Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Radiative cooling changes the dynamics of magnetically arrested disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A critical accretion rate near 10^-5.5 times Eddington separates two dynamical regimes of magnetically arrested disks, with the MAD parameter and jet efficiency changing by about a factor of two across the transition.

desk verdict A plausible Eddington-scaled cooling threshold for MADs, with an analytic estimate and a spin-resolved GRMHD survey; the qualitative transition holds, but the absolute normalization is hostage to Te/Tp and deserves revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11440 v2 pith:3Q6XLXMJ submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.HE

Akshay Singh (1) , Damien Bégué (1) , Asaf Pe'er (1) ((1) Bar-Ilan University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magneticallyarresteddiskradiativecoolingsynchrotronemissionGRMHDsimulationjetefficiencyMADparameterblackholeaccretionEddingtonrate
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 magnetically arrested disks—accretion flows in which the magnetic field near the black hole is so strong that it regulates the inflow—have a sharp transition set by how fast matter falls in. Below about $\dot M_{\rm crit} \approx 10^{-5.5}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$, synchrotron cooling is too weak to matter and the disk behaves as in the standard no-cooling picture. Above that rate, cooling radiates the thermal energy as fast as accretion supplies it, so the disk reconfigures: the MAD parameter and jet efficiency move by about a factor of two, and magnetic forces take over from gas pressure in holding the disk in balance. The authors derive the critical rate analytically and confirm it with GRMHD simulations for five black hole spins and accretion rates from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-4}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$. If correct, the result is a mass-independent, Eddington-scaled dividing line for a whole class of accretion flows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is the MAD saturation condition $\phi_B = \Phi_B/\sqrt{\dot M} \approx 4\pi B r/\sqrt{4\pi \rho u^r}$, which ties the magnetic field strength near the horizon to the accretion rate; because $\phi_B$ saturates near a value of roughly 15–30 in a MAD, the magnetic field $B$ can be eliminated from the cooling rate and written in terms of $\dot M$. The electron Lorentz factor $\gamma_e$ is estimated from the no-cooling internal energy $u_g = n m_p (GM/r)$, giving $\gamma_e \approx (3/2)(\tau/(m_e c^2))(\Gamma-1)(GM/r)m_p$, with $\tau = T_e/T_p = 1/3$. Equating synchrotron emission with gravitational energy release then produces the closed-form critical rate of Eq. (6). This cancellation of the magnetic field strength through the MAD parameter is what makes the threshold independent of the black hole mass.

What would settle it

Run the same GRMHD setup at $\dot M = 10^{-5}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$ for spin $a=0.94$ while evolving the electron temperature separately instead of fixing $T_e = T_p/3$; if $\phi_B$ and $\eta$ stay at their no-cooling values rather than changing by about a factor of two, the threshold is an artifact of the temperature prescription.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that synchrotron cooling sets a threshold in magnetically arrested disks (MADs): once the mass accretion rate exceeds $\dot M_{\rm crit} \approx 10^{-5.5}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$, the synchrotron loss rate equals the gravitational energy gain rate of the accreting gas, so cooling stops being a small correction and starts shaping the disk. The threshold is derived by equating the synchrotron emissivity $Q_s = (4/3)c\sigma_T\gamma_e^2\beta_e^2 U_B n_e$ to the accretion heating rate $(GM/r^2)\rho u^r$, using the MAD saturation relation $\phi_B = \Phi_B/\sqrt{\dot M}$ to eliminate the magnetic field. The result depends on the saturated flux and on the electron-to-proton temperature ratio but not on the black hole mass. The simulations show $\phi_B$ and the jet efficiency $\eta$ changing by about a factor of two as $\dot M$ crosses $\dot M_{\rm crit}$, with the direction of the change depending on spin. The force balance shifts correspondingly: the thermal pressure gradient weakens and magnetic stresses take over.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold formula is built on the no-cooling electron temperature estimate with electrons fixed at one third of the proton temperature, so if the real electrons are cooler the predicted switch rate shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At accretion rates above $\sim 10^{-5.5}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$, the MAD parameter and jet efficiency deviate by roughly a factor of two from their no-cooling values, so radiative cooling must be included in models of such disks.
  • The transition is independent of black-hole mass, so the same Eddington-scaled switch should appear for stellar-mass black holes and for supermassive black holes.
  • Above the threshold, the thermal pressure gradient no longer dominates the radial force balance; magnetic stresses, and at the highest rates inertia, become the main support against gravity.
  • Below the threshold, cooling is dynamically negligible, so the standard non-radiative MAD results remain valid.
  • The radiative efficiency grows with accretion rate, from about 4% at $10^{-7}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$ to higher values above the critical rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A population-level prediction follows: observing jet power or radiative efficiency as a function of Eddington ratio across low-luminosity active nuclei and X-ray binaries should show a break near $\sim 10^{-5.5}$, because the critical rate does not scale with mass.
  • If the electron-to-proton temperature ratio rises to 8–10 near $10^{-4}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$, as the paper notes it may, the same derivation predicts a shifted threshold there; a two-temperature version of the calculation would quantify that shift.
  • The same flux-saturation logic could be applied to inverse Compton cooling at higher accretion rates, predicting a second dynamical transition where Compton losses become competitive.
  • The spin dependence of the jet-efficiency change suggests the sign of the black hole spin could be inferred, in principle, from how a source's jet responds to luminosity changes across the threshold.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that in magnetically arrested disks (MADs), synchrotron cooling becomes dynamically important above a critical Eddington-scaled accretion rate. The authors equate the synchrotron cooling rate (Eq. 2) with the gravitational energy gain rate (Eq. 3), use MAD flux saturation to express the magnetic field through the accretion rate, and derive Mdot_crit ≈ 2.8×10^-6 (A α)(φ_B/20)^-2 (τ/0.333)^-2 Mdot_Edd (Eq. 6), independent of black-hole mass. They then present GRMHD simulations with radiative cooling for five spins and target accretion rates 10^-7 to 10^-4 Mdot_Edd, reporting that the MAD parameter φ_B and jet efficiency η change by about a factor of 2 above this threshold (Fig. 4), and that the radial force balance shifts from thermal-pressure support toward magnetic and inertial support as cooling increases (Figs. 5–6).

