Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

Collisions with tidal disruption event disks: implications for quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A TDE disk's angular momentum budget caps its mass, ruling out most EMRI collision models for QPEs

desk verdict The angular-momentum-conserving TDE disk mass budget is a real and clean contribution that re-frames QPE collision models, but the IMBH exclusion hangs on an uncalibrated Bondi efficiency f_B and the surviving debris-stream model is not yet on solid ground. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21456 v1 pith:MM6W3WYX submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.HE

Andrew Mummery This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicX-rayeruptionstidaldisruptioneventsaccretiondisksextrememassratioinspiralEMRI-diskcollisionsangularmomentumconservationtransients
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 disks formed in tidal disruption events (TDEs) obey a mass budget set by the disrupted star's conserved angular momentum, so their mass at a given outer radius falls as $M_{\rm disk}\propto R_{\rm out}^{-1/2}$, the opposite of the growing mass of steady AGN disks. Re-running the popular EMRI-disk collision model for quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions (QPEs) with this TDE disk structure changes every predicted scaling of flare energy, luminosity, duration, temperature, and duty cycle with QPE period. Because all observables can then be written in terms of the two stars' properties, the models become over-constrained and testable rather than free. Applied to AT2019qiz and the broader population, the paper concludes that collisions between a TDE disk and either an orbiting black hole or an ordinary stellar surface cannot power QPEs; only a star puffed up to fill its Hills sphere and trailed by a debris stream survives, and only with near-$3\,M_\odot$ stars. That matters because it turns a phenomenological explanation into a specific, falsifiable two-star hypothesis.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the angular-momentum-limited TDE disk mass budget: for a disk of roughly uniform surface density that has spread to outer radius $R_{\rm out}=R_{\rm QPE}$, conservation of the disrupted star's angular momentum $J_\star^{\rm tde}=M_\star^{\rm tde}\sqrt{2GM_\bullet r_T/\beta}$ forces $M_{\rm disk}\propto R_{\rm out}^{-1/2}$ with the normalisation of Eq. (22). This replaces the steady-state surface density profile as the collision target; feeding it through the standard shock-breakout scalings (ejected mass, photon diffusion time, adiabatic losses, photon starvation and inverse Comptonization) produces closed-form predictions in which the nuisance parameters $\alpha$ and $\dot M$ have dropped out and the observables depend only on the black-hole mass, the collisional area, and the two-star product $Q=f_d\beta^{-1/2}(M_\star^{\rm tde}/M_\odot)^{5/6}(R_\star^{\rm tde}/R_\odot)^{1/2}$.

