Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Radio emission from tidal disruption events produced by the collision between super-Eddington outflows and the circumnuclear medium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Prompt radio flares from tidal disruption events can be produced when the event's quasi-spherical super-Eddington outflow slams into surrounding circumnuclear gas, with no jet required.

desk verdict First simulations of TDE outflow-CNM collisions show the mechanism can produce the right prompt-radio energies and peak-frequency decays, but the smooth-shell CNM setup and fitted microphysics mean it is still a proof-of-mechanism, not a predictive model. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01273 v1 pith:5SOUYS63 submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-th

Fangyi (Fitz) Hu , Adelle Goodwin , Daniel J. Price , Ilya Mandel , Re'em Sari , Kimitake Hayasaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsradiotransientshydrodynamicalsimulationssynchrotronemissionsraytracingsyntheticobservationssupermassiveblackholes
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

Tidal disruption events—stars torn apart by supermassive black holes—often produce radio flares within weeks, but the origin of this radio emission has been debated: jets or outflows? This paper argues that the prompt radio flare requires no jet at all. It simulates the collision between the quasi-spherical, super-Eddington outflow produced during a TDE and a surrounding cloud of circumnuclear gas, and finds that shocks form within about ten days with radius, speed, and energy that match the values inferred from actual radio observations. Ray-traced synthetic spectra show a continuously decaying peak frequency, matching the prompt radio data, and the emitting region has a flattened, doughnut-like shape symmetric about the original stellar orbital plane. The authors conclude that outflow–gas collisions, not jets, can be the dominant source of synchrotron radio emission from TDEs.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the forward shock at the interface between the injected super-Eddington outflow and an initially static, spherically symmetric circumnuclear shell. Shocked gas is identified by a >30% entropy rise over its background value, and only that gas is treated as a synchrotron emitter. The paper's new physical identification is that the spectral peak is the self-absorption frequency, $\nu_{\rm peak}\simeq\nu_{\rm a}$, with $\nu_{\rm a}\propto \rho^{2/(p+4)} B^{(p+2)/(p+4)} R^{2/(p+4)}$; combined with the radial expansion $R\propto t^{\delta}$ this yields the peak-frequency decay $\nu_{\rm peak}\propto t^{q\delta}$, reproducing the simulated $t^{-0.78}$ and connecting to Sedov–Taylor and snow-plow expansion phases.

