Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Optically Overluminous Tidal Disruption Events: Outflow Properties and Implications for Extremely Relativistic Disruptions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Late-time VLA observations of eight optically overluminous tidal disruption events find no off-axis jets, but show these events are systematically brighter in radio than fainter TDEs, suggesting more powerful non-relativistic outflows.

desk verdict A careful, honest radio campaign of eight overluminous TDEs, but the headline 2.1-sigma optical–radio correlation is too confounded by host properties to carry the weight the abstract puts on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06453 v1 pith:MNNGORA6 submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.HE

Yuhan Yao , Kate D. Alexander , Wenbin Lu , Jean J. Somalwar , Vikram Ravi , Ryan Chornock , Raffaella Margutti , Daniel A. Perley
show 17 more authors
James C. A. Miller-Jones Paz Beniamini Nayana A. J. Joshua S. Bloom Collin T. Christy Matthew J. Graham Steven L. Groom Erica Hammerstein George Helou Mansi M. Kasliwal S. R. Kulkarni Russ R. Laher Ashish A. Mahabal Jérémy Neveu Reed Riddle Roger Smith Sjoert van Velzen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsradiotransientsoff-axisjetsnon-relativisticoutflowssupermassiveblackholestimedomainastronomyVeryLargeArray
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tests whether the most optically luminous tidal disruption events (TDEs) harbour off-axis relativistic jets that would appear as bright, featureless optical transients. The authors observed eight such events with the VLA at rest-frame ages of 1–3 years and detected four, all with 6 GHz luminosities of roughly $10^{38}$–$10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, about two orders of magnitude below on-axis jetted TDEs. None of the light curves matches the expected signature of an off-axis jet within three years. Instead, a statistical comparison with fainter TDEs observed at similar times shows the overluminous events are systematically brighter in the radio at about $2.1\sigma$ significance, and two of the detected events show evolving emission consistent with non-relativistic outflows launched near optical first light. The paper concludes that optically overluminous TDEs may launch more powerful prompt non-relativistic outflows, possibly because they are powered by more massive black holes where relativistic effects are stronger.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is late-time radio observations with the VLA at $\sim 6$ GHz plus a synchrotron self-absorption interpretation of the radio SEDs. A broken power-law model with a self-absorption break yields the peak luminosity and peak frequency, and equipartition assumptions convert those into outflow energy, radius, and velocity; for the two non-varying sources a Sedov–Taylor phase model is used instead. The off-axis jet test compares the observed luminosities with synthetic 6 GHz light curves derived from a Sw J1644-like jet viewed at different angles, which predict rising or otherwise bright late-time radio emission. The sample comparison uses a Bayesian censored-data model in which upper limits are treated as censored draws, producing the posterior distribution of the mean luminosity difference between overluminous and faint TDEs.

