Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 8 cited by

Radiation GRMHD Models of Accretion onto Stellar-Mass Black Holes: I. Survey of Eddington Ratios

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Full-transport radiation GRMHD survey shows super-Eddington accretion is radiatively inefficient, with efficiency falling from ~5% at 0.1 Eddington to <0.5% at 150 Eddington, and that near-Eddington structure hinges on net vertical…

desk verdict A credible first full-transport radiation GRMHD survey with a real, unresolved conflict against Fragile et al. 2025 on super-Eddington efficiency—worth refereeing seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02289 v2 pith:2HH3XNMG submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE

Lizhong Zhang , James M. Stone , Patrick D. Mullen , Shane W. Davis , Yan-Fei Jiang , Christopher J. White This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords radiativemagnetohydrodynamicsgeneralrelativityblackholephysicsaccretionsuper-EddingtonultraluminousX-raysourcesbinarystarsmagneticallyarresteddisks
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 presents a survey of ten radiation-dominated accretion flows around a ten-solar-mass black hole, covering accretion rates from roughly one-tenth to 150 times Eddington, with two spin values and two initial magnetic field geometries. It sets out to establish how the structure and radiative output of black hole accretion change as the feeding rate is pushed far above Eddington, using a direct solution of the angle-dependent radiation transport equation in full general relativity. The headline result is that radiative efficiency collapses as the Eddington ratio rises, from about 5% at one-tenth Eddington to less than 0.5% at 150 Eddington, because super-Eddington flows become geometrically thick, radiation-pressure-supported disks whose narrow funnel-shaped photosphere traps most of the photons. Near and below Eddington, the survey finds two distinct structures set by net vertical magnetic flux: a thin dense layer with a magnetically dominated corona when flux is present, or a magnetically elevated disk when it is not. If the paper is right, super-Eddington sources should not be intrinsically super-Eddington in bolometric luminosity, which directly affects interpretations of ultraluminous X-ray sources, the soft state of X-ray binaries, and the X-ray-faint, red-compact sources recently found by JWST.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a full-transport radiation GRMHD algorithm: it evolves the angle-dependent, frequency-integrated specific intensity $\hat{I}$ through the time-dependent transfer equation in curved spacetime, using a fixed geodesic angular grid of 42 directions per cell, and couples radiation to the fluid through emission, absorption, and a Compton energy-exchange term. This replaces the approximate closures (flux-limited diffusion or the M1 two-moment method) that earlier radiation-GRMHD surveys relied on. The second piece of machinery is the initial magnetic configuration: a single-loop field supplies net vertical poloidal flux at the midplane, while a double-loop field has none, and the survey shows this distinction decides whether a near-Eddington disk becomes a thin gas-pressure-supported layer with a magnetically dominated corona or a magnetically elevated disk. The efficiency diagnostic $\eta_{\rm rad} = L/(\dot{M}c^2)$, evaluated at $r = 20r_g$ against an accretion rate measured at $r = 3r_g$, carries the headline claim.