What would settle it

Measure or model the surface density and total mass interior to the colliding object's orbital radius in a TDE-QPE such as AT2019qiz from the quiescent disk spectrum and light curve; if the inferred disk mass there exceeds $\frac{1}{2}f_d M_\star^{\rm tde}(2r_T/\beta R_{\rm QPE})^{1/2}$ by a large factor, or if a long-period QPE is found that requires sub-solar stars to explain its energy through a compact collider, the angular-momentum budget or the surviving debris-stream geometry is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a conservation-law constraint on TDE disks and its consequences for the QPE collision paradigm. A TDE disk is built from a single star, so it inherits that star's angular momentum; when the disk spreads to the radius where an EMRI intercepts it, the maximum mass it can contain is $M_{\rm disk}^{\rm QPE} = \frac{1}{2} f_d M_\star^{\rm tde}(2r_T/\beta R_{\rm QPE})^{1/2}$, which decreases with QPE period rather than growing like the $M_{\rm disk}\propto R_{\rm out}^{7/2}$ of a steady accretion disk. Inserting this lower, reversed-density disk into the standard collisional shock model yields energies that fall as $E_{\rm ej}\propto P_{\rm QPE}^{-7/3}$ for a fixed collisional area, in direct conflict with the observed rising $E_{\rm QPE}$-versus-$P_{\rm QPE}$ trend. The paper shows that a hard-sphere stellar EMRI cannot sweep up enough mass, and an IMBH capable of doing so would drain the disk in about a year; the only energetically viable geometry left is a Hills-radius-wide, vertically extended debris stream trailing the star, which for AT2019qiz requires both stars near $3\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results rest on the assumption that when the TDE disk first spreads out to the colliding object's orbital radius, it still holds the maximum mass allowed by angular momentum conservation, with that mass spread fairly evenly; if much of the disrupted star's angular momentum is lost to outflows or unbound debris, the collision energies and inferred stellar masses would be lower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any QPE that follows a TDE, flare luminosity, duration, period, and black-hole mass over-determine the model, so the collision geometry and the disrupted star's properties can be solved for directly.
  • Longer-period QPEs intercept disks with less mass, so hard-sphere stellar EMRI models predict $t_{\rm QPE}\propto P_{\rm QPE}^{-2/3}$ and $E_{\rm rad}\propto P_{\rm QPE}^{-10/9}$, opposite to the observed near-constant duty cycle and rising flare energy.
  • An IMBH companion massive enough to sweep up the required material through its Bondi radius would accrete roughly a percent of the disk per crossing and drain it in about fifty days, ruling out the IMBH interpretation for AT2019qiz's 700-day QPE train.
  • Only a vertically extended debris stream can set flare durations, and only a Hills-radius-wide stream can reach the highest observed energies; within the collision paradigm the highest-energy events need both the EMRI and TDE stars near $3\,M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the negative $M_{\rm disk}\propto R_{\rm out}^{-1/2}$ argument should apply to any collision model whose disk was built from a single star's debris, not only TDEs, so partial tidal disruptions and star-capture disks should show similar steep declines in swept-up mass with collision radius.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's cap on surface density implies that mass ablated from the EMRI can stall but never substantially reverse the late-time disk density decline; long X-ray monitoring of the quiescent disk in the oldest known QPE source could look for this ceiling and test the factor-of-two bound.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct numerical target suggested by the argument is a radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of the surviving Hills-sphere-plus-debris-stream geometry with the TDE surface density of Eq. (24), to see whether post-shock spectra reach the observed $kT\sim100\\,$eV rather than the $\sim10\\,$eV blackbody estimate.
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 paper argues that TDE-formed accretion disks have a mass budget set by the angular momentum of the disrupted star, giving M_disk ∝ R_out^{-1/2}, in contrast to steady-state AGN-like disks for which M_disk ∝ R_out^{7/2} (or R_out^{7/5} in the gas-pressure-dominated case). Using this constrained disk model, the author re-derives predictions for EMRI-disk collision models of quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions, considering hard-sphere stellar EMRIs, IMBHs with Bondi-Hoyle accretion, stellar debris streams, Hills-sphere-puffed stars, and a hybrid Hills-sphere-plus-debris-stream configuration. The model is applied to AT2019qiz and to the QPE population. The main conclusions are that QPEs cannot be powered by collisions between an orbiting black hole and a TDE disk, nor by collisions between a compact stellar surface and a TDE disk, and that only the Hills-sphere-plus-debris-stream collision geometry is energetically viable, albeit requiring rather massive (~3 M_sun) stars.