Significance. The paper offers a compact, transparent heuristic for a potentially important transition in MAD dynamics. Its strengths are the explicit analytic parameterization, the multi-spin simulation suite, and the cross-checks against published radiative efficiencies at low accretion rate. If the threshold were robust to the assumed electron thermodynamics, it would provide a useful organizing result for low-luminosity AGN and X-ray binaries. As it stands, the absolute normalization of Mdot_crit is conditional on the assumed Te/Tp and on a no-cooling virial temperature estimate; the simulations adopt the same electron-temperature prescription and therefore do not independently validate the absolute threshold. The existence of a transition, and its rough Eddington scaling, are nevertheless credible and worth publishing once the main caveats are quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. The central quantitative claim, Mdot_crit ≈ 10^-5.5 Mdot_Edd, is fixed by two assumptions that the simulations do not test: (i) the full gravitational binding energy is converted to gas internal energy, u_g = n m_p GM/r, even in the cooling-dominated regime, and (ii) Te/Tp = 1/3. Equation (6) scales as τ^-2, so if Te/Tp at the threshold is closer to unity the threshold shifts down by nearly an order of magnitude, while if Te lies well below Tp it shifts up. The authors themselves call the no-cooling estimate "crude" immediately after Eq. (5), and Section 4 acknowledges that τ can increase toward 8–10 at high Mdot, but this is not folded into the error budget. Since Section 3.1 sets Te = Tp/3 in the cooling prescription, the numerical confirmation cannot break this degeneracy. I request either a two-temperature treatment or an explicit conditional statement of the threshold with a propagated uncertainty in τ.
  2. The empirical position of the transition is measured against the targeted accretion rate, but Fig. 1 (bottom right) shows that the effective, measured accretion rate deviates from the target by up to a factor of about 4 in the cooled runs; this alone shifts the apparent threshold by roughly 0.6 dex. Fig. 4 reports time-averaged φ_B and η without error bars, and each parameter point is a single realization, so the claimed factor-of-2 change and the non-monotonic behavior for negative spins (φ_B increases before decreasing) are not quantitatively supported. Please report variability intervals (e.g., 2σ or interquartile ranges) and, at minimum, consider plotting against the effective accretion rate rather than the targeted one.
  3. There is an internal tension in the quoted location of the threshold: Eq. (6) and the abstract give Mdot_crit ≈ 10^-5.5 Mdot_Edd, while the Fig. 4 caption states that φ_B changes around 10^-6 Mdot_Edd, a difference of more than half a decade. Because the numerical confirmation is visual against sparse points, the manuscript should either reconcile these numbers or present the transition as a range with an uncertainty derived from the scatter in Fig. 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. The definition of τ is inconsistent: Section 4 writes "τ = Tp/Te = 3," while Eqs. (5)–(6) and Section 3.1 use τ = Te/Tp; please correct the notation.
  2. The abstract states that the surveyed accretion rates range from 10^-7 to 10^-4 Mdot_Edd, but Section 3.1 says the simulations cover 10^-7 to 10^-3.5 Mdot_Edd; these numbers should be harmonized.
  3. The no-cooling simulations are plotted at a nominal accretion rate of 10^-8 Mdot_Edd; this should be explicitly labeled as a reference value rather than a physically evolved accretion rate.
  4. The text says that at low accretion rate φ_B and η are "roughly constants," but the right panel of Fig. 4 shows sizable variation even at the lowest rates for the highest spins; please specify the tolerance within which they are considered constant.
  5. The force-balance analysis is shown only for a = 0.94, while the text asserts that the results are consistent across spins; since the spin dependence of the transition is one of the paper's predictions, a compact cross-spin comparison (or an explicit statement that it is deferred to the companion paper) would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic Mdot_crit estimate is derived from standard radiative and MAD-saturation inputs, and the GRMHD simulations are compared to the prediction rather than fitted to it.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Section 2 is self-contained: Eq. (1) uses the independently established MAD saturation of phi_B, Eq. (2) is the standard synchrotron emissivity, Eq. (3) is the gravitational energy gain, Eq. (4) equates the two, Eq. (5) estimates the electron Lorentz factor from the virial internal energy with explicit assumptions (tau = Te/Tp = 1/3, Gamma = 14/9), and Eq. (6) gives Mdot_crit. No step defines the target quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The numerical simulations use the same tau = 1/3 and Gamma = 14/9 as the analytic estimate, which means the absolute normalization of Mdot_crit is not independently constrained with respect to those parameters; the paper explicitly acknowledges this sensitivity in Section 4, noting that tau could vary and that this could shift the critical rate. This is an assumption-sensitivity/caveat, not circularity, because the simulations evolve the fluid thermodynamics and the change in phi_B and jet efficiency around Mdot_crit is an emergent dynamical outcome rather than an imposed input. Self-citations (cuHARM code, MAD saturation values, spin dependence of phi_B) are supported by multiple external groups and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The mass normalization of the simulations is a setup choice from a no-cooling reference run, not a fit to the analytic threshold. Overall, the paper's central claim retains independent content and no circular reduction is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimate rests on five hand-chosen or assumed parameters (A, alpha, tau, Gamma, phi_B) and several domain assumptions about MAD saturation, electron temperature, and radiative processes. No new physical entities are introduced. The mass-independence claim is an analytic result but is only tested at a single BH mass.