What would settle it

A very long baseline interferometry image of a prompt radio TDE that resolves the emitting region as a narrow, one-sided jet feature rather than a flattened shell with mirror symmetry about the stellar orbital plane would contradict the model; alternatively, a TDE with an independently measured CNM density whose radio peak frequency does not decay as a power law with time would break the $\nu_{\rm peak}\simeq\nu_{\rm a}$ scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the prompt synchrotron radio flare of a tidal disruption event can be powered by the collision between the quasi-spherical, super-Eddington outflow produced during the disruption and a pre-existing circumnuclear gas cloud, with no jet required. In the simulations a strong forward shock appears as early as $\sim 10$ days after disruption, and by three years the shocked shell has radius $\approx 10^{17}$ cm, velocity $\sim 0.15c$, and total energy $\sim 10^{51}$ erg, in line with values inferred from observations. The synthetic spectra, produced by ray tracing the shocked gas, peak at the self-absorption frequency rather than at the synchrotron characteristic or cooling frequencies, and this peak frequency decays continuously, roughly as $t^{-0.78}$, matching the prompt-radio observations. The emitting region is aspherical with a flattened, ring-like morphology and reflection symmetry about the original stellar orbital plane, even though the outflow itself is quasi-spherical. The authors conclude that outflow–circumnuclear-medium collisions are a sufficient and likely dominant source of radio synchrotron emission from TDEs.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumed circumnuclear medium: a smooth, initially static, spherically symmetric shell with density $\rho=\rho_0(r/r_0)^{-1.7}$ and total mass $0.1\,M_\odot$; if the real gas is clumpy, thinner, or has a different density slope, the predicted shock properties and radio spectra could shift substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prompt radio TDE flares can be produced without jets: a quasi-spherical super-Eddington outflow colliding with a modest circumnuclear shell is sufficient.
  • The radio-emitting region should appear as a flattened, mirror-symmetric shell rather than a round blob, so the viewing angle relative to the star's orbital plane shapes the observed image.
  • Only about 10% of the outflow kinetic energy ends up in the shocked, radio-emitting gas, so radio-inferred energy budgets should not be equated with the total outflow energy.
  • The decaying peak frequency of prompt radio TDEs can be read as the self-absorption frequency of the shocked shell, giving a physical scaling rather than an empirical fit.
  • Because TDE outflows are common while jets are rare, outflow-driven radio emission may dominate the radio TDE population whenever enough circumnuclear gas is present.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the $\nu_{\rm peak}\simeq\nu_{\rm a}$ scaling predicts that combining a measured CNM density profile (from X-ray or free-free absorption) with a measured radio peak-frequency decay slope would pin down the expansion index $\delta$ and the magnetic-field decay index in a single event.
  • Beyond the paper: if the CNM is clumpy, the smooth-shell simulations underestimate peak-flux variability; radio light curves with re-brightening episodes would be a natural test of clump-driven bow shocks.
  • Beyond the paper: the same external shocks should accelerate protons, but with only about 10% of the outflow energy in the shock, neutrino and gamma-ray predictions scaled to the full outflow energy are likely too optimistic.
  • Beyond the paper: the apparent asymmetry in the $\beta=5$ outflow that the authors flag as possibly numerical could be tested by repeating the run with different noise seeds or resolution; if physical, it would break the exact mirror symmetry of the radio image.
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 uses general relativistic smoothed particle hydrodynamics (Phantom) simulations of tidal disruption events (TDEs) with penetration factors beta = 1 and 5 on eccentric orbits (e = 0.95) and injects the resulting super-Eddington outflows into a static, spherically symmetric circumnuclear medium (CNM) shell. The authors identify shocked material via an entropy threshold, extract shock radius, velocity, and energy, compare these with equipartition-model inferences for six radio TDEs, and ray-trace synchrotron emission from the shocked particles to produce synthetic images and spectra. The central claim is that the outflow-CNM collision produces shocks as early as ~10 days with radius ~1e17 cm, velocity ~0.15c, and energy ~1e51 erg, and that the synthetic spectra show a continuously decaying peak frequency that matches prompt radio TDE observations, supporting the hypothesis that such collisions, rather than jets, can explain at least some prompt radio flares from TDEs.

Significance. If the central result holds, this is a significant step: it provides a self-consistent hydrodynamic demonstration that quasi-spherical super-Eddington TDE outflows colliding with a CNM shell can produce shocks with properties consistent with prompt radio observations, and that the synchrotron peak frequency decays in time as observed. The paper includes a resolution study (Appendix A), a benchmark of the ray-tracing scheme against analytic synchrotron spectra (Appendix B), and public data releases on Zenodo, which strengthen confidence in the numerical machinery. The significance is tempered by the ad hoc construction of the CNM model (Section 2.1), the calibration of epsilon_e and epsilon_B to the same observations (Sections 2.6.3 and 4), and the admitted discrepancies in peak-flux evolution and spectral shape for several events (Section 3.5).