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper represents a substantial and timely revision of the popular EMRI-disk collision paradigm for QPEs. The angular-momentum constraint on TDE disk mass is physically clean, independent of the disk viscosity parameter α, and robust to the assumed surface-density profile (Appendix A), which is a genuine strength. The paper also produces falsifiable predictions for the scaling of flare duration, energy, and luminosity with QPE period, and it over-constrains the AT2019qiz model using three observables set by two physical parameters. The explicit identification of the surviving parameter space and the four concrete numerical-simulation questions are valuable. However, the quantitative exclusion arguments contain some uncalibrated efficiencies and idealized disk assumptions, so the strongest abstract claims are not yet fully secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.1, Eq. (112)] The exclusion of the IMBH collision model for AT2019qiz rests on the disk-draining estimate ΔM_acc ≈ f_B π Σ_disk R_QPE^2 (m•/M•)^2, where f_B is introduced as 'an efficiency of mass accretion in units of the Bondi accretion rate' but is never specified or calibrated. For the inferred m• ≈ 3.9×10^5 M_sun, Eq. (113) gives ΔM_acc ≈ 0.04 f_B M_disk per crossing; over the observed 700 days at P_QPE = 48 h this removes ≈ 14 f_B of the disk mass, so the argument requires f_B ≳ 0.07. No calculation, simulation, or observational constraint is provided for f_B in a thin, inclined, sheared disk crossing, and if f_B ≲ 0.01 the IMBH interpretation survives the draining test. Because the abstract's conclusion (i) depends on this exclusion, the manuscript should either calibrate f_B or explicitly weaken the claim to a conditional one.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (22)] The quantitative predictions assume that, when the TDE disk first spreads to R_QPE, its mass is the maximum allowed by angular momentum conservation, M_QPE_disk = (1/2) f_d M_star (2 r_T/(β R_QPE))^{1/2}. This assumes that all of the bound debris circularises at 2 r_T/β, retains the full angular momentum of the bound half of the star, and forms a single-zone disk with surface density M_disk/(π R_QPE^2). If a non-negligible fraction of the bound debris's angular momentum is lost to outflows or to the unbound component, or if the surface density at R_QPE is well below the uniform average, then all collision energies decrease. In particular, the required ~3 M_sun stars for the surviving Hills-sphere-plus-debris-stream model would become more extreme, weakening the 'cannot be ruled out' conclusion. The sensitivity of Eq. (22) to these assumptions should be quantified.
  3. [§3.1.2 and §3.2] The surviving Hills-sphere-plus-debris-stream model reproduces the observed flare energy for plausible stellar masses, but the same model predicts kT_BB ≈ 6.6 eV and η ≈ 0.2 for AT2019qiz, i.e., a blackbody temperature far below the observed ~110 eV, and the paper defers the resolution to future radiative-transfer simulations. Since temperature is one of the three primary observables used to over-constrain the problem, the statement that this model 'cannot be ruled out from the data' is based on energetics only; an energy-temperature joint constraint could eliminate the surviving parameter space or require even more extreme stellar parameters. The manuscript should either perform a joint plausibility test or state explicitly that the temperature mismatch is an unresolved disqualifying tension.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (12)] The sentence 'the upper limit is from angular momentum conservation, and the lower from mass conservation' is confusing because Eq. (12) takes the minimum of the two bounds; please rephrase as 'the first bound is from angular momentum conservation, the second from mass conservation'.
  2. [§2.4, after Eq. (41)] There is a typo: 'gvien' should be 'given' in the sentence defining the post-shock density.
  3. [Figure 1] The source label 'Ansky' is not defined in the text or reference list; please clarify which source this is.
  4. [§3.1.2] The mass-radius relation R_star ∝ M_star^{4/5} is used for both the TDE star and the EMRI star; if the EMRI star has been puffed up by repeated collisions or has evolved off the main sequence, this relation may not be appropriate, and the impact of that assumption on the inferred ~3 M_sun masses should be discussed.
Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central constraint (M ∝ R^{-1/2}) uses no fitted parameters, but the amplitudes and the surviving-model plausibility test depend on seven free parameters or assumed efficiencies, plus the external debris-stream simulation scalings. The M_disk formula and the Bondi accretion efficiency f_B are the most consequential for the exclusion claims.