free parameters (5)
  • Uncertainty factor A = 1 (assumed, order unity)
    Introduced in Eq. (4) to absorb order-unity errors in equating cooling and heating rates; final Mdot_crit is proportional to A.
  • Velocity normalization alpha = 1 (assumed, order unity)
    Used in Mdot = 4 pi r^2 rho alpha c to relate density to accretion rate; final Mdot_crit is proportional to alpha.
  • Electron-to-proton temperature ratio tau = Te/Tp = 1/3
    Chosen in Section 3.1; Mdot_crit scales as tau^-2, so this choice directly sets the numerical transition rate.
  • Adiabatic index Gamma = 14/9
    Chosen for the numerical simulations; enters (Gamma-1)^-2 in Mdot_crit.
  • Saturated MAD flux phi_B = 20
    Normalization uses phi_B = 20, a representative saturation value from prior simulations; actual simulated phi_B ranges roughly 15-40.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The MAD parameter phi_B saturates at roughly 15-30 independent of Mdot below the critical rate.
    Used in Section 2 to express B in terms of Mdot; supported by prior simulations, but Fig. 4 shows phi_B varying with Mdot.
  • standard math Synchrotron emissivity from thermal electrons is given by Eq. (2).
    Standard result from Rybicki and Lightman (1986).
  • standard math The perfect gas law and adiabatic relation p = (Gamma-1)u apply.
    Used to convert internal energy to temperature in Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption Electron temperature is a fixed fraction Te = Tp/3.
    Stated in Section 3.1; acknowledged in the discussion as varying above 1e-4 Mdot_Edd.
  • domain assumption Compton cooling and radiation back-reaction are negligible for Mdot <= 1e-4 Mdot_Edd.
    Section 3.1 and introduction, citing prior works.
  • ad hoc to paper The only spin-dependent quantity in the estimate is phi_B; A and alpha are spin-independent.
    Stated in Section 2 without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiative cooling changes the dynamics of magnetically arrested disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Q6XLXMJ

