Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Universal Radial Scaling of Large-Scale Black Hole Accretion for Magnetically Arrested And Rocking Accretion Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Long 3D simulations show that black hole inflow follows a universal power law: slope 0.66 in magnetically arrested disks, 0.87 in rocking states.

desk verdict Solid GRMHD scaling study with a genuinely new slope measurement, but the astrophysical punchline—MAD/RAD crossover at r_B/r_g ~ 10^5—rests on an extrapolation beyond the converged runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23888 v1 pith:7PRE5TZX submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Aretaios Lalakos , Alexander Tchekhovskoy , Elias R. Most , Bart Ripperda , Koushik Chatterjee , Matthew Liska This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords blackholeaccretiongeneralrelativisticmagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticallyarresteddiskBondijetsAGNfeedbackinflow-outflowsolutionsM87*
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 tries to establish that the rate at which gas falls onto a rapidly spinning black hole is set by a simple universal power law in the ratio of the Bondi radius to the gravitational radius, independent of how far apart the two scales are and of how much rotation the ambient gas carries. Using 3D general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations run longer than any previous Bondi-like simulations, it finds that magnetically arrested disks all have inflow profiles $\dot{M}_{\rm in}(r)/\dot{M}_{\rm B} \sim (r/r_{\rm B})^{0.66}$, while the chaotic 'rocking' state that follows when jets disrupt the disk has a steeper slope $0.87$. Extrapolated to realistic scale separations $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} \sim 10^5$-$10^6$, the two fits give the same black hole accretion rate, about $10^{-3}$ of the Bondi rate, and predict that systems cycle between the two states on timescales of tens of Bondi times, potentially explaining the duty cycle of jetted AGN outbursts like M87*.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the angle-integrated radial mass flux profile $\dot{M}(r)$ measured in inflow equilibrium, fit by a two-parameter model $\dot{M}_{\rm in}(r) = \dot{M}_{\rm BH} + \dot{M}_{\rm out}(r)$ with $\dot{M}_{\rm out}(r)$ a power law from a wind-launch radius $r_w$ to the distance $r_0 \sim 10 r_{\rm g}$ (MAD) or $\sim 50 r_{\rm g}$ (RAD) where the inflow flattens. The single index $s$ of this power law connects the Bondi-scale rate to the horizon rate, and the simulations establish that $s$ and the normalization are invariant under changes of $r_{\rm B}$ and $r_{\rm c}$. The long contiguous runtime, up to about $4 \times 10^6 r_{\rm g}/c$ and several Bondi times, is what allows the inflow equilibrium to reach the Bondi radius.