free parameters (7)
  • f_d (disk formation efficiency) = 1 (fiducial)
    Fraction of bound stellar debris that circularizes into a disk; multiplies all disk mass and energy amplitudes (Eqs. 20, 22, 27, 29). Set to 1 in the AT2019qiz plausibility test and Figure 2 defaults; not fitted to QPE data.
  • β (orbital penetration factor) = 1 (fiducial)
    Ratio r_p/r_T for the disrupted star, enters as β^{-1/2} in disk mass and β^{-1/4} in energies; set to 1 throughout the numerical evaluations.
  • h/r (disk scale height ratio at collision radius) = 0.1 (fiducial)
    Enters through weak powers (1/3, 1/12, etc.) in luminosities and temperatures; could be constrained by the inner disk temperature (Appendix B), but treated as an unknown.
  • M_star^{tde} and R_star^{tde} (disrupted star mass and radius) = ≈3 M_sun (and R from M^{4/5} relation) inferred for AT2019qiz
    Free physical parameters of the TDE star; in Section 3.1.2 their values are tuned so that E_obs/E_rad ≈ 16 for the Hills-sphere-debris-stream model, making them fitted quantities in the plausibility test.
  • M_star^{emri} and R_star^{emri} (EMRI star mass and radius) = ≈3 M_sun for AT2019qiz
    Same as above; chosen so the predicted collision energy matches the observed AT2019qiz flare energy (Eq. 116).
  • f(ψ) (IMBH velocity alignment factor) = 1 (default)
    Sets the Bondi radius (Eq. 50); can reach (r/h)^2 ≈ 100 in the fine-tuned co-orbiting case, which reduces the required IMBH mass by that factor; assumed not fine-tuned.
  • f_B (Bondi accretion efficiency) = unquantified, required ≳0.07 for the IMBH exclusion
    Introduced in Section 3.1.1 (Eqs. 111-113) to estimate how much disk mass is accreted by the IMBH per crossing; the 'IMBH ruled out' conclusion holds only if f_B > ~0.07, otherwise the disk is not drained within 700 days.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Keplerian orbital mechanics: P_QPE = (π/2) sqrt(R_QPE^3/GM) and R_QPE scaling (Eqs. 3-4).
    Used throughout to relate the collision radius to the observed period.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum conservation J_disk ∝ M_disk sqrt(R_out) during viscous spreading (Eq. 21).
    Core of the TDE disk mass budget; valid for a rotationally supported disk, but assumes no significant angular momentum loss to outflows.
  • domain assumption The QPE disk is the remnant of the observed TDE, so its total mass and angular momentum are bounded by the disrupted star's properties (Eqs. 8-12).
    Strongly supported for AT2019qiz and AT2022upj, where QPEs were observed after otherwise typical TDEs.
  • domain assumption At the interception radius the disk surface density is approximately uniform, Σ ≈ M_disk/(π R_QPE^2) (Eq. 23); Appendix A shows power-law profiles change only order-unity constants.
    Sets the mass swept up in collisions; the power-law generalization does not alter scalings.
  • domain assumption The shock-heated ejecta evolve as an optically thick adiabatic cloud; observable flare properties follow the Nakar & Sari (2010) and Linial & Metzger (2023) formalism (Eqs. 30-46).
    Basis for the predicted durations, luminosities, and temperatures; inherited from the previous model.
  • domain assumption Debris stream geometry and density scalings from the Yao et al. (2024) simulations, in particular Δz/R_star ∼ (R_QPE/r_T^{emri})^{3/2} (Eqs. 58, 79).
    Used in the extended debris-stream and Hills-sphere-debris-stream models to set the collision cross section and flare duration.
  • domain assumption The mass-stripping rate from the EMRI follows Liu et al. (2015) with η ≈ 10^{-3} (Eq. 95).
    Used to estimate ablation timescales and the late-time disk evolution; the paper notes Yao et al. found higher stripping rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collisions with tidal disruption event disks: implications for quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MM6W3WYX