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §3.5] The CNM density profile is the main external input and is not independently constrained: n = -1.7 is adopted from AT2019dsg (Cendes et al. 2021) and M_CNM = 0.1 M_sun is chosen to 'ensure significant collisions' (Section 2.1). Because the model is subsequently compared with AT2019dsg in Figure 5 (top right), the agreement for that event is at least partly by construction. The paper varies M_CNM only for beta = 5 (0.01 and 1 M_sun; Figures 3 and 6) and does not vary n or test a clumpy or truncated CNM, although Section 3.6 and Section 4 argue that the peak frequency and flux evolution depend sensitively on the CNM structure. Without a systematic exploration or an independent constraint on the CNM, the sufficiency claim in the abstract is not established.
  2. [§2.6.3, §3.5, §4] The spectral comparison is made after selecting epsilon_e and epsilon_B from a grid (Section 2.6.3) and choosing a viewing direction per event (Figure 5 caption) to best match the observed spectra. The reported 'best fit' values (epsilon_e ~ 0.1, epsilon_B ~ 0.01, Section 4) are therefore calibrated to the same data that the model is claimed to reproduce; no goodness-of-fit or uncertainty is provided, and three of the seven events (AT2020opy, AT2019azh, CNSS J0019) are not fitted at all. This weakens the inference that the synthetic spectra independently support the model over the jet hypothesis.
  3. [Abstract, §3.5, §4] The abstract states that the synthetic spectra 'match prompt radio TDE observations,' but Figure 5 shows that the spectral shapes are not reproduced for eRASSt J2344 and ASAASN-14li (bottom row) and that the peak-flux evolution differs from observations for all events (Section 3.5). The paper's own Section 4 lists several possible explanations for these discrepancies, including a steeper or clumpy CNM and incomplete cooling. The evidence supports a more limited claim: the model reproduces the decaying peak-frequency trend and, for two of four fitted events, the early-time spectral shape at order-of-magnitude level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.6] There is a typo in the sentence beginning 'consistent with Spectrum 2 shown in Figure B.4. s The scaling of νa ...' where an unattached 's' appears between the two sentences.
  2. [Eq. (21) and following text] The notation q is used both for the exponent in the scaling relation and as a variable in the expression q ≡ 2/(p+4)n − (p+2)/(p+4)m + 2/(p+4); please clarify in the text that q is the resulting exponent and avoid reusing q later without definition.
  3. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is only valid for n > -3; since the paper uses n = -1.7 this is fine, but the general expression should state this restriction to avoid a formally negative density for steeper profiles.
  4. [§2.2 and §2.6.1] The distinction between the temperature used for interpreting internal energy (Section 2.2) and the electron energy distribution assumed in the synchrotron calculation (Section 2.6.1) is clear in the text, but it would help to restate in Section 2.6 that the large post-shock temperatures shown in Figure 2 are not used directly as electron temperatures in the radiative transfer.
  5. [Appendix A] The resolution study is presented only at t = 0.3 yr; the statement that the synthetic images are 'not critically resolution dependent' should be qualified as applying to the early-time epoch shown in Figures A.1 and A.2, since the text notes that the flux below ~20 GHz is not yet converged.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the CNM density slope used for AT2019dsg is imported from AT2019dsg itself, and ϵe/ϵB are calibrated to the target spectra, so the AT2019dsg spectral match is partly by construction; the mechanism retains independent support from other events and shock properties.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (CNM setup) and Section 3.5 / Figure 5 (fits to AT2019dsg)]
    "“In this work, we adopt n = −1.7 from AT2019dsg (Cendes et al. 2021), which gives ρ0 = 5.03 × 10−18 g cm−3.” … “AT2019dsg (top right panel; Cendes et al. 2021) … are best fitted with matching spectral shape and ≲ 0.3 dex differences in flux.”"

    The density power-law slope n = −1.7 is a key input controlling the CNM density profile (Eq. 2) and, through Eq. (21), the self-absorption/peak frequency of the synthetic spectra. Taking n from AT2019dsg and then reporting AT2019dsg as one of the best-matching events means the match for that event is partly a re-expression of the input, not an independent test. Section 4 concedes the same: “Compared with AT2019dsg … where we adopted the CNM density power law index from, the evolution of the peak frequency is roughly consistent with our models.” This is a consistency check for AT2019dsg, not out-of-sample confirmation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Discussion) and Section 5 (Conclusions)]
    "“By comparing our synthetic spectra with the observations, we find that we need ϵe ∼ 0.1 and ϵB ∼ 0.01 to produce spectra that are close to the observed ones in both luminosity and shape (top row of Figure 5).”"

    ϵe and ϵB are entered as a free grid (Section 2.6.3: “we performed a grid of synthetic observations with the standard p = 2.5 and ϵe and ϵB each set to 0.5, 0.1 and 0.01”), and the values 0.1/0.01 are selected because they make the synthetic spectra match the observed spectra. Presenting these calibrated values as a result (“we need … to produce spectra that are close to the observed ones”) converts a fit into a finding. The spectral-shape and flux agreement in Figure 5 is therefore partly purchased by the chosen microphysical parameters, though the temporal peak-frequency decay is less affected by this choice.