What would settle it

Measure the intrinsic (de-beamed) radiative efficiency of a super-Eddington accretor with a known black hole mass and accretion rate, such as a ULX with optical/radio constraints; finding an efficiency much above the predicted few percent at these rates would contradict the paper, as would a thin-disk radiation GRMHD run with a single-loop field and no injected vertical flux that reaches horizon flux $\varphi_3 \approx 15$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The survey's central discovery is that the radiative efficiency of black hole accretion is a strong, monotonically decreasing function of the Eddington ratio: $\eta_{\rm rad}$ drops from roughly $5\%$ at $\dot{M} \simeq 0.1\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ to below $0.5\%$ at $\dot{M} \simeq 150\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$. Super-Eddington flows organize into a geometrically thick, radiation-pressure-supported disk ($H/r \sim 0.25$) in which photon trapping is set by turbulent advection rather than radiative diffusion, and a narrow funnel-shaped photosphere restricts the escaping radiation, while optically thick equatorial outflows carry an energy comparable to the radiation. Near and below the Eddington rate, the flow structure bifurcates according to net vertical magnetic flux: with flux, a thin ($H/r \sim 0.02$) dense gas layer sits beneath a magnetically dominated corona, and without flux the flow is magnetically dominated everywhere. None of the ten models reaches the magnetically arrested state (horizon flux $\varphi_3 \leq 3.5$, against the MAD threshold $\varphi_3 \approx 15$), yet the single-loop models with a rapidly spinning black hole still launch relativistic jets. The paper attributes these results to the direct treatment of radiation transport, free of the closure assumptions used in previous approximate methods, and notes that they align closely with the earlier non-relativistic full-transport models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a carefully chosen, self-contained gas torus with a hand-picked density represents how gas actually reaches a stellar-mass black hole from outside, so that the disk's own radiation and outflows do not limit the supply; if real feeding is throttled at large radii, the very fast, very dim states found here would not form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Super-Eddington accretion should not produce intrinsically super-Eddington bolometric luminosities; apparent high luminosities in ULXs require favorable beaming or a lower true accretion rate.
  • Observations of X-ray binaries in the soft state can be mapped onto the two magnetic-topology branches: radio-quiet, higher-variability sources correspond to zero-net-flux disks, while net-flux disks produce jets and lower variability.
  • The absence of MAD states in these thin-disk runs implies that magnetically arrested accretion in real thin disks demands a continuing external supply of vertical flux; without it, jets can still form but through a non-MAD mechanism.
  • Super-Eddington accretion should be accompanied by very low luminosity variability (≲10%) and by significant spectral hardening wherever the photosphere sits close to a magnetically active funnel.
  • The geometric and outflow properties of the super-Eddington models offer a concrete mechanism for the X-ray underluminosity and the ~3600 Å continuum break reported in little red dots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary the paper leaves implicit: if the efficiency drop is generic, population and feedback models that take a fixed ~10% radiative efficiency will systematically overestimate the radiative output of super-Eddington phases of black hole growth, while mechanical feedback from winds and jets will dominate.
  • The magnetic-topology dichotomy suggests a possible observational test through radio-X-ray correlation: sources on the net-flux branch should be radio-louder at fixed X-ray luminosity than zero-net-flux sources, which the current paper does not quantify.
  • A natural extension would be to post-process these snapshots with frequency-dependent Monte Carlo transport to predict spectra and color corrections, which would directly test the spectral-hardening prediction at high Eddington ratios.
  • The no-MAD conclusion may be resolution- and domain-size dependent; extending the same full-transport algorithm to larger domains with a cyclic-zoom approach could reveal whether flux recycling from the outer disk changes the conclusion.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ten radiation GRMHD simulations of accretion onto 10-solar-mass black holes, computed with the full transport radiation module in AthenaK (White et al. 2023). The models span estimated Eddington ratios from roughly 0.1 to 150, two black hole spins (0.3 and 0.9375), and two initial magnetic field topologies (single-loop with net vertical flux and double-loop without). The paper reports three structural regimes: geometrically thick, radiation-pressure-supported super-Eddington disks; thin, gas-pressure-supported disks with magnetically dominated coronae when net vertical flux is present; and magnetically elevated disks when it is not. It reports low radiative efficiencies at high accretion rates (dropping from about 5% at 0.1 Mdot_Edd to below 0.5% at 150 Mdot_Edd), powerful jets for spinning black holes with net vertical flux, no MAD states, and outflows with mass-loss rates comparable to the accretion rate. The results are applied to X-ray binaries, ULXs, SS 433, and, speculatively, to little red dots.