What would settle it

Continue the $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} = 10^4$ simulation, or run a new one at larger separation, for at least a few Bondi times until the dimensionless magnetic flux saturates, then measure the time-averaged $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}/\dot{M}_{\rm B}$; if the result does not lie on the MAD power law $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}/\dot{M}_{\rm B} = 1.0 \times 10^{-3} (r_{\rm B}/10^5 r_{\rm g})^{-0.66}$, the claimed universality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a parameter-free radial scaling law for hot accretion flows. In the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state, the time-averaged inflow rate obeys $\dot{M}_{\rm in}(r)/\dot{M}_{\rm B} \sim (r/r_{\rm B})^s$ with $s = 0.66 \pm 0.03$, and the black hole accretion rate is $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}/\dot{M}_{\rm B} = (1.0 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-3} \, (r_{\rm B}/10^5 r_{\rm g})^{-0.66 \pm 0.03}$. In the rocking accretion disk (RAD) state the slope steepens to $s = 0.87 \pm 0.05$ and $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}/\dot{M}_{\rm B} = (1.0 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-3} \, (r_{\rm B}/10^5 r_{\rm g})^{-0.87 \pm 0.05}$. These fits are independent of the scale separation $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g}$ over 100-3000 and of the circularization radius $r_{\rm c}/r_{\rm g}$ over 0-300; the averaged magnetic flux $\phi_{\rm BH} \sim 65$ and outflow efficiency $\eta \sim 200\%$ are also constant. Because the MAD and RAD fits cross near $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} \sim 10^5$, at astrophysically relevant separations the accretion rate is the same in both states, so transitions between them can switch jets without changing the fueling rate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the power laws measured in simulations with $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} \le 3000$ continue to hold at the astrophysically relevant separations of $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} \sim 10^5$-$10^6$, where the MAD and RAD fits cross; the single $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} = 10^4$ simulation has not yet reached a MAD steady state, so that crossing is an extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At realistic scale separations $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} \gtrsim 10^5$, the MAD and RAD states accrete at the same rate, so a black hole can switch between stable and chaotic jet states without any change in its fuel supply.
  • The MAD-RAD cycle recurrence time of tens of Bondi timescales, $t_{\rm B} \approx 0.2\,\mathrm{Myr} \, (r_{\rm B}/10^5 r_{\rm g})^{3/2} (M_{\rm BH}/10^9 M_\odot)$, gives a concrete prediction for the duty cycle of jetted AGN outbursts; for M87* the implied episode duration is a few Myr.
  • Because the inflow profile keeps the same slope all the way from $r_{\rm B}$ to about $10 r_{\rm g}$, the common practice of quoting a single power-law index $s$ from the local logarithmic slope is biased; the paper's fitting method recovers $s \approx 0.65$ for the MAD state, compared with naive local slopes of roughly $0.5$-$1$.
  • The rotation of ambient gas, parameterized by $r_{\rm c}$, leaves the time-averaged accretion rate and magnetic flux unchanged in the MAD state, so the long-term accretion efficiency is controlled by magnetic flux and jet feedback rather than by the initial angular momentum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the power laws hold to $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} \sim 10^6$, the predicted black hole accretion rate drops to roughly $2 \times 10^{-4}$ of the Bondi rate, sharpening estimates of how much gas actually reaches supermassive black holes at the low-luminosity end.
  • The MAD-RAD cycle is an intrinsic, magnetically driven clock; if it operates in real AGN, it implies that jet variability on Myr timescales need not track changes in external gas supply, a testable distinction against pure Bondi-fed variability models.
  • The paper excludes its $r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm g} = 10^4$ run from the fit because that run has not reached a MAD steady state, leaving open the possibility that at sufficiently large scale separation the MAD state becomes harder to establish; a dedicated run at that size is the natural next check.
  • The independence of the scaling from $r_{\rm c}$ suggests that the details of how angular momentum is distributed at the Bondi scale are not needed to predict long-term black hole fueling, which could simplify sub-grid models of AGN feedback in galaxy simulations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a suite of 3D GRMHD simulations of Bondi-like accretion onto a rapidly spinning black hole (a=0.94), varying the Bondi radius over r_B/r_g = 100–10^4 and the circularization radius over r_c/r_g = 0–300. The authors report that all runs that are evolved long enough reach a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state, with a claimed universal radial inflow scaling Mdot_in(r)/Mdot_B ~ (r/r_B)^s, s=0.66±0.03 in MAD and s=0.87±0.05 in the rocking accretion disk (RAD) state. From fits to the time-averaged black hole accretion rates, they obtain Mdot_BH/Mdot_B = 1.0e-3 (r_B/10^5 r_g)^(-0.66) for MAD and = 1.0e-3 (r_B/10^5 r_g)^(-0.87) for RAD (eqs. 9–10), and note that these two fits cross near r_B/r_g ~ 10^5, which they suggest may set the duty cycle of jetted AGN outbursts such as M87*.

