Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Early evolution of super-Eddington accretion flow in tidal disruption events

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper argues that the wide spread of observed tidal disruption event properties — X-ray and optical luminosities, temperatures, emission radii, and their evolution — is a viewing-angle effect of a single super-Eddington accretion…

desk verdict A credible but incremental TDE simulation paper: the viewing-angle story is already in the literature, and the quantitative claims hinge on an imposed inner-boundary spectrum. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02434 v1 pith:YIY4ANJ4 submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.HE

Erlin Qiao , Yongxin Wu , Yiyang Lin , Meng Guo , Jifeng Liu , Chenlei Guo , Chichuan Jin , Ning Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventssuper-EddingtonaccretionviewingangleeffectradiationhydrodynamicsMonteCarloradiativetransferdiskoutflowsX-rayreprocessingblackhole
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 bewildering variety of tidal disruption event (TDE) observations can be read as one effect: astronomers see the same super-Eddington accretion flow from different angles. It reaches this conclusion by simulating the accretion flow around a million-solar-mass black hole fed by a falling star's debris, then post-processing the simulated gas with a Monte Carlo radiative transfer code to obtain the emergent spectra. In the simulated picture, a low-density funnel along the rotation axis lets soft X-rays escape, while the dense equatorial outflow absorbs them and reprocesses them into UV and optical light. The model produces an X-ray luminosity that falls by about a factor of 300 from face-on to edge-on, a roughly isotropic optical luminosity, and X-ray temperatures near a few times $10^{5}$ K, matching the spread seen in real TDEs. The paper's central proposal is that viewing angle, rather than different physics for each source, can explain the diversity of TDE properties at early times.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the viewing-angle-dependent structure of the super-Eddington inflow/outflow system, organized by the critical angle $\theta_{\rm crit}\sim 15^\circ$ that separates an optically thin polar funnel from the optically thick equatorial outflow capped by an electron-scattering photosphere. The funnel allows soft X-rays from the inner region to escape nearly unabsorbed, while the thick outflow reprocesses that emission into the optical band on a roughly isotropic photosphere; this single geometry converts one bolometric engine into angle-dependent X-ray and optical luminosities, temperatures, radii, and their ratio. The load-bearing numerical machinery is the Athena++ radiation hydrodynamic simulation that produces the density, velocity, and radiation-temperature fields, combined with the PYTHON Monte Carlo radiative transfer code that recomputes the gas temperature under radiative equilibrium and traces photon bundles through the simulated outflow to produce the spectra.

What would settle it

Re-run the Monte Carlo transfer with the inner boundary condition replaced by a multi-temperature disk spectrum extending down to the innermost stable orbit: if the face-on X-ray luminosity or its decline with viewing angle changes by more than a factor of a few, the claimed 300-fold spread is set by the imposed seed spectrum rather than by the outflow geometry. Observationally, a TDE whose orientation is independently fixed by a resolved radio jet or polarization, and that is nearly face-on yet shows an X-ray luminosity far below about $10^{44}$ erg/s, would contradict the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports a 32-day radiation hydrodynamic simulation of super-Eddington accretion in a TDE environment, with a mass supply rate injected at the circularization radius that follows $\dot{M}_{\rm inject}\propto t^{-5/3}$, starting at about 133.8 $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ onto a $10^6\,M_\odot$ black hole. A significant fraction of the inflowing matter is blown off into an outflow whose density and velocity are strongly viewing-angle dependent, with a critical angle $\theta_{\rm crit}\sim 15^\circ$: inside that cone the outflow is optically thin, while outside it an electron-scattering photosphere forms and reprocesses the soft X-rays into optical and UV bands. The emergent spectra, computed with Monte Carlo radiative transfer, yield an X-ray luminosity $L_{X,0.3-2\,\rm keV}$ that drops from about $6\times10^{44}$ to $2\times10^{42}$ erg/s as the viewing angle goes from $0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$, an optical blackbody luminosity of about $10^{43}$ erg/s with at most a factor of four variation, an X-ray-to-optical ratio $L_X/L_O$ that falls from roughly 20 to 0.3, an X-ray blackbody temperature of $4$–$6\times10^5$ K, and an optical temperature of a few times $10^4$ K. The paper claims these values, and their evolution over the 32-day window, are crudely consistent with observations, and notes that the derived $R_{X,\rm BB}$ is about an order of magnitude larger than the observed values. It also points out that the extreme-UV-dominated spectra imply bolometric corrections of a few to a few hundred, which would revise the accreted-mass estimates inferred from X-ray light curves and ease the TDE missing-energy problem.