Significance. If the central results hold, this is a substantial contribution: it is one of the first parameter surveys of black hole accretion using direct (non-M1, non-FLD) radiation transport in full general relativity, and it comes with unusually strong technical support, including MRI quality factors (Q_z >= 15, Q_phi >= 60), at least 20 cells per scale height, resolution studies, and long integration times (60000-70000 rg/c). The finding that super-Eddington flows radiate at efficiencies below about 0.5% would have immediate consequences for interpreting ULX luminosities, X-ray binary spectral states, and high-redshift AGN candidates. The paper also credibly shows that initial net vertical magnetic flux, rather than accretion rate alone, controls the vertical structure of near-Eddington disks. The main caveat is that the headline efficiency result is in direct, unresolved tension with a comparable published calculation (Fragile et al. 2025), and the paper itself concedes that the origin of the difference is uncertain.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.6, Table 1] The central quantitative claim—that radiative efficiency drops below 0.5% at Mdot ~ 150 Mdot_Edd—is in direct conflict with Fragile et al. (2025), which the paper cites but does not reconcile. The paper's stated response, that its models satisfy the condition that the trapping radius is small compared with the disk size, does not discriminate the two calculations, because Fragile et al. satisfy that condition by construction. The manuscript concedes that 'the origin of the quite different outcomes between these calculations is uncertain and warrants further investigation.' This concession is load-bearing: if Fragile et al.'s Eddington cap and 30-70% efficiencies are correct, then the super-Eddington states reported here, their low efficiencies, and the ULX and LRD applications built on them (§4.5, §4.7) would not be realized even under the large external mass supply whose absence the paper acknowledges in §5. The revision should either identify a concrete cause of the difference (initial-condition class, opacity treatment, radiative-transfer closure, measurement radius, or boundary conditions) or explicitly reframe the results as valid only for this specific initial-condition class.
  2. [§5, §2.2] The super-Eddington accretion rates are effectively an input rather than an outcome of a realistic feeding process: the initial torus is confined to 15-58 rg and the peak density rho0 is set arbitrarily, which directly sets the late-time Mdot. The paper correctly states in §5 that it has not modeled how plasma is fed from beyond the Bondi radius and whether radiation and mechanical feedback from outflows can limit this feeding. This limitation is not merely a scope note: if outflow feedback throttles the supply, the low-efficiency super-Eddington states would not be realized in nature even if they are robust within this simulation setup. The authors should either quantify the external mass-supply conditions under which these states are realized (for example, with an estimate of the Bondi-scale inflow rate and a check against the simulated outflow feedback) or restrict the generality claims in the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 9] The claimed agreement with the slim-disk efficiency trend is not parameter-free. The dashed line in Figure 9 is 'normalized to match our model E9-a3', so the comparison has one free normalization and is evaluated with only ten simulation points spread over a wide range in Mdot. As presented, the agreement cannot be distinguished from the statement that the curve can be shifted vertically to pass near one point. The authors should show the unnormalized slim-disk prediction, or provide a goodness-of-fit metric that accounts for the fitted normalization, before using this agreement as independent support for the low-efficiency trend.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.6] The text repeatedly refers to 'SS 443' (e.g., 'SS 443 (Fabrika 2004)'); this should be SS 433 throughout.
  2. [§2.4] The naming convention described in the text is clear, but Table 1 would benefit from a column explicitly listing the initial magnetic-field topology rather than encoding it only in the name and in the 'DL' suffix, since the topology is a central result driver.
  3. [§3.1] The statement that 'models configured with the single-loop magnetic field do not reach the MAD state' is based on ten simulations and on unpublished work cited as 'Wong et al., in preparation'; the claim would be stronger if the paper either included the non-radiative thin-disk comparison or explicitly flagged it as preliminary.
  4. [§5] The bullet list contains a grammatical error ('mass accretion rate that vary'); this should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: efficiency trends and disk structures are genuine simulation outputs; self-citations are to benchmarked methods and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims—radiative efficiency falling from about 5% at 0.1 Mdot_Edd to below 0.5% at 150 Mdot_Edd, thick super-Eddington disks, thin/corona near-Eddington disks, and absence of MAD—are measured from time-averaged radiation-GRMHD simulations, not imposed by the inputs. The accretion rate is set by the arbitrary density scale rho0 in Section 2.2, but the efficiency, outflow, and structure are evolved outputs. The only 'normalized to match' elements (Figure 9 slim-disk line matched to E9-a3; Figure 11 beaming fits matched to E88-a3 and E07-a3-DL) are external analytic comparison curves; normalizing their amplitude tests functional form against the simulation points and does not force the measured trend. Self-citations to White et al. (2023) are to the transport algorithm, validated on standard wave, shock, and photon-propagation benchmarks, so they are independent support. The 'Wong et al., in preparation' remark about non-radiative thin disks is supplementary to the paper's own runs, which show phi3 <= 3.5 for all single-loop models. The paper's Section 5 limitation—'there are important questions about how plasma is fed from beyond the Bondi radius...'—is a validity and applicability caveat, not a circular step. The unresolved disagreement with Fragile et al. (2025) is a correctness risk outside the circularity scope.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the simulation setup: a fixed Kerr metric, gray/single-temperature radiation treatment, and an isolated torus initial condition. The most consequential assumptions are the choice of initial torus and the field geometry, since the paper shows outcomes depend on those. The method itself was validated in White et al. (2023), but that validation is not repeated here.