What would settle it

Measure 6 GHz radio luminosities at a rest-frame age of about 1.5 years for overluminous and faint TDEs whose host galaxies are matched in stellar mass, black hole mass, and redshift; if the radio luminosity offset between the two groups disappears, the claimed connection between optical peak brightness and outflow power is a selection effect rather than an intrinsic property of the disruption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that optically overluminous TDEs ($M_{g,\rm peak} < -20.8$ mag) are not hiding off-axis relativistic jets, at least within rest-frame three years, but they do appear to launch more energetic prompt non-relativistic outflows than fainter TDEs. Four of eight VLA targets are detected at 6 GHz with $L \sim 10^{38}$–$10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and for two of them (AT2022hvp and AT2021aeou) the radio SED evolution is consistent with synchrotron emission from outflows launched near first optical light, with inferred equipartition energies of about $10^{50}$–$10^{51}$ erg and velocities around $0.1c$. A Bayesian comparison at rest-frame $\sim 1.5$ yr between five overluminous TDEs and a control sample of 13 fainter TDEs gives a mean radio luminosity offset of $1.2$ dex, with a one-sided $2.1\sigma$ confidence that the overluminous sample is brighter. The paper interprets this as tentative evidence that optical peak luminosity traces outflow power, and speculates that strong general relativistic effects near $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ black holes, or the disruption of more massive stars, may be responsible.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the brighter radio emission in the overluminous sample comes from more powerful outflows launched by the disruption itself, rather than from the fact that these events live in more massive galaxies with more massive black holes; the analysis does not match or correct for those host properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, optically overluminous TDEs should be removed from the off-axis jet census; searches for jetted TDEs cannot rely on optical peak brightness alone.
  • The $\sim 1.5$ yr radio luminosity can serve as an observable proxy for prompt outflow energy, allowing future samples to connect optical peak magnitude to outflow power.
  • The inferred outflow energies of $\sim 10^{50}$–$10^{51}$ erg at $\sim 0.1c$ put these events at the high end of TDE prompt outflow demographics, so models of disk winds and stream collisions must accommodate them.
  • Because off-axis jet radio emission may peak later than 3 yr, continued monitoring of the detected sources could reveal jets if they exist.
  • If the non-varying sources are powered by pre-existing AGN, the implied TDE rate in radio-loud AGN hosts may be enhanced, affecting rate estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A control sample matched on host galaxy mass, black hole mass, and redshift would determine whether the $2.1\sigma$ radio offset is intrinsic to the disruption or an environmental selection effect; the current data cannot separate these.
  • The paper's general-relativity speculation implies a testable prediction: among TDEs with similar optical brightness, those around $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ black holes should show faster or more energetic radio outflows than those around lower-mass black holes.
  • The absence of off-axis jet signatures within 3 yr could mean jets are rare, choked, or structured; if structured jets exist, deeper or later radio observations would find them at lower luminosity, placing an upper bound on the fraction of TDEs that form jets.
  • If AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs are indeed AGN-powered, the fraction of radio-loud AGN hosts in this small sample ($\sim 2/8$) exceeds the $\sim 3\%$ field expectation, suggesting either a physical enhancement of TDE rates in such galaxies or a selection bias; a larger unbiased sample would test this.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports VLA C-band observations of eight optically overluminous tidal disruption events (Mg,peak < -20.8) at rest-frame times of 1–3 yr. Four events are detected: AT2022hvp and AT2021aeou show spectral evolution consistent with synchrotron emission from non-relativistic outflows launched near first light, with equipartition energies ~1e50–1e51 erg and velocities ~0.1c, while AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs show no significant variability, leaving a pre-existing AGN origin possible. No evidence for off-axis relativistic jets is found within 3 yr. Using a control sample of 13 fainter TDEs (Mg,peak > -20.5), the authors report a 2.1σ tendency for the overluminous sample to be more luminous at ~6 GHz at trest ~1.5 yr, and speculate that strong general relativistic effects near ~1e8 Msun black holes may power more energetic outflows.