Significance. If the scaling laws persist beyond the simulated range, the paper offers a simple, physically motivated bridge between Bondi-scale feeding and horizon-scale accretion in low-luminosity AGN, with concrete implications for jet duty cycles. The simulations are long (up to ~4e6 r_g/c) and cover an unusually large range of scale separation; the authors also provide radial inflow/outflow profiles in inflow equilibrium out to ~0.5–1 r_B, and they give autocorrelation-aware error bars on the averaged quantities. The identification of recurrent MAD–RAD transitions and the attempt to measure their timescales are valuable. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a small number of simulation points and on an explicit extrapolation to r_B/r_g ~ 10^5 that is not yet supported by a converged run at r_B/r_g = 10^4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III C, Fig. 4, eqs. (9)–(10)] The crossover of the MAD and RAD fits at r_B/r_g ~ 10^5 is an extrapolation beyond the largest converged data point (r_B/r_g = 3000) by a factor of about 30. The r_B/r_g = 10^4 run, which would be the nearest test, is explicitly not in a MAD steady state: Section III A reports that phi_BH fluctuates between ~20 and ~60 and the disk is tilted, and the Fig. 4 caption states only that the authors 'anticipate' it will eventually transition to MAD. The body of the paper correctly inserts 'If the above power-law fits ... persist', but the abstract and Conclusions present the convergence ('become comparable at typical scale separations') as a result rather than a conditional prediction. Since the M87* duty-cycle application in Section IV relies on this crossover, the authors should either soften the abstract/conclusions or provide additional support, for example by evolving the 10^4 run longer or by demonstrating that the fitted slope is robust to alternative fitting ranges and to the incomplete inflow equilibrium of the 3000 run.
  2. [Abstract and Section III A] The abstract states that 'all simulations reach a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state', but the r_B/r_g = 10^4 run has not reached a MAD steady state within the simulated duration; the text in Section III A says it 'has not yet reached a stable midplane-aligned disk' and 'we anticipate' a later transition. This is an overstatement of the presented evidence. The claim should be qualified, for example to 'all runs that are evolved for several Bondi times'.
  3. [Section III C, eq. (9) and Fig. 7] The MAD slope s = 0.66 ± 0.03 is fit to four runs at fixed r_c/r_g = 30 and a single spin a = 0.94. The claimed independence from r_c is demonstrated only for r_B/r_g = 1000 (Figs. 7 and 8), not across the full r_B range. In addition, the quoted 2σ uncertainties on the fit parameters do not include systematic errors from the finite inflow-equilibrium radius (for r_B/r_g = 3000, equilibrium extends only to ~0.5 r_B), from the choice of the radial range used in the fit, or from the fixed spin. As written, eq. (9) and the statement that the scaling is 'universal' overstate the precision that the data warrant. A sensitivity analysis or an explicit acknowledgment of these systematics is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III C and Fig. 6] The r_B dependence of Mdot_BH/Mdot_B in eq. (9) follows analytically from the normalized radial profile Mdot_in(r)/Mdot_B ~ (r/r_B)^s evaluated near r = 5 r_g, given the normalization Mdot_in(r_B) ≈ Mdot_B shown in Fig. 6. This is a consistency relation rather than an independent prediction; the paper should state this explicitly to avoid the appearance of an extra free scaling.
  2. [Fig. 4(a) caption] The caption says the r_B/r_g = 10^4 data point is excluded because it corresponds to the 'early jet onset phase (blue)', but the blue points are the minimum accretion rates during jet onset for all runs, not only the 10^4 run. Please clarify which points are meant and why the 10^4 point is treated differently from the others.
  3. [Notation] The paper uses both 'r_B/rg' and 'r_B/r_g' inconsistently across the text and figures; please unify the notation.
  4. [Section III A, Fig. 1 caption] The r_B/r_g = 10^4 run is described as 'still in the initial transient state' in the caption but as not having 'reached a stable midplane-aligned disk' in the text; the two descriptions should be aligned.
  5. [Section IV] The statement that for M87* the MAD/RAD timescale implies τ ~ 4 Myr 'consistent with observations [18]' would benefit from a brief explanation of which observational constraint on M87* is being used; reference [18] is a cavity study and the connection is not immediately obvious.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper transparently reports simulation fits; the BH-rate scaling is a consistency consequence of the radial inflow profile, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical GRMHD simulation study; its central claims are fits to simulated radial profiles and time-averaged BH accretion rates. Eq. (9) for the MAD BH accretion rate is mathematically implied by the power-law inflow profile Mdot_in(r)/Mdot_B ~ (r/r_B)^s anchored at Mdot_in(r_B) ~ Mdot_B when evaluated at r=5 r_g, and eq. (10) similarly for the RAD state. However, the paper does not present eqs. (9)-(10) as independent predictions: it explicitly says 'We fit the data using a power-law fit' (Sec. III C) and labels the r_B~10^5 crossing as conditional ('If the above power-law fits ... persist to larger scale separations...'). The RAD concept is cited from L24, but the present simulations directly exhibit the MAD-to-RAD transition, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The main limitations - the r_B/r_g=10^4 run not yet in MAD steady state and the extrapolation over a factor ~30 to 10^5 - are extrapolation/statistical concerns, not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the result it is said to derive, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central scaling rests on power-law fits (s, normalization) to simulation output. The physical setup includes idealized assumptions: coherent vertical magnetic field at beta=100 beyond r_B, aligned spin a=0.94, no cooling, and solid-body rotation parametrized by r_c. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • MAD inflow power-law index s = 0.66 ± 0.03
    Central scaling exponent fit to time-averaged MAD inflow profiles and to BH accretion rate vs r_B (eq. 9, Fig. 4a).
  • RAD inflow power-law index s = 0.87 ± 0.05
    Central scaling exponent fit to RAD inflow profiles (eq. 10, Fig. 4a).
  • MAD normalization A_MAD = 1.0 ± 0.2 × 10^-3
    Prefactor in eq. (9) fit to Mdot_BH/Mdot_B vs r_B for r_B/r_g = 100-3000.
  • RAD normalization A_RAD = 1.0 ± 0.3 × 10^-3
    Prefactor in eq. (10).
  • Wind flattening radius r_0 = 10 r_g (MAD), 50 r_g (RAD)
    Radius at which inflow profile flattens in eqs. (7)-(8); inferred from profiles, affects the fit of s.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ideal GRMHD with Gamma=5/3 and no cooling describes radiatively inefficient accretion in LLAGN.
    Used throughout Section II; the authors state radiation effects are ignored as appropriate for low-luminosity BH accretion.
  • ad hoc to paper A coherent large-scale vertical magnetic field with beta=100 at r>r_B supplies the magnetic flux that produces MAD.
    Initial condition, Section II: A_phi proportional to max(r^2 - r_B^2, 0) sin^2(theta); real galactic media may have more tangled fields, and this choice directly seeds MAD.
  • domain assumption The BH spin is high (a=0.94) and aligned with gas angular momentum; gas rotation follows l = l0 sin^2(theta).
    Section II; alignment and spin choice maximize jet power; universality across spin is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Inflow equilibrium out to r_B is achieved in the time-averaging windows, so the profiles reflect steady-state flow.
    Section III B-C and Appendix B; only some runs reach equilibrium out to r_B, and r_B/r_g=10^4 is still transient.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Radial Scaling of Large-Scale Black Hole Accretion for Magnetically Arrested And Rocking Accretion Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PRE5TZX