free parameters (3)
  • initial torus peak density rho0 = ranges from 1e-5 to 1e-1 g/cm^3 (Table 1)
    Chosen per run to set the target Eddington ratio; effectively selects the independent variable of the survey.
  • initial magnetic field strength (beta=100) = 1% of total thermal pressure
    Initial seed field strength for MRI; a choice that affects the saturation outcome (single vs double loop).
  • slim-disk trend normalization in Fig. 9 = normalized to match model E9-a3
    The analytic efficiency curve in Fig. 9 is scaled to match one simulation, so the 'consistent' trend is partially a fit; does not affect other claims.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Kerr spacetime is a fixed stationary background (metric not evolved).
    Standard GRMHD assumption; invoked in Eq. (1) and §2.
  • domain assumption Single-temperature ideal gas with adiabatic index gamma=5/3.
    Stated in §2; two-temperature effects are neglected.
  • domain assumption Gray frequency-integrated opacities from Thomson scattering and Kramers free-free laws.
    Stated in §2.1; restricts applicability to stellar-mass BHs and excludes line opacity.
  • domain assumption Compton energy exchange is approximated with the term in Eq. (4a) following Blaes & Socrates (2003) and Hirose et al. (2009).
    Stated in §2.1; more accurate frequency-dependent Compton is deferred.
  • domain assumption The initial torus (Chakrabarti 1985) is in hydrostatic equilibrium and the later steady state represents accretion in realistic systems.
    Central modeling assumption; its limitation is acknowledged in §5.
  • domain assumption The MRI and turbulent transport are adequately resolved (Q_z>=15, Q_phi>=60; >=20 cells per scale height).
    Summarized in §2.3; full convergence study deferred to Papers II-IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiation GRMHD Models of Accretion onto Stellar-Mass Black Holes: I. Survey of Eddington Ratios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HH3XNMG

@misc{pith2026250602289,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiation GRMHD Models of Accretion onto Stellar-Mass Black Holes: I. Survey of Eddington Ratios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HH3XNMG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02289}
}
read the original abstract

We summarize results from a survey of radiation-dominated black hole accretion flows across a wide range of mass accretion rates, as well as two values of black hole spin and initial magnetic field geometry. These models apply an algorithm targeting direct solutions to the radiation transport equation in full general relativity and have been enabled by access to modern exascale computing systems. Super-Eddington accretion flows form geometrically thick radiation pressure supported disks that drive powerful equatorial outflows. A narrow funnel-shaped photosphere in the inner region results in very low radiative efficiencies in this regime. The structure of near- and sub-Eddington accretion depends on whether there is net vertical magnetic flux at the midplane of the disk. With net flux, the disk forms a thin, dense layer at the midplane surrounded by a magnetically-dominated corona, whereas without net flux the disk remains magnetically dominated everywhere. Although none of our models achieve the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) regime, those with net vertical flux and a rapidly spinning black hole still produce powerful relativistic jets. Our calculations adopt simple opacity models (with scalings appropriate to stellar-mass black hole accretion). We discuss the application of our results to observations of X-ray binaries and ultraluminous X-ray sources such as Cyg X-3 and SS433. We also speculate on the application of our super-Eddington models to the interpretation of little red dots (LRDs) recently discovered by JWST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02289 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density (colors) and magnetic field (blue streamlines) in the initial conditions for the single-loop (left) and double-loop (right) magnetic configurations. conserved to primitive variables fails. This allows us to use much lower floors near the horizon than would otherwise be required: we apply density and pressure floors of 10−7ρ0 and 3.33 × 10−13ρ0c 2 , respectively, uniformly throughout the domain. We also apply… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of mass accretion rate and normalized magnetic flux at r = 3rg (see equation 5). In the lower panels, the black lines represent comparison simulations without radiation, with solid lines indicating low spin (a = 0.3) and dashed lines indicating high spin (a = 0.9375). The gray-shaded regions indicate the time windows used for time-averaged analysis of the steady-state structure. assuming a radiation e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Poloidal slices of the mass density in radiation-dominated disks with the same black hole spin but different mass accretion rates. The left column corresponds to a model with M˙ 3 = 88M˙ Edd (E88-a3), the middle column M˙ 3 = 0.8M˙ Edd (E08-a3), and the right column M˙ 3 = 0.1M˙ Edd (E01-a3). The bottom row is a zoom-in to the inner regions. Each model is shown at t = 60000rg/c once a steady state has been reached. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Disk, wind, and jet regions that emerge in our radiation-dominated disk models. The upper panels illustrate the super-Eddington case M˙ 3 = 88M˙ Edd (E88-a3), while the lower panels show a near-Eddington case M˙ 3 = 0.8M˙ Edd (E08-a3). Colors show the local flux-mean o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of (from top to bottom) surface density and midplane angular frequency normalized by the Keplerian value, midplane pressures, disk-averaged stresses, and various timescales. Gray shading denotes the plunging region inside the ISCO. Each column shows the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal and azimuthal averages of gas density (left half of each panel) and fluid-frame radiation energy density (right half of each panel) for six different models, spanning different accretion rates and black hole spins. Blue streamlines in the left panels trace the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time component of the jet four-velocity. The jet profile is temporally and azimuthally averaged. The four-velocity is spatially averaged using the density weighting along the jet spine. To investigate the acceleration and terminal velocity of the jet, we compute the ti…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Poloidal slices of the mass density in radiation-dominated disks with the same spin and roughly the same mass accretion rate, but different initial magnetic field geometries. The left and right columns show models which begin with a double-loop configuration (no vertic…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radiation efficiency versus mass accretion rate for all models. The dashed line shows the trend predicted by analytical models of super-Eddington accretion (e.g. equation 6 in Poutanen et al. 2007), normalized to match our model E9-a3. region, allowing comparison to an…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Amplitude of luminosity variability (defined as the RMS deviation divided by the mean) versus total output radiation lumi￾nosity for all our models. Both quantities are measured at three dif￾ferent radial locations denoted by the blue, orange, and red symbols. The dot…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Angular distribution of outgoing radiation field (upper panel) and total energy outflow (lower panel) at r = 1024rg mea￾sured by the beaming factors (see equation 16 for definitions) for selected models. In most cases, both the radiation field and to￾tal energy outflo…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ratio of gas temperature to effective temperature of the radiation field along the scattering photosphere for selected models. this model, the photosphere is well above the regions where dissipation of turbulence heats the gas. On the other hand, in the highly super-E…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Density (top panel) and magnitude of outflow velocity (bottom panel) of a super-Eddington accretion disk on large scales, relevant for interpreting observations of LRDs. The grey lines rep￾resent the scattering photosphere. The red, yellow, green, and blue lines repre…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. The plunging region of thin accretion discs across the black hole spin range

