires a two-tiered structure from the iron-opacity bump, which helps it reach the UV/optical luminosities seen years after some TDEs. The authors also note that magnetic fields or heating from the fallback stream could stabilize the disk; they explore fallback heating and find it can suppress the instability while the fallback rate is high.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the disk viscosity follows the classical $\alpha$-prescription with the total pressure, $\nu=\alpha P/(\Omega\rho)$; if magnetic fields, convection, or shock heating from the fallback stream stabilize the radiation-pressure-dominated disk, the high/low cycles, the ejections, and the associated radio flares would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thermal-instability cycles begin roughly $100$ days after the TDE and can persist for up to about ten years, so late-time optical/UV emission from TDE disks should be strongly variable rather than steady.
  • Each high state is super-Eddington, lasts one to two days, and ejects $\sim10^{-3}$ to $10^{-1}\,M_\odot$ at $\sim0.03$ to $0.3c$; collisions among successive ejections are a plausible origin for the delayed radio flares observed in many TDEs.
  • In the low state the disk mass and accretion rate grow slowly over months to years, giving UV luminosities of $\sim10^{41}$ to $10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$; the same model predicts order-of-magnitude UV variations but only factor-of-a-few optical variations, roughly matching existing $g$- and $r$-band light curves.
  • Lower black hole masses cycle faster and eject less mass per flare, so the timing and energetics of late-time flares could provide a new way to estimate the black hole mass in a TDE.
  • Fallback-stream heating can stabilize the disk while the fallback rate is high, so the early evolution may be smooth in some events even though the later cycles still occur; whether cycles appear at all depends on unresolved disk physics such as magnetic-field stabilization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the cycles are real, single snapshot UV observations are biased toward the brighter moments of the low-state rise, so the observed late-time UV sample may systematically overrepresent disks caught at high mass; high-cadence UV monitoring should catch the predicted dim phases.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted ejections repeat with a waiting time set by the disk cycle, so radio light curves should show quasi-periodic flares rather than a single event; sparse radio sampling could miss most of them, making targeted radio follow-up after an optical/UV state transition a sharper test.
  • Beyond the paper: the same thermal-instability cycling should operate in any fallback-fed radiation-pressure-dominated disk, including disks formed by partial disruptions or by eccentric accretion onto lower-mass black holes; measuring whether such systems show similar episodic outflows would test the mechanism outside the original TDE setting.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct measurement of the high-state outflow mass and velocity from radio afterglow modeling would calibrate the model's ejection efficiency parameter $p$, which currently sets the mass-loss rate through Equation (10).
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a semi-analytic one-zone model for the long-term (years to decades) evolution of a TDE accretion disk fed by stellar fallback. The model solves for disk mass and angular momentum evolution using a Shakura-Sunyaev alpha-viscosity with total pressure, OPAL or analytic opacities, and an implicit thermal-equilibrium closure, including mass loss via a radius-dependent accretion rate. The central result is that radiation-pressure-dominated disks are thermally unstable and undergo repeated high/low accretion-state cycles beginning around 100 days after the TDE and lasting up to ~10 yr, with super-Eddington high states ejecting ~10^-3 to 10^-1 Msun at ~0.03-0.3c; low states produce late-time optical/UV luminosities within an order of magnitude of observed TDE plateau emission. The authors validate their code in the Shen & Matzner (2014) limit, explore variations of MBH, M*, alpha, and p, discuss stabilization by fallback heating and magnetic fields, and compare with late-time UV and radio observations qualitatively.