@misc{pith2026250523888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Radial Scaling of Large-Scale Black Hole Accretion for Magnetically Arrested And Rocking Accretion Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PRE5TZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23888}
}
abstract

Accretion onto supermassive black holes (BHs) can launch relativistic jets that inject energy and momentum into their surroundings. Understanding how such feedback shapes large-scale accretion is key to bridging observations from galactic scales (e.g., the Bondi radius, $r_{\rm B}$) down to event horizon scales ($r_{\rm g}$), spanning 5-6 orders of magnitude. We tackle this challenge by varying the spatial scale separation across 2-4 orders of magnitude and performing some of the longest contiguous 3D general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations to date ($t \lesssim 4\times10^6 r_{\rm g}/c$), of Bondi-like accretion of rotating, non-relativistic gas with weak vertical magnetic fields onto a rapidly spinning BH, achieving inflow equilibrium out to $r \gtrsim 10^3 r_{\rm g}$. We find that, regardless of scale separation or ambient gas rotation, all simulations reach a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state where the BH becomes magnetically saturated. In this state, the mass inflow rate follows a universal radial scaling: $\dot{M}_{\rm in}(r) \sim r^s$ with $s = 0.66 \pm 0.03$. The MAD state self-regulates through jets, outflows, and magnetic flux eruptions that can disrupt coherent angular momentum inflow, giving rise to a rocking accretion disk (RAD) state. This RAD state features chaotically oriented inflows, weak intermittent jets, and a steeper inflow slope of $s = 0.87 \pm 0.05$. The MAD and RAD BH accretion rates become comparable at typical scale separations, $r_{\rm B}/ r_{\rm g} \gtrsim 10^5$. Weaker RAD outflows allow large-scale inflows to resume, restoring the MAD state and enabling a recurring MAD-RAD cycle. These cycles can last tens of Bondi timescales, $t_{\rm B} \sim 0.2\,\text{Myr} \times (r_{\rm B}/10^{5} r_{\rm g})^{3/2} \times (M_{\rm BH}/10^9M_\odot)$, potentially setting the duty cycle of jetted AGN outbursts, such as in M87*.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23888 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. All of our simulations end up entering the MAD state, and some switch back and forth between the MAD (green shaded region) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The MAD state features erupting bundles of magnetic flux near the BH, visible as vertically directed field lines (green), which tear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. We can accurately determine the radial profiles of MAD and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. In our largest scale separation run ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. We find that magnetized rotating Bondi flows universally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The MAD and RAD power-law scalings are largely insen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Changes in the circularization radius, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Bridging Scales in Black Hole Accretion and Feedback: Relativistic Jet linking the Horizon to the Host Galaxy

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For a spin a*=0.9 black hole fed by hot gas, the relativistic jet's time-averaged feedback efficiency is about 30 percent and independent of the Bondi radius, with accretion suppressed as Mdot/Mdot_B proportional to R...