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    MHD stresses in the plunging region of thin accretion disks increase with prograde black hole spin, and a new flux-freezing model describes the magnetic fields there across the spin range.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Viscously Spreading Accretion Disks around Black Holes: Implications for TDEs, LFBOTs and other Transients

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Many late-time TDE plateaus can be reproduced by initially wide disks formed with redistributed angular momentum, while the same model with super-Eddington outflows explains AT2018cow's late emission with a 10-100 sol...

  5. From nuclear star clusters to Little Red Dots: black hole growth, mergers, and tidal disruptions

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

    A semi-analytic model shows dense early star clusters can grow 1000-solar-mass black hole seeds to ~10^7 solar masses within ~100 million years, predicting tens of tidal disruptions per year from Little Red Dots at z=4-6.

  6. Do Little Red Dots Vary?

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Super-Eddington accretion models can explain why little red dots show almost no variability, whereas standard sub-Eddington AGN variability models predict changes that should already have been seen.

  7. $\textit{BMAD}$-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.

  8. Direct Solution of the Time-Dependent Covariant Radiative Transfer Equation and its Coupling to General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics with cuHARM

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

    A GPU-accelerated code module that solves the covariant, time-dependent radiative transfer equation on a geodesic grid and couples it to GRMHD for black hole accretion simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J

    Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJL, 742, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L17

    Altamirano, D., Belloni, T., Linares, M., et al. 2011, ApJL, 742, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/l17 2011

  3. [3]

    T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O

    Ananna, T. T., Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O. E., Natarajan, P., & Hickox, R. C. 2024, ApJL, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  4. [4]

    Anninos, P., & Fragile, P. C. 2020, ApJ, 900, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab9c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab9c 2020

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37

    Asahina, Y ., & Ohsuga, K. 2022, ApJ, 929, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37 2022

  6. [6]

    J., McKinney, J

    Avara, M. J., McKinney, J. C., & Reynolds, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1643

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1643 2016

  7. [7]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature13791

    doi:10.1038/nature13791 2014

  8. [8]

    Begelman, M. C. 1978, MNRAS, 184, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/184.1.53 —. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.15657, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.15657

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.15657 1978

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    C., King, A

    Begelman, M. C., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 399, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10469.x