@misc{pith2026241211440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiative cooling changes the dynamics of magnetically arrested disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Q6XLXMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11440}
}
abstract

We studied magnetically arrested disks (MAD) around rotating black holes (BH), under the influence of radiative cooling. We introduce a critical value of the mass accretion rate $\dot M_{\rm crit}$ for which the cooling by the synchrotron process efficiently radiates the thermal energy of the disk. We find $\dot M_{\rm crit} \approx 10^{-5.5} \dot M_{\rm Edd}$, where $\dot M_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington mass accretion rate. The normalization constant depends on the saturated magnetic flux and on the ratio of electron to proton temperatures, but not on the BH mass. We verify our analytical estimate using a suite of general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations for a range of black hole spin parameters $a \in \{ -0.94, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 0.94 \}$ and mass accretion rates ranging from $10^{-7}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$ to $10^{-4}\dot M_{\rm Edd}$. We numerically observe that the MAD parameter and the jet efficiency vary by a factor of $\approx 2$ as the mass accretion rate increases above $\dot M_{\rm crit}$, which confirms our analytical result. We further detail how the forces satisfying the quasi-equilibrium of the disk change, with the magnetic contribution increasing as the thermal contribution decreases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the mass accretion rate M˙ (in normalized unit) for all our simulations with spin a = 0.94. The values are calculated at 5rg to avoid the effects of numerical floors in the highly magnetized regions close to the BH. The typical "cyclic" evolution of a MAD is clearly identifiable. The bottom right panel shows the effective mass accretion rate (M˙ eff ) as a function of the targeted mass accretion ra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A contour plot of Density (top), plasma β (bottom) for simulations with mass accretion rates of 10−6M˙ Edd (right) and 10−7M˙ Edd (left) for a black hole spin parameter a = 0.94 at 20500M. The plot shows regions of high magnetic flux which are the characteristics of MAD state. temperature variations. These results are consistent with expectations from radiatively cooled accretion flows, where thermal instabilities c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A contour plot of the electron temperature for simulations with mass accretion rates of 10−6M˙ Edd (right) and 10−7M˙ Edd (left) for a black hole spin parameter a = 0.94 at 29950M. Large variations in electron temperature are visible in the region above the accretion disk. In the analysis performed in Section 2, we demonstrated that cooling by synchrotron radiation in the MAD state may change the dynamics of the acc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: M˙ crit is a transition in the disk-jet evolution system for both the MAD parameter and the jet efficiency. The left panels show the time-averaged MAD parameter as a function of target mass accretion rate M˙ for several spins a ∈ {−0.94, −0.5, 0, 0.5, 0.94}. The simula…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time and ϕ average of the radial force balance as a function of the polar angle for a MAD around a rotating BH with spin a = 0.94 at r = 7rg for simulations with the cooling rate increasing from M˙ = 10−7M˙ Edd (top left), to M˙ = 10−4M˙ Edd (bottom right panel). We sh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time and ϕ average contributions to the radial force balance at the equator, as a function of the radius. BH spin a = 0.94 is assumed. Mass accretion rate increases from M˙ = 10−7M˙ Edd (top left) to M˙ = 10−4M˙ Edd (bottom right panel). We show the contribution of the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Fragile, P

    Abramowicz, M. A., & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2013-1

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-1 2013

  2. [2]

    C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J

    Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3790 Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., Zhang, G. Q., Zhang, B. B., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3790 2022

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca276

    Pevzner, B. 2023, ApJS, 264, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca276

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca276 2023

  4. [4]

    S., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1974, Ap&SS, 28, 45, doi: 10.1007/BF00642237 —. 1976, Ap&SS, 42, 401, doi: 10.1007/BF01225967

    doi:10.1007/bf00642237 1974

  5. [5]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  6. [6]

    Survey of Radiative, Two-Temperature Magnetically Arrested Simulations of the Black Hole M87* I: Turbulent Electron Heating