Load-bearing premise

The radiative-transfer calculation cuts the simulated flow off at 47 Schwarzschild radii and feeds in a single blackbody of a few times $10^5$ K as the seed X-ray field, so the predicted X-ray luminosity and its viewing-angle dependence inherit that imposed boundary condition instead of being computed self-consistently from the hottest inner disk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed scatter in early-time TDE X-ray luminosity, roughly $10^{42}$–$10^{44}$ erg/s, can be produced by orientation alone without invoking a large spread in black hole mass or accretion rate.
  • The X-ray-to-optical luminosity ratio, ranging from about 20 face-on to about 0.3 edge-on, explains why some TDEs appear X-ray bright and others optically dominated, matching the observed population.
  • The near-isotropy of the optical luminosity supports the reprocessing picture in which the optical emission comes from a quasi-spherical outflow photosphere rather than directly from the disk.
  • The X-ray light curve tracks the $t^{-5/3}$ fallback law even while the accretion flow is highly super-Eddington, so the classic decay law can survive the nonlinear dynamics of the inflow and outflow.
  • The extreme-UV-dominated spectra imply bolometric corrections $k_{\rm bol}$ of a few to a few hundred, so earlier mass estimates that assumed $k_{\rm bol}\sim 1$ may substantially underestimate the accreted mass and the missing-energy problem may be less severe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If viewing angle is the dominant variable, the TDE population's X-ray luminosity function should be predictable from the intrinsic fallback evolution convolved with an assumed orientation distribution; a random orientation model predicts many more faint, edge-on X-ray TDEs than bright, face-on ones, a count ratio that multi-epoch surveys could test.
  • The same funnel-versus-photosphere geometry suggests a dynamical sequence: as the outflow photosphere grows and then fades with the declining fallback rate, an individual source's X-ray-to-optical ratio should drift systematically, which repeated simultaneous UV/X-ray monitoring of one TDE could catch.
  • The quantitative face-on X-ray predictions rest on the imposed inner boundary condition of a single blackbody seed field at $47\,R_S$; extending the radiative transfer to a multi-temperature inner disk down to the innermost stable orbit is the natural next test and could shift $L_X$ and $T_{X,\rm BB}$ by factors of a few.
  • The same viewing-angle framework, applied to the bolometric corrections, implies that X-ray-selected and optical-selected TDE samples are biased toward different orientations, so the two selection channels may be probing systematically different parts of the same underlying population.
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. The paper presents 2D axisymmetric radiation hydrodynamic simulations of super-Eddington accretion in a TDE, using Athena++ with an alpha viscosity (α=0.1) and a pseudo-Newtonian potential, injecting mass at the circularization radius (≈47 Schwarzschild radii) with a t^-5/3 fallback rate and evolving to 32 days. The simulation output is post-processed with the Monte Carlo radiative transfer code PYTHON to produce emergent spectra at viewing angles 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°. Fitting the X-ray (0.2–3 keV) and optical (3500–7800 Å) bands with single blackbodies, the paper finds that the X-ray luminosity decreases by roughly a factor of 300 from face-on to edge-on while the optical luminosity is nearly isotropic, and claims that the observed luminosities, temperatures, emission radii, X-ray-to-optical ratio, and their evolution can be explained by viewing-angle effects.