Significance. If the repeated-cycle picture is correct, it would provide a unified explanation for late-time UV variability, delayed radio flares, and state-dependent TDE disk behavior, making TDE disks a useful laboratory for radiation-pressure instability. Strengths of the paper are its transparency: the equations and time-stepping are clear, the comparison to Shen & Matzner (2014) is an external benchmark, the use of OPAL opacities is a concrete improvement, and the caveats are prominently acknowledged. However, the predictive content is heavily conditioned on an unresolved microphysical assumption—total-pressure alpha-viscosity with radiatively cooled, thermally unstable disks—and on the neglect of fallback-stream heating. The paper is therefore a well-executed parameter study of a hypothesized regime rather than a robust prediction; its significance will be settled by the sensitivity tests and targeted observations it proposes.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (15), Fig. 3] The central claim of the paper—that TDE disks repeatedly cycle between high and low accretion states—is produced by the choice nu = alpha P/(Omega rho) with P = P_g + P_rad in Eq. (15); this is what creates the dT/dSigma < 0 unstable branch in Fig. 3. The authors correctly note (Section 2.3 and Section 6) that using P = P_g (Sakimoto & Coroniti 1981; van Velzen et al. 2019) removes the instability and that magnetic stresses or fallback heating may stabilize the disk (Alush & Stone 2025). Because every quantitative prediction in Figures 8-15 is downstream of this choice, the paper needs a quantitative sensitivity study: for representative TDE parameters, recompute the evolution with a gas-pressure-only viscosity and with a prescription in which magnetic pressure stabilizes the disk, and report the fraction of parameter space in which cycles survive. The abstract and conclusions should then be phrased as explicitly conditional on this prescription rather than as a definite finding.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eq. (19), Fig. 4] Fallback-stream heating with eta of order unity removes the thermal instability at early times (Fig. 4), and the authors state in Section 2.4 that they have run time-dependent calculations with different heating levels but do not present them. This is a load-bearing omission because the claimed onset at ~100 days occurs early in the fallback epoch, when Mdot_fb is at its largest. I request that the time evolution be shown for representative values of eta (including the eta << 1 case motivated by Bonnerot et al. 2021) and that the interval of fallback-to-Eddington ratios over which cycles are quenched be quantified. Without this, the paper cannot claim that cycles are typical.
  3. [Section 6 and Appendix A] The one-zone model assumes that all disk mass and angular momentum reside at a single radius R_d and that the disk is in instantaneous thermal equilibrium (Appendix A). The authors themselves note in Section 6 that a real disk would undergo an outside-in transition to the low state on a ~1 yr timescale, with implications for AT2018fyk and AT2021ehb. Because the predicted cycle phase, duration, and high-state mass ejections are all timed by the one-zone clock, the paper should either (i) validate the cycle epoch against a simple 1D diffusion calculation for a representative model, or (ii) explicitly state an uncertainty budget on cycle onset times and flare epochs arising from this approximation. As written, the comparison of cycle behavior to observations in Section 5 is not calibrated against this known systematic.
  4. [Section 5.1, Fig. 14] The comparison to late-time UV observations combines 12 different TDEs into a single panel and is not a fit; the model tracks are generated with hand-selected values of alpha, p, cos theta, M_BH, M_*, and beta. The text already cautions that Fig. 14 should not be viewed as a light curve, but the paper repeatedly refers to matching observations. I recommend making the qualitative nature of the comparison explicit in the abstract and conclusions, or replacing Fig. 14 with an event-by-event comparison (or a likelihood-style envelope test) so that the reader can judge whether the low-state luminosity is truly matched or merely plausible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The standard Shakura-Sunyaev effective-temperature profile has T_eff^4 proportional to 1 - (R_i/r)^{1/2}, not [1 - (R_i/r)]^{1/2}; please check the bracket and correct the SED normalization accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Fig. 9] The text says high-state flares occur out to approximately 6 yr, while the abstract quotes cycles lasting up to ~10 yr; please reconcile these values explicitly.
  3. [Section 3] The validation against Shen & Matzner (2014) uses modified prescriptions (Sigma = 2 rho H, nu = 2 alpha c_s H/3, etc.); please state explicitly that this reproduces the previous work only in that comparison limit and does not by itself validate the main-model assumptions.
  4. [Section 5.2] The claim that the radio flare parameters are similar to those from Cendes et al. (2024) is not supported by a quantitative comparison; please add a table or explicit ranges of radii, densities, and synchrotron luminosities, or soften the statement.
  5. [Section 6] There is a typo in the phrase 'especially the the UV with missions like ULTRASAT'; remove the duplicated article.
  6. [Appendix A] The convergence criterion epsilon < 10^-3 is stated without demonstrating convergence; adding a short convergence test for one representative model would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central predictions are derived from an explicit, externally benchmarked one-zone disk model and are not fitted to the observations they are compared with.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and not circular. The disk evolution solves the ODEs (11)-(12) for Md and Jd, with Mdot set by energy balance (17); the thermal instability arises from the stated alpha-disk viscosity with total pressure (15), an assumption the paper explicitly flags and contrasts with alternative prescriptions (Sakimoto & Coroniti 1981; van Velzen et al. 2019; Alush & Stone 2025). Predicted cycle times, Mflare values, and UV/radio luminosities are outputs of the model, not fitted quantities: parameters alpha, p, xi, and eta are chosen from prior literature or by hand, and the Section 5 comparisons are qualitative overlays rather than fits. The numerical scheme is independently benchmarked against Shen & Matzner (2014), including late-time scalings from Cannizzo et al. (1990). The only self-citations (Metzger et al. 2008; Mockler et al. 2019) are contextual or one standard parameterization among several citations, and they do not carry the central claim. The acknowledged sensitivity to the total-pressure viscosity is a physical assumption, not a definitional identity, so it is a robustness concern rather than circularity.