Significance. The paper is a careful observational contribution: the radio data reduction and flux measurements are transparent and tabulated, the SED and outflow modeling use standard published methods, and the off-axis jet exclusion is based on independent literature models. The authors also label their general-relativistic interpretation as speculation, which is appropriate. If the statistical association holds, it would provide the first demographic evidence linking optical peak brightness to radio outflow power in TDEs and a useful upper bound on off-axis jets in the first three years. However, the headline result is statistically fragile and the control comparison is confounded by host properties, so the value of the paper currently lies more in the well-characterized target list and the detailed outflow modeling than in the 2.1σ correlation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (2), Fig. 8] The central 2.1σ comparison is not matched or corrected for the strong systematic differences between the two samples. The overluminous events lie at z > 0.1 and have host stellar masses 10^10.6–10^11.2 Msun and black hole masses 10^7.7–10^8.3 Msun (Table 1, Figures 2–3), while the control TDEs are fainter and generally lower-redshift. The censored-normal model of Eq. (2) tests only whether the 6 GHz luminosity distributions differ; it cannot separate a difference in prompt TDE outflow power from a difference in host-nuclear radio activity or galaxy-scale star formation. Because this comparison is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, I ask the authors to add a joint model or a host-matched subsample, or to explicitly rephrase the abstract and conclusions so that the measured quantity is described as unresolved nuclear radio luminosity rather than prompt outflow power.
  2. [Appendix D, §4.3] Most of the control-sample 6 GHz values are not direct measurements at trest ~1.5 yr. For example, iPTF15af and AT2017eqx use limits at very different epochs, and AT2018hco, AT2019ehz, and AT2019teq are extrapolations from later declining light curves with assumed power-law indices. These choices can inflate the reported 1.2 dex offset, and the paper does not quantify how the 2.1σ changes if only direct 6 GHz measurements at 1 < trest < 2 yr are used. I request a robustness test using only direct measurements, and a statement in the main text, not only the appendix, that most control limits are interpolated or extrapolated. The appendix footnote showing that including AGN-ambiguous events raises the significance to 2.5σ also deserves a main-text caveat, since it indicates sensitivity to sample definition.
  3. [§4.3, priors and censoring model] The posterior probability that δµ > 0 (1.6%) is computed with specific priors: normal priors centered at 38 with σ = 1 dex on µ1 and µ2, and a half-normal prior on the shared σ with scale 1 dex. With only five objects in the overluminous sample and many censored control values, the posterior can be sensitive to these choices. The paper does not report prior sensitivity. I recommend adding a short robustness section (for example, wider priors, separate σs for the two samples, or a non-parametric test) so the reader can see whether the 2.1σ result is an artifact of the prior or the censoring model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1 heading] The heading 'AT2020hvp and AT2021aeou' should read 'AT2022hvp and AT2021aeou'.
  2. [Introduction and Figure 1 caption] There are duplicate 'the' occurrences: 'the the total TDE rate' in the introduction and 'the the peak Lg' in the Figure 1 caption.
  3. [§5 conclusion bullet] The bullet stating 'The radio emission of AT2021aeou and AT2020qhs at 2 < trest < 3 yr may originate either from pre-existing AGN activity or from non-relativistic outflows' does not match the body text, where the AGN-ambiguous pair is AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs.
  4. [§5 conclusion bullet] The phrase 'opticaller fainter TDEs' should be 'optically fainter TDEs'.
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The AT2022cmc reference list includes a bare '?' placeholder; the intended citation should be provided.
  6. [§4.3] The use of a 94% HDI because it is the ArviZ default is unconventional; a 95% HDI would be more standard and easier to compare with other work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular steps: the radio-luminosity comparison and outflow modeling use measured data and standard, non-circular relations; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that optically overluminous TDEs may launch more powerful prompt non-relativistic outflows—rests on a direct comparison of measured 6 GHz radio luminosities between samples defined by optical peak magnitude. Radio luminosity is not an input to the optical selection criterion (Mg,peak < −20.8 vs. Mg,peak > −20.5), nor is it used to define the overluminous class. The outflow properties (Eeq, beta, Mej) for AT2022hvp and AT2021aeou are derived from radio SED fits using standard equipartition and synchrotron self-absorption relations with fixed microphysical assumptions (epsilon_e = epsilon_B = 0.1, p = 2.7), not fitted to the optical-overluminous claim. The Sedov-Taylor modeling of AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs likewise uses the radio light curves and standard blast-wave equations; no equation reduces to the paper's conclusion by construction. The off-axis jet exclusion uses jet light-curve models parameterized from Sw J1644 observations by Beniamini et al. (2023), and although one coauthor is involved, those models are not derived from the present sample and serve as a comparison benchmark rather than as a load-bearing derivation of the result. Self-citations such as Yao et al. (2023) for photometric fitting, spectral classification, and black-hole-mass scaling relations are methodological references to previously published procedures and measurements; they do not smuggle in the conclusion. The statistical comparison in Sec. 4.3 is an empirical correlation with a modest 2.1-sigma significance, and the host-galaxy-mass/redshift mismatch between samples is a potential confound that could affect the interpretation, but a confound is not circularity: the radio luminosities are measured data, not functions of the fitted parameters or of the conclusion being asserted. The paper explicitly labels the general-relativistic interpretation as speculative, and that speculation is not used to derive any of the quantitative outflow properties. I therefore find no circular step under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference depends on standard synchrotron and Sedov-Taylor modeling assumptions, a few fitted or fixed parameters (p, k, beta, equipartition fractions), and a Bayesian prior choice, but it does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • electron power-law index p = 2.7 (fixed for AT2021aeou, AT2020ysg, AT2020qhs; fitted for AT2022hvp)
    Fixing p constrains the spectral shape; results depend on this choice.
  • equipartition fractions eps_e and eps_B = 0.1 each
    Assumed equal partition; deviations increase inferred energy and radius.
  • ambient density slope k = 0.63+0.74-0.45 (AT2020ysg), 0.68+0.66-0.48 (AT2020qhs)
    Fitted in Sedov-Taylor model; best-fit approaches lower bound due to flat light curve.
  • outflow velocity at 2.5 yr beta_2.5yr = uniform prior between -3 and -1 in log10
    Prior chosen for modeling; degenerate with energy.
  • Bayesian population means mu1/mu2 and shared sigma = priors centered at 38 with sigma 1 dex
    Prior choices affect the reported 2.1 sigma significance.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Synchrotron self-absorption model with power-law electron distribution and smoothing formula (Eq. 1).
    Used to fit SEDs in Section 3; standard result from Granot & Sari (2002).
  • domain assumption Outflow is spherical and launched near optical first light; equipartition eps_e = eps_B = 0.1.
    Inferred energies and radii in Table 2 depend on this; deviations change values.
  • domain assumption AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs outflows are in Sedov-Taylor phase with no late-time energy injection.
    Used to model light curves in Section 3.2; paper notes this fails if delayed outflows exist.
  • domain assumption Off-axis jet signatures can be predicted by rescaling the Sw J1644 jet model across viewing angles.
    Section 4.2 uses Beniamini et al. 2023 model; the no-jet conclusion inherits that model's assumptions.
  • domain assumption TDEs occur uniformly across galaxy types for the AGN-contamination probability estimate.
    Section 4.1 uses this to argue low probability of two AGN in eight events.
  • domain assumption Radio luminosity at trest ~ 1.5 yr traces prompt TDE outflows rather than delayed or nuclear activity.
    Central to Section 4.3; the paper excludes two ambiguous events partly on this ground.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optically Overluminous Tidal Disruption Events: Outflow Properties and Implications for Extremely Relativistic Disruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNNGORA6