@misc{pith2026250421456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collisions with tidal disruption event disks: implications for quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MM6W3WYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21456}
}
abstract

A popular class of models for interpreting quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions from galactic nuclei (QPEs) invoke collisions between an object on an extreme mass ratio inspiral (EMRI) and an accretion disk around a supermassive black hole. There are strong links between QPE systems and those disks which formed following a tidal disruption event (TDE), and at least two events (AT2019qiz and AT2022upj) are known to have occurred following an otherwise typical TDE. We show that the fact that these disks were formed following a TDE strongly constrains their properties, more so than previous models have assumed. Models based on steady-state AGN-like disks have mass contents which grow strongly with size $M_{\rm disk}\propto R_{\rm out}^{7/2}$ and do not conserve the mass or angular momentum of the disrupted star. A very different scaling must be satisfied by a TDE disk in order to conserve the disrupted stars angular momentum, $M_{\rm disk} \propto R_{\rm out}^{-1/2}$. These constraints substantially change the predicted scaling relationships between QPE observables (luminosity, duration, energy, temperature) and the QPE period. They also allow QPE observables to be written in terms of the properties of the two stars assumed to be involved (the one tidally disrupted and the one on an EMRI), making plausibility tests of these models possible. We show that these modifications to the disk structure imply that (i) QPEs cannot be powered by collisions between an orbiting black hole and a TDE disk, (ii) QPEs also cannot be powered by collisions between the surface of a stellar EMRI and a TDE disk. A framework in which the collisions are between a TDE disk and a star which has puffed up to fill its Hills sphere with a trailing debris stream (as seen in recent simulations) cannot be ruled out from the data, and should be the focus of further study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two clear trends observed across the QPE population, whereby the length of the flares (tQPE) and the energy radiated in the flares (estimated here using EQPE ≈ Lbol,peak × tQPE) correlate strongly with the time between flares (PQPE). The correlation between duration and time between flares is especially tight, and satisfies a constant duty cycle relationship with D ≈ 0.2 (black dashed curve). The energy in the QPE f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The different energy scales of collisional QPE models developed here, as a function of orbital period, with all other parameters set equal to their default values (i.e., all stellar properties are solar, fd = β = 1, h/r = 0.1 and M• = 106M⊙). The hard sphere stellar EMRI model can be ruled out on energetic grounds for nearly all QPEs, while the IMBH model is pathological as it would result in the entire disk mass be… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 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. The Delay Time Distribution of Quasi-Periodic Eruptions

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QPE host galaxies are more likely to have recently formed a large burst of stars (burst mass fraction above 1%) than TDE host galaxies or mass- and redshift-matched controls.

  3. Star-Disk Collisions II: Debris Stream Dynamics and Implications for QPEs and Other Transients Near SMBHs

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tidal debris streams from star–disk collisions produce QPE-like flare durations and energetics with a near-constant ~10–20% duty cycle, favoring one observable flare per orbit.

  4. Radiation-hydrodynamics of star-disc collisions for quasi-periodic eruptions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of a star–disc collision produces a forward outflow about twice as luminous as the backward outflow, naturally reproducing the strong–weak flare pattern observed in several QPEs.

  5. SRG/eROSITA No. 5: Discovery of quasi-periodic eruptions every ~3.7 days from a galaxy at z>0.1

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new quasi-periodic X-ray eruption source, eRO-QPE5, repeats every 3.7 days at z=0.1155, making it the most distant QPE discovered.

  6. The radio properties of quasi-periodic X-ray eruption sources

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic radio census of 12 quasi-periodic X-ray eruption sources finds weak compact radio emission in 5, no flare-correlated radio variability, and properties consistent with tidal disruption event outflows.

  7. Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    QPE arrival times from an EMRI-disk collision model can recover black hole mass and orbital size/eccentricity to about 10% over tens of orbits, while spin and disk precession properties are much harder to constrain.

  8. Multimessenger prospects of quasi-periodic eruptions

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

    Known quasi-periodic eruptions are unlikely to have LISA-detectable gravitational-wave counterparts, so future searches should focus on rare short-period “golden” QPEs.