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a single physical model in which viewing angle, rather than source-to-source variation in black hole mass or accretion rate, drives the observed diversity of TDE X-ray and optical properties. The simulation infrastructure and the emergent outflow geometry—a low-density funnel with θ_crit ≈ 15° and a quasi-isotropic photosphere—are valuable, and the qualitative prediction that face-on systems are X-ray bright while edge-on systems are dominated by optical/UV reprocessed emission is physically plausible. However, the quantitative match to observations is presently fragile because the face-on X-ray spectrum is controlled by an imposed boundary condition rather than by the simulated inner accretion flow. The paper also honestly reports a known discrepancy in the inferred X-ray emission radius, which further limits the strength of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2] The radiative-transfer post-processing excises the region inside 47 Rs and injects seed photons as a single blackbody with a temperature of 'a few × 10^5 K' obtained by averaging the radiation temperature of the hydrodynamic simulation. Since the funnel at θ < 15° is nearly optically thin (Section 3.1), the face-on X-ray spectrum and the reported values LX(0°) ≈ 6 × 10^44 erg/s and TX,BB ≈ 6 × 10^5 K are essentially the boundary condition escaping the domain, not an emergent prediction of the accretion-flow model. This boundary condition therefore determines the normalization and, because the seed is single-temperature, the spectral shape of the X-ray emission and its dependence on viewing angle. The authors should either include the 2–47 Rs region in the radiative transfer or demonstrate that the results are insensitive to the seed temperature and luminosity, for example by using the accretion luminosity implied by Fig. A4.
  2. [Section 3.2, panel (4) of Fig. 7] The inferred X-ray blackbody radius RX,BB ≈ 5–20 Rs is an order of magnitude larger than the observed X-ray blackbody radii quoted by the authors. The abstract lists 'the corresponding emission radii' among the quantities that the model explains, so this mismatch contradicts the central claim. The authors acknowledge the discrepancy and argue that the observed values are problematic because they are smaller than the Schwarzschild radius; however, the discrepancy is more naturally explained by the excised inner boundary, which spreads the X-ray emission over the large funnel instead of the compact inner disk. The paper needs a quantitative treatment of this issue, such as recomputing RX,BB with the inner region included or re-scoping the claim about emission radii.
  3. [Section 3.3, panel (1) of Fig. 8] The evolution of LX,0.3–2keV roughly following t^-5/3 is not an emergent result but a direct consequence of the imposed mass-injection rate ˙Minject(t) ∝ (1 + t/tfb)^-5/3. The text in Section 3.3 states this explicitly. Since the abstract claims that 'the evolution of these quantities' is explained by the viewing-angle framework, the t^-5/3 light-curve evolution should not be counted as a success of the model. The authors should separate the evolution forced by the boundary condition from genuinely emergent features such as the photosphere expansion and TO,BB behavior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'Monto Carlo' should be 'Monte Carlo'.
  2. [Section 2.2, second paragraph] The code name PYTHON may be confused with the Python programming language; a brief clarification that PYTHON is a Monte Carlo radiative transfer code (Long & Knigge 2002) would help.
  3. [Section 3.2, last paragraph] In the sentence describing Fig. A7, 'OX, BB' appears to be a typo for 'RO, BB'.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'a significant fraction of the matter in the accretion inflow are blowed off' should be 'a significant fraction of the matter in the accretion inflow is blown off'.
  5. [Section 2.1, viscosity formula] The definition of the dynamical viscosity parameter η appears to have a formatting issue in the denominator; please check that the expression is written with the correct algebraic grouping.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported X-ray blackbody temperature and face-on X-ray luminosity are set by the imposed single-blackbody inner boundary at 47 Rs, so part of the central viewing-angle 'prediction' is an input by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2 (Monte Carlo radiative transfer setup), applied in Section 3.2 (Emergent spectra)]
    "We select the radius where the θ-direction averaged velocity field transits from outflow to inflow as the inner boundary of the computational domain, which is found to be just the gas injection point in the simulation (i.e., 47 RS). ... The photons injected from the inner boundary in every iteration is assumed to a single blackbody with a temperature of a few×105K, which is calculated by averaging the radiation temperature of the hydrodynamic simulation. ... For θ < θcrit, there is no photosphere found. ..."