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

The model is built entirely from standard disk physics and prior TDE fallback calculations; there are no new particles or forces. The predictive content comes from combining these ingredients, and the main uncertainty is whether the alpha prescription with total pressure, which produces the instability, describes real TDE disks.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity) = 0.1 (default), 0.03 (explored)
    Chosen from standard practice, not fitted to TDE observations; sets the viscous timescale and therefore the cycle timing.
  • p (outflow mass-loss power-law index) = 0.5 (default), 0.2 (explored)
    Appears in Eq. (9) and sets how much mass is ejected during super-Eddington phases; chosen from prior wind models such as Metzger et al. 2008 and Yuan & Narayan 2014, not fitted to TDE data.
  • xi (logarithmic entropy gradient) = 1.5
    Advection cooling term in Eq. (16); set to a typical value following Watarai 2006 because it is of order unity.
  • eta (fallback heating efficiency) = 1 in the Section 2.4 exploration
    Used in Eq. (19) to estimate whether stream-disk collision heating can stabilize the disk; the paper notes eta and Mdot_fb are degenerate and the physical value is uncertain, likely small according to Bonnerot et al. 2021.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Disk viscosity follows the alpha prescription with total pressure, nu = alpha P/(Omega rho) (Eq. 15), so radiation-pressure-dominated disks are thermally unstable
    This is the load-bearing premise for the cycles; the authors note magnetic fields or a gas-pressure-only prescription could stabilize the disk (Sections 2.3 and 6).
  • domain assumption One-zone approximation: most disk mass and angular momentum sit at Rd, with the interior in steady state
    Introduced in Section 2; the authors acknowledge in Section 6 that a 1D treatment is needed to capture outside-in transitions and radial structure.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium holds at every timestep (thermal time much shorter than viscous time)
    Stated in Appendix A; it lets the authors solve algebraic energy balance instead of time-evolving internal energy.
  • domain assumption Fallback material circularizes promptly and feeds the disk at rate Mdot_fb(t)
    Used in Eq. (11); the authors note Lense-Thirring precession and stream self-crossing uncertainties could delay circularized feeding (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Radiative cooling via local Rosseland mean opacity with no vertical convection
    Energy balance Eq. (17); the authors note convection may matter in super-Eddington states (Section 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Late-time Evolution and Instabilities of Tidal Disruption Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4OE6IZI

@misc{pith2026241201922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Late-time Evolution and Instabilities of Tidal Disruption Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4OE6IZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01922}
}
abstract