  9. Observations of X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    X-ray observations of the 13 known QPE sources show a coherent class of thermal eruptions on compact disks, with host galaxies and rates pointing to a tidal disruption event connection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Lanza A., Percival M

    Abramowicz M. A., Lanza A., Percival M. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479..179A 479, 179

    doi:10.1086/303869 1997

  2. [2]

    Arcodia R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.592..704A 592, 704

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

  3. [3]

    Arcodia R., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..64A 684, A64

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

  4. [4]

    Arcodia R., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684L..14A 684, L14

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

  5. [5]

    C., Pringle J

    Begelman M. C., Pringle J. E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11372.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375.1070B 375, 1070

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    K., Lee H

    Cannizzo J. K., Lee H. M., Goodman J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...351...38C 351, 38

    doi:10.1086/168442 1990

  7. [7]

    Chakraborty J., Kara E., Masterson M., Giustini M., Miniutti G., Saxton R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921L..40C 921, L40

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  8. [8]

    arXiv:2503.19013

    Chakraborty J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19013 , p. arXiv:2503.19013

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.19013 2025

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    J., Fuerst S

    Dai L. J., Fuerst S. V., Blandford R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16038.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1614D 402, 1614

    2010

  2. [10]

    Franchini A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A.100F 675, A100

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636L...2G 636, L2

    Giustini M., Miniutti G., Saxton R. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636L...2G 636, L2

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Guolo M., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs.tmp...15G

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250103333G p

    Guolo M., Mummery A., Wevers T., Nicholl M., Gezari S., Ingram A., Pasham D. R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250103333G p. arXiv:2501.03333

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hern \'a ndez-Garc \' a L., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs.tmp...90H

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...34L 957, 34

    Linial I., Metzger B. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...34L 957, 34

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..101L 973, 101

    Linial I., Metzger B. D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..101L 973, 101

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    M., R \"o pke F

    Liu Z.-W., Tauris T. M., R \"o pke F. K., Moriya T. J., Kruckow M., Stancliffe R. J., Izzard R. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...584A..11L 584, A11

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    E., 1974, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.168..603L 168, 603

    Lynden-Bell D., Pringle J. E., 1974, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.168..603L 168, 603

    1974 doi

  11. [19]

    Miniutti G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.573..381M 573, 381

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Read A

    Miniutti G., Giustini M., Arcodia R., Saxton R. D., Read A. M., Bianchi S., Alexander K. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..93M 670, A93

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Nakar E., Sari R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725..904N 725, 904

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1878N 488, 1878

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Mummery A., Guolo M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.634..804N 634, 804

    Nicholl M., Pasham D. R., Mummery A., Guolo M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.634..804N 634, 804

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    E., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/248.4.754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.248..754P 248, 754

    Pringle J. E., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/248.4.754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.248..754P 248, 754

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    Quintin E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A.152Q 675, A152

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    Rees M. J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    1988 doi

  19. [27]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  20. [28]

    Sukov \'a P., Zaja c ek M., Witzany V., Karas V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917...43S 917, 43

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Tagawa H., Haiman Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526...69T 526, 69

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241005166V p

    Vurm I., Linial I., Metzger B. D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241005166V p. arXiv:2410.05166

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    R., Jalan P., Rakshit S., Arcodia R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659L...2W 659, L2

    Wevers T., Pasham D. R., Jalan P., Rakshit S., Arcodia R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659L...2W 659, L2

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Arcodia R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980L...1W 980, L1

    Wevers T., Guolo M., Lockwood S., Mummery A., Pasham D. R., Arcodia R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980L...1W 980, L1

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Xian J., Zhang F., Dou L., He J., Shu X., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921L..32X 921, L32

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Z., Quataert E., Jiang Y.-F., Lu W., White C

    Yao P. Z., Quataert E., Jiang Y.-F., Lu W., White C. J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240714578Y p. arXiv:2407.14578

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.