    The post-processing excises the accretion flow inside 47 Rs and re-injects a single blackbody at a few×10^5 K as the seed. The polar funnel below θcrit≈15° has no electron-scattering photosphere, so the face-on X-ray spectrum is this seed blackbody escaping almost unchanged. The fitted X-ray blackbody temperature at θ=0° (6.0×10^5 K) is therefore the input boundary temperature by construction, not an independent emergent prediction. The face-on LX≈6×10^44 erg/s and the reported ~300-fold decline with viewing angle also inherit the seed luminosity and the escape fraction through the funnel. Hence the claimed explanation of observed X-ray temperature and luminosity by viewing angle reduces in part to the imposed inner boundary condition.

full rationale

The paper is a forward radiation-hydrodynamic simulation with the standard t^-5/3 fallback law as an input; the fallback law and the simulation setup are not fitted to the observational quantities the paper claims to explain, so the overall framework is not circular. The optical emission isotropy, the LX/LO ratio trend, and the angular dependence of the outflow reprocessing are emergent from the simulated density and velocity structure, and the paper also cites prior independent simulations for the same viewing-angle effect. However, one headline prediction is partially self-definitional: the Monte Carlo post-processing starts at 47 Rs, exactly the gas injection point, and injects a single blackbody at a few×10^5 K computed from the simulation's radiation temperature; because the polar funnel is optically thin, the face-on X-ray spectrum and its fitted blackbody temperature are this imposed seed by construction, and the LX normalization inherits the seed luminosity. I do not count the t^-5/3 decay of LX as circular because the paper explicitly says it reflects the assumed fallback rate, which is an independent theoretical input; it weakens the novelty of the evolution 'prediction' but is not a circular derivation. The admitted RX,BB mismatch with observations is a further limitation, not a circular step. Overall the viewing-angle geometry claim retains independent content, but a central predicted quantity reduces to an imposed boundary condition, so the paper is partially circular (score 6).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spectral predictions depend on standard TDE fallback physics, an alpha-viscosity prescription for angular momentum transport, and a radiative-transfer boundary condition that excises the innermost accretion flow. The most consequential unverified input is the single-blackbody seed at 47 Rs, because the simulated X-ray luminosity at small viewing angles is essentially that boundary condition escaping through the funnel. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha viscosity parameter = 0.1
    Chosen by hand for the alpha-viscosity stress tensor; controls angular momentum transport and therefore the inflow/outflow structure and the photosphere shape.
  • inner boundary seed blackbody temperature = a few x 10^5 K
    Monte Carlo radiative transfer injects a single blackbody at this temperature from 47 Rs; the emergent X-ray spectrum inherits this choice, so it acts as a modeling parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fallback rate follows Mdot_inject(t) = (1/3)(M*/tfb)(1+t/tfb)^(-5/3) with immediate circularization at Rc=2RT.
    Section 2.1; assumes flat orbital energy distribution and ignores the rising phase and stream circularization, which the paper acknowledges is uncertain.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum transport is described by an alpha-viscosity prescription with alpha=0.1 and only the r-phi stress component.
    Section 2.1, around Equations (1)-(3); an unverified closure for TDE disks that determines how quickly matter spirals inward.
  • ad hoc to paper The inner region inside 47 Rs can be excised and represented by a single blackbody seed for the radiative transfer.
    Section 2.2; the hottest part of the flow is not included in the spectral calculation, so the X-ray output depends on this imposed boundary condition.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetry in spherical coordinates captures the inflow/outflow structure of the super-Eddington flow.
    Section 2.1; non-axisymmetric instabilities and magnetic fields are absent, which could alter the outflow geometry.
  • domain assumption A pseudo-Newtonian Paczynski-Wiita potential approximates general relativistic effects for a Schwarzschild black hole.
    Equation (6); neglects black hole spin, which affects the innermost disk structure and radiative efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early evolution of super-Eddington accretion flow in tidal disruption events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIY4ANJ4