  2. Variability in Black Hole Accretion: Dependence on Rotational and Magnetic Energy Balance

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Strong initial magnetic fields in large simulated accretion tori produce intermittent black hole jets and rotation reversals, and the delay depends on the initial rotation-to-magnetic energy ratio.

  3. Numerical Simulations of Restarted Jets -- I. Dynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Restarted jets propagate ballistically through rarefied remnant cocoons with minimal backflow, decelerating only at dense entrained structures, after the cocoon evolves through conical-cylindrical-mushroom phases shap...

  4. GRACE: An Open-Source Framework for GPU-Accelerated Numerical Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRACE is a validated, open-source, Kokkos+p4est GPU-portable framework that evolves ideal GRMHD with constrained transport self-consistently coupled to Z4c Einstein equations on fixed or adaptive meshes.

  5. $\textit{BMAD}$-Circumbinary Magnetically Arrested Disks around Stellar or Black Hole Binaries: Hot Accretion Flows, Disk Properties, and Angular Momentum Transfer

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Circumbinary accretion disks can enter a magnetically arrested state, and in weakly cooled or adiabatic regimes the resulting magnetic flux eruptions may drive the binary orbit to shrink.

  6. Dynamics and geometry of the inner sub-parsec-scale jet in 3C 279 observed with the Event Horizon Telescope

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EHT 2021 images of 3C 279 reveal an intrinsic, sideways-elongated jet base whose components move at apparent speeds up to 10c, implying a sub-parsec bend toward the observer and viewing angles below one degree.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Narayan and I

    R. Narayan and I. Yi, ApJ428, L13 (1994), astro-ph/9403052

    arXiv 1994

  2. [2]

    Yuan and R

    F. Yuan and R. Narayan, Annual Review of Astronomy and As- trophysics52, 529 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Sikora, Ł

    M. Sikora, Ł. Stawarz, and J.-P. Lasota, Astrophys. J.658, 815 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0604095

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    A. C. Fabian, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 50, 455 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Morganti, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences4, 42 (2017)

    R. Morganti, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences4, 42 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, MNRAS179, 433 (1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    R. D. Blandford and D. G. Payne, MNRAS199, 883 (1982)

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Blandford, D

    R. Blandford, D. Meier, and A. Readhead, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics57, 467 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    M. S. S. L. Oei, R. J. van Weeren, M. J. Hardcastle, A. Bot- teon, T. W. Shimwell, P. Dabhade, A. R. D. J. G. I. B. Gast, H. J. A. Röttgering, M. Brüggen, C. Tasse, W. L. Williams, and A. Shulevski, A&A660, A2 (2022), arXiv:2202.05427 [astro- ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. S. Oei, M. J. Hardcastle, R. Timmerman, A. R. Gast, A. Bot- teon, A. C. Rodriguez, D. Stern, G. Calistro Rivera, R. J. van Weeren, H. J. Röttgering,et al., Nature633, 537 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    McNamara and P

    B. McNamara and P. Nulsen, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.45, 117 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    McNamara and P

    B. McNamara and P. Nulsen, New Journal of Physics14, 055023 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Zhuravleva, E

    I. Zhuravleva, E. Churazov, P. Arévalo, A. A. Schekochi- hin, W. R. Forman, S. W. Allen, A. Simionescu, R. Sun- yaev, A. Vikhlinin, and N. Werner, MNRAS458, 2902 (2016), arXiv:1601.02615 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Martizzi, E

    D. Martizzi, E. Quataert, C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, and D. Field- ing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society483, 2465 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Li, M.-L

    Y . Li, M.-L. Gendron-Marsolais, I. Zhuravleva, S. Xu, A. Simionescu, G. R. Tremblay, C. Lochhaas, G. L. Bryan, E. Quataert, N. W. Murray, A. Boselli, J. Hlavacek-Larrondo, Y . Zheng, M. Fossati, M. Li, E. Emsellem, M. Sarzi, L. Arzamasskiy, and E. T. Vishniac, ApJ889, L1 (202...