Observations of tidal disruption events (TDEs) on a timescale of years after the main flare show evidence of continued activity in the form of optical/UV emission, quasi-periodic eruptions, and delayed radio flares. Motivated by this, we explore the time evolution of these disks using semi-analytic models to follow the changing disk properties and feeding rate to the central black hole (BH). We find that thermal instabilities typically begin $\sim100\,{\rm days}$ after the TDE, causing the disk to cycle between high and low accretion states for up to $\sim10\,{\rm yrs}$. The high state is super-Eddington, which may be associated with outflows that eject $\sim10^{-3}-10^{-1}\,M_\odot$ over $\sim1-2\,{\rm days}$ with a range of velocities of $\sim0.03-0.3c$. Collision between these mass ejections may cause radio flares. In the low state, the accretion rate slowly grows over months to years as continued fallback accretion builds the disk's mass. In this phase, the disk has a luminosity of $\sim10^{41}-10^{42}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ in the optical/UV as seen in some late-time observations. Although the accretion cycles we find occur for a typical $\alpha$-disk, in nature the disk could be stabilized by other effects such as the disk's magnetic field or heating from fallback accretion, the latter of which we explore. Thus higher cadence optical/UV observations along with joint radio monitoring will be key for following the disk state and testing these models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fallback accretion rate for tidal disruptions of stars using the work of Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz (2013) for M∗ = M⊙ with n = 4/3 and β = 1.85 (thick lines) and 0.5 M⊙ with n = 5/3 and β = 0.9 (thin lines). The three colors correspond to different values of MBH as indicated. of the disk evolution. Thus we use the numerical re￾sults of Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz (2013) for our full calculations, which we present for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contours of constant opacity for solar￾composition material from OPAL (solid colored lines) in comparison to an analytic Kramers plus electron scattering opacity given by Equation (18) (dashed colored lines). Dark￾red and red curves are contours of constant opacity with values of 0.34 cm2 g −1 and 0.4 cm2 g −1 , respectively. The orange through magenta curves are spaced logarithmically in intervals of 100.5 from 1.0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The black dashed line represents the surface den￾sity Σ and temperature T for equilibrium disk solutions using MBH = 106 M⊙, α = 0.1, a fixed radius of Rd = 3 × 1013 cm, and varying M˙ from high to low values going from top to bottom. Cooling beats heating on the left of these solu￾tions, and heating beats cooling on the right. The red solid line shows an example disk evolution. The disk starts from the bottom-left … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The black dashed line matches the same line from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same disk evolution solutions as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the disk radius and accretion evolution for four different models. In each case, we use MBH = 106 M⊙, M∗ = M⊙, and β = 1 with the analytic fallback rate given in Equation (3). In the upper plot, we set α = 0.01 and compare κ = κes (blue solid lines, meant…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the accretion rate M˙ , disk mass Md, and disk radius Rd over the first year using M∗ = M⊙, β = 1.85, α = 0.1, and p = 0.5 for three different values of MBH as indicated. The black lines delineate the fallback accretion rate M˙ fb. This helps us better foc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same models as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The duration of the high state (top panel) and estimate of mass ejected in a flare (bottom panel) using the models from Figures 7 and 8. Different mass BHs are desig￾nated different symbols and colors as indicated. causes the cycling between high and low states to be s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Characteristic spectral energy distributions for three different BH masses. In each case, the shaded region represents the range of M˙ values possible during the low state (see text for the specific values considered). All models use M∗ = M⊙, β = 1.85, α = 0.1, p = 0.…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the isotropic equivalent lumi￾nosity at 150 nm for 3 different BH masses with the observa￾tions summarized in van Velzen et al. (2019). Detections are shown as filled squares while upper limits are open triangles. Note that this is a combination of obser…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Triple radio flares from tidal disruption events: jet-wind collisions and the discovery of a third radio flare from AT2020vwl

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The TDE AT2020vwl showed a third radio flare at the time a jet-wind collision was predicted from its first two flares, the first predicted-and-confirmed third flare.