full rationale

The paper is a genuine simulation study; much of the derivation chain is self-contained. The TDE outflows come from prior GRSPH simulations (Hu et al. 2024) and the radio emission is ray-traced from the shocked fluid using standard synchrotron formulae, benchmarked against a homogeneous cube (Appendix B). There is no imported uniqueness theorem and no load-bearing self-citation chain. However, one key environmental input is taken from the very event the model is then compared with: the CNM density slope n = −1.7 is adopted from AT2019dsg (Cendes et al. 2021), and AT2019dsg is presented as one of the best-fitting targets (Fig. 5). Since the peak frequency in the model is set by self-absorption and depends on the CNM density profile (Eq. 21), the match to AT2019dsg is partly circular; the paper itself acknowledges this in Section 4. Separately, the microphysical fractions ϵe and ϵB are selected from a grid to reproduce the observed spectra and then listed as a finding, so the flux/shape agreement is calibrated rather than predicted. These issues are partial: the shock radius/velocity/energy comparisons (Fig. 3) and the matches to other events (AT2020vwl, eRASSt J2344, ASAASN-14li) do not use those events' CNM parameters, and the temporal decay of the peak frequency is not directly fitted. The central claim therefore retains independent content, but the AT2019dsg validation is not out-of-sample. The choice M_CNM = 0.1 M_sun to ensure significant collisions is an assumption that limits generality, but it is not circular because it is not derived from the target spectra. Score 5 reflects this partial, event-specific circularity rather than a fully forced derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the CNM density profile (n and M_CNM) and the synchrotron microphysics (epsilon_e, epsilon_B, p), the last three being tuned to reproduce the observed spectra. The key domain assumptions concern the adiabatic outflow production, collisionless shock formation, the power-law electron distribution, and the neglect of cooling, all stated in the text.

free parameters (7)
  • CNM density power-law index n = -1.7
    Adopted from AT2019dsg (Cendes et al. 2021), a radio-inferred CNM profile, in Section 2.1; directly sets shock evolution and peak frequency.
  • CNM total mass M_CNM = 0.1 M_sun (with 1 and 0.01 variants)
    Chosen so the CNM mass is comparable to the outflow mass to ensure significant collisions (Section 2.1); degeneracy with beta noted in Section 3.3.
  • Electron energy fraction epsilon_e = 0.1
    Chosen from a grid (0.5, 0.1, 0.01) to best match observed spectra (Sections 2.6.3 and 4).
  • Magnetic energy fraction epsilon_B = 0.01
    Chosen from a grid (0.5, 0.1, 0.01) to best match observed spectra; consistent with Cendes et al. 2021 cooling break (Sections 2.6.3 and 4).
  • Electron power-law index p = 2.5
    Standard assumption from Sari et al. 1996; the paper notes steeper p ~ 3 might better fit high-frequency spectra (Section 4).
  • Shock detection entropy threshold = 30% rise over background
    Used to identify shocked particles emitting synchrotron; authors state results are not critical between 10% and 60% (Section 2.4).
  • Injection radius r_inj = 9.8 x 10^14 cm
    Chosen to avoid direct contact between the injected outflow and the CNM shell (Section 2.3).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The TDE outflow is produced by radiation-pressure-driven winds from an adiabatic simulation where gas and radiation temperatures are in equilibrium (radiation fully trapped).
    Used in the TDE simulations (Hu et al. 2024) to generate the super-Eddington outflow; the paper notes this is only valid inside the optical photosphere (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Collisionless shocks form in the low-density TDE outflow and CNM environment due to ambient magnetic fields.
    Cited from Inoue et al. 2011 and Tomita et al. 2022; needed for shock formation and particle acceleration (Section 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Synchrotron radiation is produced only by particles with entropy at least 30% above their background value.
    A detection threshold adopted in Section 2.4; not derived from first principles, though the paper argues results are insensitive between 10% and 60%.
  • domain assumption Electrons in the shocked region follow a power-law energy distribution with minimum energy E_m and index p.
    Standard synchrotron assumption (Sari et al. 1998), Equation (9).
  • domain assumption The shocked gas is fully ionized, pure hydrogen, so Ne = Np.
    Assumed in Section 2.6 based on shock temperature >= 10^8 K.
  • domain assumption Only slow cooling (nu_m < nu_c) is considered; synchrotron and bremsstrahlung cooling are neglected in the dynamics.
    Justified in Sections 2.6.1 and 4; neglect of cooling is identified by the authors as a cause of the late-time flux mismatch.
  • domain assumption The CNM is initially stationary and cold, with T = 10 K, and the gas is described by an adiabatic EoS with gamma = 5/3.
    Initial conditions in Section 2.1; idealization of the real CNM.
  • domain assumption The equipartition model (Barniol Duran et al. 2013) provides valid observational inferences of shock radius, velocity, and energy.
    Used to compare with observations (Section 2.5); the comparison depends on assumed f_A, f_V, epsilon_e, and epsilon_B in the observational analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio emission from tidal disruption events produced by the collision between super-Eddington outflows and the circumnuclear medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SOUYS63