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bondi, MNRAS112, 195 (1952)

    H. Bondi, MNRAS112, 195 (1952)

    1952

  9. [17]

    S. L. Shapiro, A. P. Lightman, and D. M. Eardley, Astrophys. J. 204, 187 (1976)

    1976

  10. [18]

    Forman, E

    W. Forman, E. Churazov, C. Jones, S. Heinz, R. Kraft, and A. Vikhlinin, Astrophys. J.844, 122 (2017), arXiv:1705.01104 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H. R. Russell, A. C. Fabian, B. R. McNamara, and A. E. Broderick, MNRAS451, 588 (2015), arXiv:1504.07633 [astro- ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Akiyama, J

    K. Akiyama, J. C. Algaba, A. Alberdi, W. Alef, R. Anantua, 10 K. Asada, R. Azulay, A.-K. Baczko, D. Ball, M. Balokovi ´c, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters910, L13 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    R. D. Blandford and M. C. Begelman, MNRAS303, L1 (1999), astro-ph/9809083

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. D. Blandford and M. C. Begelman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society349, 68 (2004), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/349/1/68/11182987/349-1-68.pdf

    2004

  15. [23]

    M. C. Begelman, MNRAS420, 2912 (2012), arXiv:1110.5356 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    F. Yuan, M. Wu, and D. Bu, The Astrophysical Journal761, 129 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    F. Yuan, D. Bu, and M. Wu, Astrophys. J.761, 130 (2012), arXiv:1206.4173 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Xu, Astrophys

    W. Xu, Astrophys. J.954, 180 (2023), arXiv:2305.09737 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Narayan, A

    R. Narayan, A. S˛ adowski, R. F. Penna, and A. K. Kulkarni, MN- RAS426, 3241 (2012), arXiv:1206.1213 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    F. Yuan, Z. Gan, R. Narayan, A. Sadowski, D. Bu, and X.-N. Bai, Astrophys. J.804, 101 (2015), arXiv:1501.01197 [astro- ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S˛ adowski, R

    A. S˛ adowski, R. Narayan, R. Penna, and Y . Zhu, MNRAS436, 3856 (2013), arXiv:1307.1143 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and A. A. Ruzmaikin, Ap&SS28, 45 (1974)

    1974

  23. [31]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and A. A. Ruzmaikin, Ap&SS42, 401 (1976)

    1976

  24. [32]

    I. V . Igumenshchev, R. Narayan, and M. A. Abramowicz, Astro- phys. J.592, 1042 (2003), astro-ph/0301402

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Narayan, I

    R. Narayan, I. V . Igumenshchev, and M. A. Abramowicz, PASJ 55, L69 (2003), astro-ph/0305029

    2003 arXiv

  26. [34]

    I. V . Igumenshchev, Astrophys. J.677, 317 (2008), arXiv:0711.4391 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters418, L79 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    J. C. McKinney, A. Tchekhovskoy, and R. D. Blandford, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society423, 3083 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Manikantan, N

    V . Manikantan, N. Kaaz, J. Jacquemin-Ide, G. Musoke, K. Chat- terjee, M. Liska, and A. Tchekhovskoy, Astrophys. J.965, 175 (2024), arXiv:2310.11490 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Anglés-Alcázar, E

    D. Anglés-Alcázar, E. Quataert, P. F. Hopkins, R. S. Somerville, C. C. Hayward, C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, G. L. Bryan, D. Kereš, L. Hernquist, and J. M. Stone, Astrophys. J.917, 53 (2021), arXiv:2008.12303 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021

  31. [39]