@misc{pith2026250502434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early evolution of super-Eddington accretion flow in tidal disruption events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIY4ANJ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02434}
}
abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) are luminous black hole (BH) transient sources, which are detected mainly in X-ray and optical bands. It is generally believed that the X-ray emission in TDEs is produced by an accretion disc formed as the stellar debris accreted onto the central BH. The origin of the optical emission is not determined, but could be explained by the `reprocessing' model with the X-ray emission reprocessed into optical band by a surrounding optically thick envelope or outflow. In this paper, we performed radiation hydrodynamic simulations of super-Eddington accretion flow with Athena++ code in the environment of TDEs, i.e., injecting a continuous mass flow rate at the circularization radius in the form of $\dot M_{\rm inject} \propto t^{-5/3}$ for the mass supply rate. We show that a significant fraction of the matter in the accretion inflow are blowed off forming outflow, and the properties of the outflow are viewing-angle dependent. We further calculate the emergent spectra of such an inflow/outflow system for different viewing angles with the method of Monto Carlo radiative transfer. Based on the emergent spectra, we show that the observed features of TDEs, such as the X-ray and optical luminosities, the blackbody temperature of X-ray and optical emission and the corresponding emission radii, the ratio of X-ray luminosity to optical luminosity, as well as the evolution of these quantities can be explained in the framework of viewing-angle effect of super-Eddington accretion around a BH.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: An panoramic snapshot of the inflow/outflow for super-Eddington accretion around a BH in the environment of a TDE with a continuous injection rate of M˙ inject ∝ t −5/3 at the circularization radius. The snapshot is based on the real numerical simulations, in which BH mass is set to be 106M⊙ and the circularization radius is set to be ∼ 47 Schwarzschild radius (see the last two paragraphs of Section 2.1 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of gas density (in r −θ plane) at t = 8 day since the injection of matter at the circularization radius. Left panel: A zoom-in snapshot of the gas density. The white arrows indicates the streamlines of the gas velocity. Right panel: A zoom-out snapshot of the gas density. The red thick line indicates the photosphere of electron scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshots of gas velocity in the radial direction (in r − θ plane) at t = 8 day since the injection of matter at the circularization radius. vr/c > 0 indicates outflow and vr/c < 0 indicates inflow. Left panel: A zoom-in snapshot of gas velocity in the radial direction. Right panel: A zoom-out snapshot of gas velocity in the radial direction. 3.2 Emergent spectra With the method of Monte Carlo radiative transfer des… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of radiation temperature (in r − θ plane) at t = 8 day since the injection of matter at the circularization radius. Left panel: A zoom￾in snapshot of radiation temperature. Right panel: A zoom-out snapshot of radiation temperature. The red thick line indicate…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emergent spectra for different viewing angles, i.e., θ = 0 o , 30o , 60o , 90o respectively, at t = 8 day since the injection of matter at the circularization radius. The purple shaded region indicates X-ray band of 0.2 − 3keV and the green shaded region indicates opti…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Emergent spectra for different viewing angles, i.e., θ = 0 o , 30o , 60o , 90o respectively, at t = 8 day since the injection of matter at the circularization radius. The spectra are fitted with a single blackbody for X-ray (purple dashed line) and a single blackbody f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fitting parameters based on the emergent spectra as a function of viewing angle θ at t = 8 day since the injection of matter at the circularization radius. Panel (1): X-ray luminosity LX, 0.3−2keV and the optical blackbody luminosity LO, BB as a function of θ. Panel (2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LX, 0.3−2keV, LO, BB, TX, BB, TO, BB, RX, BB, RO, BB and LX, 0.3−2keV/LO, BB as a function of t for different viewing angles θ. MNRAS 000, 1–13 (2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Multi-messenger View of White Dwarf Tidal Disruption Events by Intermediate-Mass Black Holes: I. Gravitational Waves and Disk Photon and Neutrino Emissions

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

    WD–IMBH tidal disruption disks are advection-dominated, radiate near-Eddington soft X-rays, can emit Galactic MeV neutrinos, and produce decihertz GW bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Czerny B., Lasota J