    2006

  2. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04402

    Blaes, O., Jiang, Y .-F., Lasota, J.-P., & Lipunova, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04402

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 509, doi: 10.1086/377637

    Blaes, O., & Socrates, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 509, doi: 10.1086/377637

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    1977 doi

  6. [14]

    Chakrabarti, S. K. 1985, ApJ, 288, 1, doi: 10.1086/162755

    1985 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    W., & El-Abd, S

    Davis, S. W., & El-Abd, S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c5

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    W., & Gammie, C

    Davis, S. W., & Gammie, C. F. 2020, ApJ, 888, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5950

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Stone, J

    Davis, S. W., Stone, J. M., & Jiang, Y .-F. 2012, ApJS, 199, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/9

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Dexter, J., Scepi, N., & Begelman, M. C. 2021, ApJL, 919, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2608

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Dhang, P., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2025, ApJ, 980, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada76e

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    2004, Astrophys

    Fabrika, S. 2004, Astrophys. Space Phys. Res., 12, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603390

    2004 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    G., & Moncrief, V

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

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Anninos, P., Roth, N., & Mishra, B

    Fragile, P. C., Anninos, P., Roth, N., & Mishra, B. 2023, ApJ, 959, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad096b

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Middleton, M

    Fragile, P. C., Middleton, M. J., Bollimpalli, D. A., & Smith, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08859, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08859

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gammie, C. F. 2025, ApJ, 980, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaea3

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab774

    Ghosh, T., & Rana, V . 2021, MNRAS, 504, 974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab774

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    A., Mullen, P

    Gorodetsky, A. A., Mullen, P. D., Deshpande, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18056, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18056 26

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.16802, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16802

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J

    Hawley, J. F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J. H. 2011, ApJ, 738, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/84

    2011 doi

  29. [38]

    F., Richers, S

    Hawley, J. F., Richers, S. A., Guan, X., & Krolik, J. H. 2013, ApJ, 772, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/102

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    H., & Blaes, O

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

    2009 doi

  31. [40]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6fc

    Huang, J., Jiang, Y .-F., Feng, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6fc

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  33. [42]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07805

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    2021, A&A, 647, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J. 2021, A&A, 647, A192, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    2015, A&A, 574, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425003

    Janiuk, A., Grzedzielski, M., Capitanio, F., & Bianchi, S. 2015, A&A, 574, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425003

    2015 doi

  37. [46]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9231

    Jiang, Y .-F. 2022, ApJS, 263, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9231

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    Jiang, Y .-F., & Blaes, O. 2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y .-F., Blaes, O., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019a, ApJ, 885, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00

    doi

  40. [49]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16856, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16856

    Jiang, Y .-F., & Dai, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16856, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16856

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    W., & Stone, J

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

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y .-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2012, ApJS, 199, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/14 —. 2013a, ApJ, 767, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/148 —. 2013b, ApJ, 778, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/65 —. 2014a, ApJS, 213, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/7 —. 2014b, A...

    2012 doi

  43. [52]

    Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Roberts, T. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 303, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86

    Jacquemin-Ide, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    Kajava, J. J. E., & Poutanen, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1450, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15215.x

    2009

  46. [55]

    Kalemci, E., Kara, E., & Tomsick, J. A. 2022, Black Holes: Timing and Spectral Properties and Evolution (Springer Nature Singapore), 143, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_100-1

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    2024a, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171 —

    King, A. 2024a, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16970, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16970

    doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    King, A., Lasota, J.-P., & Middleton, M. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    2023

  49. [58]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.09152, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.09152

    Kinoshita, S., & Igata, T. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.09152, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.09152

    2017 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    Kitaki, T., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., & Kawashima, T. 2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    2021 doi

  51. [60]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    Krolik, J. H. 1999, Active galactic nuclei : from the central black hole to the galactic environment (Princeton University Press)

    1999

  53. [62]

    H., & Hawley, J

    Krolik, J. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2002, ApJ, 573, 754, doi: 10.1086/340760 Lanˇcová, D., Abarca, D., Klu´ zniak, W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab48f5

    2002 doi

  54. [63]

    N., & Stone, J

    Lemaster, M. N., & Stone, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1092

    2009 doi

  55. [64]

    Levermore, C. D. 1984, JQSRT, 31, 149, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2

    1984 doi

  56. [65]

    D., & Pomraning, G

    Levermore, C. D., & Pomraning, G. C. 1981, ApJ, 248, 321, doi: 10.1086/159157

    1981 doi

  57. [66]