    P. F. Hopkins, J. Squire, K.-Y . Su, U. P. Steinwandel, K. Kre- mer, Y . Shi, M. Y . Grudic, S. Wellons, C.-A. Faucher-Giguere, D. Angles-Alcazar,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04506 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    P. F. Hopkins, K.-Y . Su, N. Murray, U. P. Steinwandel, N. Kaaz, S. B. Ponnada, J. Bardati, J. M. Piotrowska, H.-Y . Wang, Y . Shi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05268 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N. Kaaz, M. Liska, A. Tchekhovskoy, P. F. Hopkins, and J. Jacquemin-Ide, The Astrophysical Journal979, 248 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    S. M. Ressler, E. Quataert, and J. M. Stone, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society478, 3544 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    S. M. Ressler, C. J. White, E. Quataert, and J. M. Stone, ApJ 896, L6 (2020), arXiv:2006.00005 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. Guo, J. M. Stone, C.-G. Kim, and E. Quataert, The Astro- physical Journal946, 26 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    M. Guo, J. M. Stone, E. Quataert, and C.-G. Kim, Astrophys. J. 973, 141 (2024), arXiv:2405.11711 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    H. Cho, B. S. Prather, R. Narayan, P. Natarajan, K.-Y . Su, A. Ri- carte, and K. Chatterjee, The Astrophysical Journal Letters959, L22 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    H. Cho, B. S. Prather, K.-Y . Su, R. Narayan, and P. Natarajan, The Astrophysical Journal977, 200 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    M. Guo, J. M. Stone, E. Quataert, and V . Springel, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16802 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. M. Ressler, E. Quataert, C. J. White, and O. Blaes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society504, 6076 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Lalakos, A

    A. Lalakos, A. Tchekhovskoy, O. Bromberg, O. Gottlieb, J. Jacquemin-Ide, M. Liska, and H. Zhang, The Astrophysical Journal964, 79 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Lalakos, O

    A. Lalakos, O. Gottlieb, N. Kaaz, K. Chatterjee, M. Liska, I. M. Christie, A. Tchekhovskoy, I. Zhuravleva, and E. Nokhrina, ApJ 936, L5 (2022), arXiv:2202.08281 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Model.We immerse a BH of massM BH in a uniform am- bient medium of mass densityρ=ρ 0

    for a convergence study in a similar setup. Model.We immerse a BH of massM BH in a uniform am- bient medium of mass densityρ=ρ 0. We ignore the radia- tion effects (e.g., cooling), as appropriate for low-luminosity BH accretion; this allows free scaling ofρ 0, which we set toρ...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Galishnikova, A

    A. Galishnikova, A. Philippov, E. Quataert, K. Chatterjee, and M. Liska, The Astrophysical Journal978, 148 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    T. M. Kwan, L. Dai, and A. Tchekhovskoy, The Astrophysical Journal Letters946, L42 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    H.-S. Chan, P. Dhang, J. Dexter, and M. C. Begelman, The As- trophysical Journal985, 135 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Liska, K

    M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, D. Issa, D. Yoon, N. Kaaz, A. Tchekhovskoy, D. van Eijnatten, G. Musoke, C. Hesp, V . Ro- hoza,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series263, 26 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Porth, K

    O. Porth, K. Chatterjee, R. Narayan, C. F. Gammie, Y . Mizuno, P. Anninos, J. G. Baker, M. Bugli, C.-k. Chan, J. Davelaar,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series243, 26 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Palit, A

    I. Palit, A. Janiuk, and P. Sukova, MNRAS487, 755 (2019), arXiv:1905.02289 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. A. Balbus and J. F. Hawley, Astrophys. J.376, 214 (1991)

    1991

  52. [60]

    Chatterjee, M

    K. Chatterjee, M. Liska, A. Tchekhovskoy, and S. Markoff, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.00432 (2023), arXiv:2311.00432 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  53. [61]

    Ripperda, F

    B. Ripperda, F. Bacchini, and A. A. Philippov, The Astrophysi- cal Journal900, 100 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Ripperda, M

    B. Ripperda, M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, G. Musoke, A. A. Philip- pov, S. B. Markoff, A. Tchekhovskoy, and Z. Younsi, The As- trophysical Journal Letters924, L32 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Liska, C

    M. Liska, C. Hesp, A. Tchekhovskoy, A. Ingram, M. van der Klis, and S. Markoff, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society: Letters474, L81 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    S. M. Ressler, E. Quataert, and J. M. Stone, MNRAS492, 3272 (2020), arXiv:2001.04469 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Rohoza, A

    V . Rohoza, A. Lalakos, M. Paik, K. Chatterjee, M. Liska, A. Tchekhovskoy, and O. Gottlieb, The Astrophysical Journal Letters963, L29 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    E. R. Most and H.-Y . Wang, Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L19 (2024), arXiv:2408.00757 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    S. M. Ressler, L. Combi, B. Ripperda, and E. R. Most, The As- trophysical Journal Letters979, L24 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    H.-Y . Wang, M. Guo, E. R. Most, P. F. Hopkins, and A. Lalakos, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03874 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.