@misc{pith2026250701273,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio emission from tidal disruption events produced by the collision between super-Eddington outflows and the circumnuclear medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SOUYS63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01273}
}
abstract

In this Letter, we simulate the collision between outflows from the tidal disruption of a 1M$_\odot$ main sequence star around a $10^6$M$_\odot$ black hole and an initially spherically symmetric circumnuclear cloud. We launch super-Eddington outflows self-consistently by simulating the disruption of stars on both bound and unbound initial orbits using general relativistic smoothed particle hydrodynamics. We find shocks formed as early as $\sim 10~$days after the initial stellar disruption produce prompt radio emission. The shock radius ($\approx~10^{17}$~cm), velocity ($\sim 0.15$c) and total energy ($\sim 10^{51}$ erg) in our simulations match those inferred from radio observations of tidal disruption events (TDEs). We ray-trace to produce synthetic radio images and spectra to compare with the observations. While the TDE outflow is quasi-spherical, the synchrotron emitting region is aspherical but with reflection symmetry above and below the initial orbital plane. Our synthetic spectra show continuous decay in peak frequency, matching prompt radio TDE observations. Our model supports the hypothesis that synchrotron radio flares from TDEs result from the collision between outflows and the circumnuclear material.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01273 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. x-y (left column), x-z (middle column) and y-z plane (right column) 0.4 pc × 0.4 pc cross-sections of the outflowing shock shells between various TDEs (top row: β = 1, e = 0.95; bottom row: β = 5, e = 0.95) and CNM cloud of 0.1 M⊙ at t = 3 yr post first pericenter passage, rendered with gas temperature (coloured; pixels with T below lower limit are transparent) and density (grayscale; black is 10−23 g cm−3 , white i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entropy per baryon (top panel), temperature (middle panel) and radial velocity (bottom panel) as a func￾tion of radius in the radio simulation with initial β = 5 and MCNM = 0.1M⊙ at t = 0.3 yr. A strong forward shock with upstream Mach number ≳ 104 forms between the TDE outflow and the CNM, raising the entropy by ∼ 60% and temperature to ∼ 1010 K. Simulations files are available on Zenodo: doi: 10.5281/zenodo.142863… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maximum shocked particle radius (top panel), maximum velocity (middle panel) and total energy (bottom) of the shock region formed between TDE outflow and CNM shell (MCNM = 0.1M⊙) with various initial β and e (solid lines). Various CNM shell masses are used for the β = 5 TDE (orange lines). Observations are plotted with dots and shaded regions. Shock properties data are available on Zen￾odo: doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14286… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Synthetic images at 5.2 GHz, assuming ϵe = 0.1 and ϵB = 0.01, viewed along the z- (left column), y- (middle column) and x-axis (right column), of the synchrotron emission from the outflowing shock shells between various TDEs (top row: β = 1, e = 0.95; bottom row: β = 5…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best fit synthetic spectra (solid lines) to observed radio TDEs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of peak frequency, i.e. the frequency of peak flux, assuming ϵe = 0.1 and ϵB = 0.01, of the synchrotron spectra. The synthetic peak frequencies (lines) show slight variation in decay rates (black lines), i.e. early time of the model with β = 1 decays…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ¹x M W3 d` 7 b@`d<O ? +& a dQט ,,| h7

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    D., Berger , E., Guillochon , J., Zauderer , B

    Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., Guillochon , J., Zauderer , B. A., & Williams , P. K. G. 2016, , 819, L25, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  3. [3]

    M., Mooley , K

    Anderson , M. M., Mooley , K. P., Hallinan , G., et al. 2020, , 903, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b 2020

  4. [4]

    2017, , 838, 149

    Auchettl , K., Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2017, , 838, 149. 1611.02291

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    Barniol Duran , R., Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/78 2013

  6. [6]

    D., & McKee , C

    Blandford , R. D., & McKee , C. F. 1976, Physics of Fluids, 19, 1130, 10.1063/1.861619

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  7. [7]