    Abramowicz M. A., Czerny B., Lasota J. P., Szuszkiewicz E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166683 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..646A 332, 646

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  2. [2]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...38A 793, 38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  3. [3]

    Auchettl K., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838..149A 838, 149

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b 2017

  4. [4]

    Bade N., Komossa S., Dahlem M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...309L..35B 309, L35

    1996

  5. [5]

    Bonnerot C., Lu W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1374B 495, 1374

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1246 2020

  6. [6]

    C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-020-00789-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SSRv..217...16B 217, 16

    Bonnerot C., Stone N. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-020-00789-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SSRv..217...16B 217, 16

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00789-1 2021

  7. [7]

    M., Lodato G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2816B 464, 2816

    Bonnerot C., Rossi E. M., Lodato G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2816B 464, 2816

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2547 2017

  8. [8]

    Bu D.-F., Qiao E., Yang X.-H., Liu J., Chen Z., Wu Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.2833B 516, 2833

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2399 2022

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Bu D.-F., Qiao E., Yang X.-H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4136B 523, 4136

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    P., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/296211a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.296..211C 296, 211

    Carter B., Luminet J. P., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/296211a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.296..211C 296, 211

    1982 doi

  3. [11]

    Chornock R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...44C 780, 44

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Begelman M

    Coughlin E. R., Begelman M. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781...82C 781, 82

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Curd B., Narayan R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..565C 483, 565

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M

    Dai L., McKinney J. C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859L..20D 859, L20

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Lodato G., Cheng R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-020-00747-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SSRv..217...12D 217, 12

    Dai J. L., Lodato G., Cheng R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-020-00747-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SSRv..217...12D 217, 12

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    A., McClintock J

    Esin A. A., McClintock J. E., Narayan R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304829 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..865E 489, 865

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Kochanek C

    Evans C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...346L..13E 346, L13

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    Falcke H., K \"o rding E., Markoff S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...414..895F 414, 895

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/176.3.633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976MNRAS.176..633F 176, 633

    Frank J., Rees M. J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/176.3.633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976MNRAS.176..633F 176, 633

    1976 doi

  12. [20]

    Gezari S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59...21G 59, 21

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Gezari S., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653L..25G 653, L25

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    Gezari S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..944G 676, 944

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Gezari S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1367G 698, 1367

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    Gezari S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.485..217G 485, 217

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Golightly E. C. A., Coughlin E. R., Nixon C. J., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd2f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..163G 872, 163

    doi

  18. [26]

    Golightly E. C. A., Nixon C. J., Coughlin E. R., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab380d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L..26G 882, L26

    doi

  19. [27]

    C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..805G 350, 805

    Grupe D., Beuermann K., Mannheim K., Thomas H. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..805G 350, 805

    1999 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...25G 767, 25

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Tokayer Y

    Guolo M., Gezari S., Yao Y., van Velzen S., Hammerstein E., Cenko S. B., Tokayer Y. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..160G 966, 160

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    G., Ozernoi L

    Gurzadian V. G., Ozernoi L. M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1038/280214a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.280..214G 280, 214

    1979 doi

  23. [31]

    Hayasaki K., Stone N., Loeb A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434..909H 434, 909

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Sim S

    Higginbottom N., Knigge C., Long K. S., Sim S. A., Matthews J. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1390H 436, 1390

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    G., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1038/254295a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Natur.254..295H 254, 295

    Hills J. G., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1038/254295a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Natur.254..295H 254, 295

    1975 doi

  26. [34]

    G., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/331687a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..687H 331, 687

    Hills J. G., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/331687a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..687H 331, 687

    1988 doi

  27. [35]

    Holoien T. W. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3263H 445, 3263

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Holoien T. W. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2918H 455, 2918

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Jiang Y.-F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abe303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..253...49J 253, 49

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y.-F., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...14J 199, 14

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y.-F., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796..106J 796, 106

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Jiang Y.-F., Guillochon J., Loeb A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..125J 830, 125