    P., & Eardley, D

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

    1974 doi

  58. [67]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJL, 935, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [69]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    E., & Remillard, R

    McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, V ol. 39 (Cambridge University Press), 157–213, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0306213

    2006 doi arXiv

  62. [71]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 2241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx227

    Sadowski, A. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx227

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    C., Dai, L., & Avara, M

    McKinney, J. C., Dai, L., & Avara, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv115

    2015 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., Sadowski, A., & Narayan, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., Sadowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    2014 doi

  65. [74]

    J., Walton, D

    Middleton, M. J., Walton, D. J., Alston, W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1280

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    F., & Rodríguez, L

    Mirabel, I. F., & Rodríguez, L. F. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.409 27

    1999 doi

  67. [76]

    C., Anderson, J., et al

    Mishra, B., Fragile, P. C., Anderson, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac938b

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    C., Johnson, L

    Mishra, B., Fragile, P. C., Johnson, L. C., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2245 Morales Teixeira, D., Avara, M. J., & McKinney, J. C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2044

    2016 doi

  69. [78]

    W., Kochanek, C

    Morgan, C. W., Kochanek, C. S., Morgan, N. D., & Falco, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1129

    2010 doi

  70. [79]

    E., Marelli, M., Pintore, F., et al

    Motta, S. E., Marelli, M., Pintore, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b81

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 1900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae701

    Mummery, A., Mori, F., & Balbus, S. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae701

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    Mummery, A., & Stone, J. M. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1643

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), ed. C. Dewitt & B. S. Dewitt, 343–450

    1973

  74. [83]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/2

    Ohsuga, K., & Mineshige, S. 2011, ApJ, 736, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/2

    2011 doi

  75. [84]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 315, doi: 10.1086/340798

    Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., Mori, M., & Umemura, M. 2002, ApJ, 574, 315, doi: 10.1086/340798

    2002 doi

  76. [85]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi: 10.1086/430728

    Ohsuga, K., Mori, M., Nakamoto, T., & Mineshige, S. 2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi: 10.1086/430728

    2005 doi

  77. [86]

    E., & Fryer, C

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

    1999 doi

  78. [87]

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

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

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 1187, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x

    Abolmasov, P. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1187, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x

    2007

  80. [89]

    M., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., White, C. J., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad837

    2023 doi

  81. [90]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv567

    Rosdahl, J., & Teyssier, R. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv567

    2015 doi

  82. [91]

    R., Ressler, S

    Ryan, B. R., Ressler, S. M., Dolence, J. C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 844, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8034

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09669, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09669

    Sacchi, A., & Bogdan, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09669, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09669

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

    C., & Dexter, J

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

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    J., Greene, J

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03424

    2024 doi arXiv

  86. [95]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973 doi

  87. [96]

    1995, ApJ, 445, 780, doi: 10.1086/175740 S ˛ adowski, A

    Shimura, T., & Takahara, F. 1995, ApJ, 445, 780, doi: 10.1086/175740 S ˛ adowski, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw913 S ˛ adowski, A., Abramowicz, M., Bursa, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015256 S ˛ adowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2015a,...

    1995 doi

  88. [97]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    M., Mullen, P

    Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., Fielding, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16053

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [99]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  91. [100]

    Turner, N. J. 2004, ApJL, 605, L45, doi: 10.1086/386545

    2004 doi

  92. [101]

    J., Stone, J

    Turner, N. J., Stone, J. M., Krolik, J. H., & Sano, T. 2003, ApJ, 593, 992, doi: 10.1086/376615

    2003 doi

  93. [102]

    2024a, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024a, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    doi

  94. [103]

    2024b, A&A, 688, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

    Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., Bocharova, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 688, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

    doi

  95. [104]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  96. [105]

    L., et al

    Wang, B., de Graaff, A., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02304

    doi arXiv

  97. [106]

    2024b, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    Wang, B., Leja, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    doi

  98. [107]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

  99. [108]

    J., Mullen, P

    White, C. J., Mullen, P. D., Jiang, Y .-F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cf

    2023 doi

  100. [109]

    J., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C

    White, C. J., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C. F. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718e

    2020 doi

  101. [110]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1317

    Wielgus, M., Lanˇcová, D., Straub, O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1317

    2022 doi

  102. [111]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    2024 doi

  103. [112]

    Zhu, Z., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 857, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafc9

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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