    M., Lodato , G., & Price , D

    Bonnerot , C., Rossi , E. M., Lodato , G., & Price , D. J. 2016, , 455, 2253, 10.1093/mnras/stv2411

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2411 2016

  8. [8]

    D., Berger , E., et al

    Cendes , Y., Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., et al. 2021, , 919, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a 2021

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    2024 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 16650, 1

    Cendes , Y., Berger , E., Alexander , K., Laskar , T., & Goodwin , A. 2024 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 16650, 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    D., et al

    Cendes , Y., Berger , E., Alexander , K. D., et al. 2024 b , , 971, 185, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, , 10.1093/mnras/stac3409

    Chen , J., & Wang , W. 2022, , 10.1093/mnras/stac3409

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Guillochon , J

    Chen , X., G \'o mez-Vargas , G. A., & Guillochon , J. 2016, , 458, 3314, 10.1093/mnras/stw437

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Gaensler , B

    Dykaar , H., Drout , M. R., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2024, , 973, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a98

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, , 961, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da3

    Fukui , Y., Aruga , M., Sano , H., et al. 2024, , 961, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da3

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    B., & Arcavi , I

    Gezari , S., Cenko , S. B., & Arcavi , I. 2017, , 851, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    J., van Velzen , S., Miller-Jones , J

    Goodwin , A. J., van Velzen , S., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2022, , 511, 5328, 10.1093/mnras/stac333

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Alexander , K

    Goodwin , A. J., Alexander , K. D., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2023 a , , 10.1093/mnras/stad1258

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Miller-Jones , J

    Goodwin , A. J., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., van Velzen , S., et al. 2023 b , , 518, 847, 10.1093/mnras/stac3127

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Anderson , G

    Goodwin , A. J., Anderson , G. E., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae362

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    Granot , J., & Sari , R. 2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, , 942, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    Hammerstein , E., van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 942, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, , 461, 3760

    Hayasaki , K., Stone , N., & Loeb , A. 2016, , 461, 3760. 1501.05207

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2023, , 954, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace35a

    Hayasaki , K., & Yamazaki , R. 2023, , 954, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace35a

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    B., & Arcavi , I

    Horesh , A., Cenko , S. B., & Arcavi , I. 2021 a , Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2021 b , , 920, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    Horesh , A., Sfaradi , I., Fender , R., et al. 2021 b , , 920, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    J., & Mandel , I

    Hu , F., Price , D. J., & Mandel , I. 2024, , 963, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad29ec

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    W., & Jiang , Y.-f

    Huang , X., Davis , S. W., & Jiang , Y.-f. 2024, , 974, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c39

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, , 734, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/77

    Inoue , T., Asano , K., & Ioka , K. 2011, , 734, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/77

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, , 953, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acebe3

    Jiang , N., Zhou , Z., Zhu , J., Wang , Y., & Wang , T. 2023, , 953, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acebe3

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Stone , N

    Jonker , P. G., Stone , N. C., Generozov , A., van Velzen , S., & Metzger , B. 2020, , 889, 166. 1906.12236

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Krolik , J., Piran , T., Svirski , G., & Cheng , R. M. 2016, , 827, 127, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/127

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Liptai , D., & Price , D. J. 2019, , 485, 819. 1901.08064

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    1997, , 489, 573, 10.1086/304814

    Loeb , A., & Ulmer , A. 1997, , 489, 573, 10.1086/304814

    1997 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, , 492, 686, 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

    Lu , W., & Bonnerot , C. 2020, , 492, 686, 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Polin , A., & Milisavljevic , D

    Mandal , S., Duffell , P. C., Polin , A., & Milisavljevic , D. 2023, , 956, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9fb

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, , 507, 4196, 10.1093/mnras/stab2418

    Matsumoto , T., & Piran , T. 2021, , 507, 4196, 10.1093/mnras/stab2418

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2024 a , , 971, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    ---. 2024 a , , 971, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.15966, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15966

    ---. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.15966, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15966

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    D., Giannios , D., & Mimica , P

    Metzger , B. D., Giannios , D., & Mimica , P. 2012, , 420, 3528, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x

    2012

  33. [41]

    J., & Price , D

    Monaghan , J. J., & Price , D. J. 2001, , 328, 381, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04742.x

    2001

  34. [42]