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y.-F., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...67J 880, 67

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Schmitt H

    Komossa S., 2004, in Storchi-Bergmann T., Ho L. C., Schmitt H. R., eds, Vol. 222, The Interplay Among Black Holes, Stars and ISM in Galactic Nuclei. pp 45--48, @doi 10.1017/S1743921304001425

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    Komossa S., 2015, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JHEAp...7..148K 7, 148

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Komossa S., Bade N., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...343..775K 343, 775

    1999 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Komossa S., Greiner J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...349L..45K 349, L45

    1999 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Komossa S., Halpern J., Schartel N., Hasinger G., Santos-Lleo M., Predehl P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...603L..17K 603, L17

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Komossa S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678L..13K 678, L13

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Jester S., Fender R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10954.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372.1366K 372, 1366

    K \"o rding E. G., Jester S., Fender R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10954.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372.1366K 372, 1366

    2006

  41. [49]

    Law-Smith J., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab379a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882L..25L 882, L25

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Li L.-X., Narayan R., Menou K., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576..753L 576, 753

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    F., Qiao E., 2022, @doi [iScience] 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022iSci...25j3544L 25, 103544

    Liu B. F., Qiao E., 2022, @doi [iScience] 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022iSci...25j3544L 25, 103544

    2022

  44. [53]

    R., Pringle J

    Lodato G., King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14049.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..332L 392, 332

    2009

  45. [54]

    Loeb A., Ulmer A., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..573L 489, 573

    1997 doi

  46. [55]

    S., Knigge C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..725L 579, 725

    Long K. S., Knigge C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..725L 579, 725

    2002 doi

  47. [56]

    B., Morel J

    Lowrie R. B., Morel J. E., Hittinger J. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...521..432L 521, 432

    1999 doi

  48. [57]

    Lu W., Bonnerot C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492..686L 492, 686

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    P., Marck J

    Luminet J. P., Marck J. A., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/212.1.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985MNRAS.212...57L 212, 57

    1985 doi

  50. [59]

    J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    Maccarone T. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  51. [60]

    P., Ulmer M

    Maksym W. P., Ulmer M. P., Eracleous M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1035M 722, 1035

    2010 doi

  52. [61]

    H., Knigge C., Long K

    Matthews J. H., Knigge C., Long K. S., Sim S. A., Higginbottom N., Mangham S. W., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458..293M 458, 293

    2016 doi

  53. [62]

    H., Knigge C., Long K

    Matthews J. H., Knigge C., Long K. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2571M 467, 2571

    2017 doi

  54. [63]

    C., Tchekhovskoy A., Sadowski A., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3177M 441, 3177

    McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., Sadowski A., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3177M 441, 3177

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    Merloni A., Heinz S., di Matteo T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1057M 345, 1057

    2003

  56. [65]

    D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..12M 937, L12

    Metzger B. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..12M 937, L12

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Stone N

    Metzger B. D., Stone N. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..948M 461, 948

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    F., Meyer-Hofmeister E., 2000a, , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2000A

    Meyer F., Liu B. F., Meyer-Hofmeister E., 2000a, , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2000A

  59. [68]

    F., Meyer-Hofmeister E., 2000b, , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2000A

    Meyer F., Liu B. F., Meyer-Hofmeister E., 2000b, , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2000A

  60. [69]

    C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...83M 805, 83

    Miller M. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...83M 805, 83

    2015 doi

  61. [70]

    Moravec E., Svoboda J., Borkar A., Boorman P., Kynoch D., Panessa F., Mingo B., Guainazzi M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..28M 662, A28

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187381 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/1994ApJ...428L..13N 428, L13

    1994 doi

  63. [72]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176343 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/1995ApJ...452..710N 452, 710

    1995 doi

  64. [73]

    Ohsuga K., Mineshige S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736....2O 736, 2

    2011 doi

  65. [74]

    Ohsuga K., Mori M., Nakamoto T., Mineshige S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..368O 628, 368