    Chael, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12448

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12448 2025

  7. [7]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 1241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2513

    Chashkina, A., Bromberg, O., & Levinson, A. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2513

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2513 2021

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    Chatterjee, K., & Narayan, R. 2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3330

    Curd, B., & Narayan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3330

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Dhruv, V., Prather, B., Wong, G., & Gammie, C. F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12647

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [12]

    K., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C. M., & Rezzolla, L. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3165

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Narayan, R., Ostriker, E., & Yi, I

    Esin, A. A., Narayan, R., Ostriker, E., & Yi, I. 1996, ApJ, 465, 312, doi: 10.1086/177421

    1996 doi

  5. [14]

    G., & Moncrief, V

    Fishbone, L. G., & Moncrief, V. 1976, ApJ, 207, 962, doi: 10.1086/154565

    1976 doi

  6. [15]

    2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd edn

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164245

    2002 doi

  7. [16]

    Igumenshchev, I. V. 2008, ApJ, 677, 317, doi: 10.1086/529025

    2008 doi

  8. [17]

    2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks: Towards a New Paradigm (Kyoto University Press, Kyodai Kaikan, Japan)

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks: Towards a New Paradigm (Kyoto University Press, Kyodai Kaikan, Japan)

    2008

  9. [18]

    Kawazura, Y., Barnes, M., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 771, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812491116

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a 13

    Musoke, G. 2024, ApJ, 966, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a 13

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4

    Porth, O. 2023, ApJL, 944, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    Liska, M. T. P., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., Porth, O., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 935, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    C., & Gammie, C

    McKinney, J. C., & Gammie, C. F. 2004, ApJ, 611, 977, doi: 10.1086/422244

    2004 doi

  14. [25]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762 Morales Teixeira, D., Avara, M

    Narayan, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762 Morales Teixeira, D., Avara, M. J., & McKinney, J. C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2044 Mościbrodzka, M., Falcke, H., & Shiokawa, H. 2016, A&A, 586, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526630

    2014 doi

  15. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    2022 doi

  16. [27]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  17. [28]

    Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2008, NewAR, 51, 733, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2008.03.002

    2008 doi

  18. [29]

    2001, ApJ, 557, 949, doi: 10.1086/322267

    Narayan, R., Piran, T., & Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 557, 949, doi: 10.1086/322267

    2001 doi

  19. [30]

    F., & Kulkarni, A

    Narayan, R., Sadowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    2012

  20. [31]

    C., Krolik, J

    Noble, S. C., Krolik, J. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2009, ApJ, 692, 411, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/411

    2009 doi

  21. [32]

    F., McKinney, J

    Penna, R. F., McKinney, J. C., Narayan, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 752

    2010

  22. [33]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    Piran, T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    2004 doi

  23. [34]

    E., & Fryer, C

    Popham, R., Woosley, S. E., & Fryer, C. 1999, ApJ, 518, 356, doi: 10.1086/307259

    1999 doi

  24. [35]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    Porth, O., Chatterjee, K., Narayan, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    2019 doi

  25. [36]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    1981

  26. [37]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5

    Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., & Curd, B. 2023, ApJL, 954, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5

    2023 doi

  27. [38]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  28. [39]

    E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R

    Rowan, M. E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R. 2019, ApJ, 873, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d7

    2019 doi

  29. [40]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)

    1986

  30. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09556

    Salas, L., Liska, M., Markoff, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09556

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [42]

    C., & Dexter, J

    Scepi, N., Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3299

    2024 doi

  32. [43]

    C., Narayan, R., et al

    Shafee, R., McKinney, J. C., Narayan, R., et al. 2008, ApJL, 687, L25, doi: 10.1086/593148 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., &

    2008 doi

  33. [44]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Penna, R., & Zhu, Y

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Penna, R., & Zhu, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1881 Sądowski, A., Wielgus, M., Narayan, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 70...

    2014 doi

  34. [45]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  35. [46]

    N., Du, Y., Prather, B

    Wong, G. N., Du, Y., Prather, B. S., & Gammie, C. F. 2021, ApJ, 914, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b8

    2021 doi

  36. [47]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  37. [48]

    B., et al

    Yoon, D., Chatterjee, K., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 3178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3031

    2020 doi

  38. [49]

    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

  39. [50]

    Q., Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B

    Zhang, G. Q., Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. B. 2024, ApJ, 962, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167b

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.