    2021, , 507, 1684, 10.1093/mnras/stab2261

    Mou , G., & Wang , W. 2021, , 507, 1684, 10.1093/mnras/stab2261

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Zhang , B

    Murase , K., Kimura , S. S., Zhang , B. T., Oikonomou , F., & Petropoulou , M. 2020, , 902, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c0

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, , 114, 085003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    Park , J., Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2015, , 114, 085003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Knigge , C., Matthews , J

    Parkinson , E. J., Knigge , C., Matthews , J. H., et al. 2022, , 510, 5426, 10.1093/mnras/stac027

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    R., & van Velzen , S

    Pasham , D. R., & van Velzen , S. 2018, , 856, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab361

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Universe, 8, 433, 10.3390/universe8080433

    Peng , F.-K., Zhu , B.-Y., Sun , L.-M., Shu , X.-W., & Wang , X.-Y. 2022, Universe, 8, 433, 10.3390/universe8080433

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Meyer , E

    Perlman , E. S., Meyer , E. T., Wang , Q. D., et al. 2022, , 925, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bba

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, , 2023, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/049

    Piran , T., & Beniamini , P. 2023, , 2023, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/049

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    M., & Shiokawa , H

    Piran , T., Svirski , G., Krolik , J., Cheng , R. M., & Shiokawa , H. 2015, , 806, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Price , D. J. 2007, , 24, 159, 10.1071/AS07022

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Liptai , D., Mandel , I., et al

    Price , D. J., Liptai , D., Mandel , I., et al. 2024, , 971, L46, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6862

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Wurster , J., Tricco , T

    Price , D. J., Wurster , J., Tricco , T. S., et al. 2018, , 35, e031, 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  47. [55]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (Wiley-VCH)

    1979

  48. [56]

    1996, , 473, 204, 10.1086/178136

    Sari , R., Narayan , R., & Piran , T. 1996, , 473, 204, 10.1086/178136

    1996 doi

  49. [57]

    1998, , 497, L17, 10.1086/311269

    Sari , R., Piran , T., & Narayan , R. 1998, , 497, L17, 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    Sedov , L. I. 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics

    1959

  51. [59]

    2022, , 933, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    Sfaradi , I., Horesh , A., Fender , R., et al. 2022, , 933, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 510, 10.1038/s41550-020-01295-8

    Stein , R., van Velzen , S., Kowalski , M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 510, 10.1038/s41550-020-01295-8

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, , 521, 5046, 10.1093/mnras/stad767

    Stein , R., Reusch , S., Franckowiak , A., et al. 2023, , 521, 5046, 10.1093/mnras/stad767

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    E., & Quataert , E

    Strubbe , L. E., & Quataert , E. 2009, , 400, 2070, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x

    2009

  55. [63]

    S., Tomida , K., & Toma , K

    Tomita , S., Ohira , Y., Kimura , S. S., Tomida , K., & Toma , K. 2022, , 936, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88be

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2011 a , , 417, L51, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01118.x

    van Velzen , S., K \"o rding , E., & Falcke , H. 2011 a , , 417, L51, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01118.x

    2011

  57. [65]

    R., Gezari , S., et al

    van Velzen , S., Farrar , G. R., Gezari , S., et al. 2011 b , , 741, 73, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/73

    2011 doi

  58. [66]

    E., Stone , N

    van Velzen , S., Anderson , G. E., Stone , N. C., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 62, 10.1126/science.aad1182

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, , 908, 4

    van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., Hammerstein , E., et al. 2021, , 908, 4. 2001.01409

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    R., et al

    Wevers , T., Guolo , M., Pasham , D. R., et al. 2024, , 963, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1878

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2022, , 514, 4406, 10.1093/mnras/stac1621

    Wu , H.-J., Mou , G., Wang , K., Wang , W., & Li , Z. 2022, , 514, 4406, 10.1093/mnras/stac1621

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2020, , 897, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba11e

    Xu , R., Spitkovsky , A., & Caprioli , D. 2020, , 897, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba11e

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2022, , 934, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c68

    Xu , S. 2022, , 934, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c68

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao , Y., Ravi , V., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    2024, , 969, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a9

    Yuan , C., Winter , W., & Lunardini , C. 2024, , 969, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a9

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08012, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08012

    Zhuang , J., Shen , R.-F., Mou , G., & Lu , W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08012, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08012

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.