    2005 doi

  66. [75]

    S., 1989, in Morris M., ed., Vol

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

    1989

  67. [76]

    M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..164P 806, 164

    Piran T., Svirski G., Krolik J., Cheng R. M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..164P 806, 164

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/2 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2013ApJ...764....2Q 764, 2

    Qiao E., Liu B. F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/2 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2013ApJ...764....2Q 764, 2

    2013 doi

  69. [78]

    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

  70. [79]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA

    2006 arXiv

  71. [80]

    M., Stone N

    Rossi E. M., Stone N. C., Law-Smith J. A. P., Macleod M., Lodato G., Dai J. L., Mandel I., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-021-00818-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SSRv..217...40R 217, 40

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    Roth N., Kasen D., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827....3R 827, 3

    2016 doi

  73. [82]

    C., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...98R 904, 98

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...98R 904, 98

    doi

  74. [83]

    C., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...99R 904, 99

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...99R 904, 99

    doi

  75. [84]

    C., 2020c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..100R 904, 100

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2020c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..100R 904, 100

    doi

  76. [85]

    Sacchi A., Lodato G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1833S 486, 1833

    2019 doi

  77. [86]

    Sadowski A., Narayan R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3213S 453, 3213

    2015 doi

  78. [87]

    C., Tchekhovskoy A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..503S 439, 503

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..503S 439, 503

    2014 doi

  79. [88]

    G., 2021, Correction to: X-Ray Properties of TDEs , Space Science Reviews, Volume 217, Issue 1, article id.18 ( @eprint arXiv 2103.15442 ), @doi 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7

    Saxton R., Komossa S., Auchettl K., Jonker P. G., 2021, Correction to: X-Ray Properties of TDEs , Space Science Reviews, Volume 217, Issue 1, article id.18 ( @eprint arXiv 2103.15442 ), @doi 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7

    2021 arXiv

  80. [89]

    H., Cheng R

    Shiokawa H., Krolik J. H., Cheng R. M., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804...85S 804, 85

    2015 doi

  81. [91]

    A., Proga D., Miller L., Long K

    Sim S. A., Proga D., Miller L., Long K. S., Turner T. J., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17215.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1396S 408, 1396

    2010

  82. [92]

    C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..463S 625, 463

    Steinberg E., Stone N. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..463S 625, 463

    2024 doi

  83. [93]

    R., Stone N

    Steinberg E., Coughlin E. R., Stone N. C., Metzger B. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485L.146S 485, L146

    2019 doi

  84. [94]

    M., Tomida K., White C

    Stone J. M., Tomida K., White C. J., Felker K. G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249....4S 249, 4

    2020 doi

  85. [95]

    E., Quataert E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.2070S 400, 2070

    Strubbe L. E., Quataert E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.2070S 400, 2070

    2009

  86. [96]

    E., Liu B

    Taam R. E., Liu B. F., Yuan W., Qiao E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/65 , http://ads.bao.ac.cn/abs/2012ApJ...759...65T 759, 65

    2012 doi

  87. [97]

    L., Kwan T

    Thomsen L. L., Kwan T. M., Dai L., Wu S. C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937L..28T 937, L28

    2022 doi

  88. [98]

    Ulmer A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...514..180U 514, 180

    1999 doi

  89. [99]

    Vink \'o J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...12V 798, 12

    2015 doi

  90. [100]

    Wu Q., Gu M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588187 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..212W 682, 212

    2008 doi

  91. [101]

    Yuan F., Narayan R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA

    2014 doi

  92. [102]

    development team A., 2021, PrincetonUniversity/athena-public-version: Athena++ v21.0 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4455880 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4455880

    2021 doi

  93. [103]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...73V 741, 73

    2011 doi

  94. [104]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2016, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aad1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Sci...351...62V 351, 62

    2016 doi

  95. [105]

    van Velzen S., Holoien T. W. S., Onori F., Hung T., Arcavi I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SSRv..216..124V 216, 124

    2020 doi

  96. [106]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908....4V 908, 4

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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