  2. A Vision-Language Framework for Multispectral Scene Representation Using Language-Grounded Features

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A lightweight projection layer trained to align frozen SpectralGPT multispectral features with LLaMA-3 text embeddings markedly improves EuroSAT classification and enables multispectral scene description.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  2. [2]

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

    Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  3. [3]

    Alush, Y., & Stone, N. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03811, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03811

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03811 2025

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Anumarlapudi, A., Dobie, D., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d3 2024

  5. [5]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Ponti, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243259 2022

  7. [7]

    2024, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 772, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  8. [8]

    Begelman, M. C. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237

    doi:10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 1979

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Pringle, J

    Begelman, M. C., & Pringle, J. E. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1070, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11372.x

    2007

  2. [10]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x

    1999

  3. [11]

    Bonnerot, C., Lu, W., & Hopkins, P. F. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab398

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    Bricman, K., & Gomboc, A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Lee, H

    Cannizzo, J. K., Lee, H. M., & Goodman, J. 1990, ApJ, 351, 38, doi: 10.1086/168442

    1990 doi

  6. [14]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 —. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L9

    Dai, L., Escala, A., & Coppi, P. 2013, ApJL, 775, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L9

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

    2012

  13. [21]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  15. [23]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    Gafton, E., & Rosswog, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3127

    doi

  18. [26]

    J., Alexander, K

    Goodwin, A. J., Alexander, K. D., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 522, 5084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1258

    doi

  19. [27]

    J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Goodwin, A. J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.18665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.18665

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 —

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 —. 2015, ApJ, 809, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/166

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    H., & Blaes, O

    Hirose, S., Krolik, J. H., & Blaes, O. 2009, ApJ, 691, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/16

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Horesh, A., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2021a, Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    doi

  23. [31]

    2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    Horesh, A., Sfaradi, I., Fender, R., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    doi

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d8

    Hu, H., Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., Quataert, E., & Kuiper, R. 2022, ApJ, 934, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d8

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381 Jankoviƒ¸ c, T., Bonnerot, C., & Gomboc, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae580

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    W., & Stone, J

    Jiang, Y.-F., Davis, S. W., & Stone, J. M. 2016, ApJ, 827, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/10

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2013, ApJ, 778, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/65

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 199, doi: 10.1126/science.1207143

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    P., & Eardley, D

    Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1974, ApJL, 187, L1, doi: 10.1086/181377

    1974 doi

  32. [41]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12421, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12421 17

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Lu, W. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 3, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 127-1

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    Lu, W., Matsumoto, T., & Matzner, C. D. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1770

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    D., Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x

    2008

  38. [47]

    2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —. 2023b, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    doi

  39. [48]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    C., Johnson, L

    Mishra, B., Fragile, P. C., Johnson, L. C., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2245

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3742

    Mou, G., Wang, T., Wang, W., & Yang, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3742

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    Mummery, A., & Balbus, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa192

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    E., & Matsumoto, R

    Oda, H., Machida, M., Nakamura, K. E., & Matsumoto, R. 2009, ApJ, 697, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/16

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    Phinney, E. S. 1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. Morris, 543

    1989

  50. [59]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  52. [61]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, ApJ, 904, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 4397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw913

    Sadowski, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw913

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    J., & Coroniti, F

    Sakimoto, P. J., & Coroniti, F. V. 1981, ApJ, 247, 19, doi: 10.1086/159005

    1981 doi

  55. [64]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Fender, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    Sfaradi, I., Beniamini, P., Horesh, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 —. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/175.3.613

    1973 doi

  58. [67]

    Shen, R.-F., & Matzner, C. D. 2014, ApJ, 784, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/87

    2014 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    Steinberg, E., & Stone, N. C. 2024, Nature, 625, 463, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    M., & Pringle, J

    Stone, J. M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 461, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04138.x

    2001

  62. [71]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1270

    Stone, N., Sari, R., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1270

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    Teboul, O., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJL, 957, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    L., Kwan, T

    Thomsen, L. L., Kwan, T. M., Dai, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f van Velzen, S., Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol. 28

    1995

  66. [75]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 523, doi: 10.1086/505854

    Watarai, K.-y. 2006, ApJ, 648, 523, doi: 10.1086/505854

    2006 doi

  67. [76]

    2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    Arcodia, R. 2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1976

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    R., Pasham, D

    Wevers, T., Coughlin, E. R., Pasham, D. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f36

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac898a

    Yao, Y., Lu, W., Guolo, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac898a

    2022 doi

  71. [80]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  72. [81]

    A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/152

    2013 doi

  73. [82]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08012

    Zhuang, J., Shen, R.-F., Mou, G., & Lu, W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08012

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.