@misc{pith2026250706453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optically Overluminous Tidal Disruption Events: Outflow Properties and Implications for Extremely Relativistic Disruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNNGORA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06453}
}
abstract

Recent studies suggest that tidal disruption events (TDEs) with off-axis jets may manifest as optically overluminous events. To search for jet signatures at late times, we conducted radio observations of eight such optically overluminous ($M_{g, \rm peak} < -20.8$ mag) TDEs with the Very Large Array. We detect radio counterparts in four events. The observed radio luminosities ($L_{\rm 6 GHz} \sim 10^{38}$--$10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$) are two orders of magnitude lower than those of on-axis jetted TDEs, and we find no evidence for off-axis jets within rest-frame time of 3 yrs. Two of them (AT2022hvp and AT2021aeou) exhibit evolving radio emission, consistent with synchrotron emission from non-relativistic outflows launched near the time of first optical light. Two events (AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs) show no statistically significant variability, which can be attributed to either non-relativistic outflows or pre-existing active galactic nuclei. Compared to a control sample of fainter TDEs with $M_{g, \rm peak} > -20.5$ mag observed at similar rest-frame timescales ($t_{\rm rest} ~ 1.5$\,yr), our sample shows systematically more luminous radio emission, suggesting that optically overluminous TDEs may launch more powerful prompt non-relativistic outflows. We speculate that strong general relativistic effects near high-mass black holes ($M_{\rm BH} ~ 10^8\,M_\odot$) may play a key role. These findings motivate further investigation into the nature of relativistic disruptions around massive black holes and the physical conditions necessary for jet formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cumulative optical TDE rate (upper panel) and rest-frame g-band (νrest = 6.3×1014 Hz) luminosity function (bottom panel; Y. Yao et al. 2023). The vertical lines mark the the peak Lg of two on-axis jetted TDEs (D. R. Pasham et al. 2015; I. Andreoni et al. 2022; Y. Yao et al. 2024). AT2022cmc (I. Andreoni et al. 2022; Y. Yao et al. 2024; E. Hammerstein et al. 2025), and that both events ex￾hibit thermal SEDs that can … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same sample as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ZTF-selected TDEs (2019.0–2022.3) on the dia￾gram of redshift vs. peak rest-frame g-band absolute mag￾nitude. Overluminous TDEs selected for VLA observations are annotated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ZTF r-band light curves of our sample. To guide the eye in tracking the light curve evolution, we fit the data using a combination of functional forms and Gaussian process smoothing, following procedures described in Appendix B.4 of Y. Yao et al. (2020). The best-fit m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The black data points and gray downward triangles show VLA detections and 3σ upper limits of optically overlu￾minous TDEs. In comparison, we show radio (∼ 6 GHz) light curves of on-axis jetted TDEs (red lines) and other TDEs with high-cadence radio observations in the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio SEDs of AT2022hvp and AT2021aeou, overplotted with the best-fit broken power-law models. model does not apply if there are late-time energy in￾jections from the TDE accretion flow. We prescribe the ambient density as n(r) ∝ r −k . In this case, the out￾flow veloc…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio light curves of AT2020ysg and AT2020qhs, overplotted with the best-fit Sedov–Taylor models. TDE AT2019azh entered the ST phase at trest ∼ 650 d (A. J. Goodwin et al. 2022). The best-fit parameters are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radio luminosities at trest ∼ 1.5 yr for optically overluminous TDEs (Mg,peak < −20.8; shown in red) and a control sample of fainter TDEs (Mg,peak > −20.5; shown in blue). Considering both detections (solid circles) and upper limits (hollow downward triangles), our Bay…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ESI spectrum of the host galaxies of AT2021gje and AT2022hvp (black) and the best-fit models (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the LRIS spectra of AT2021aeou. We note that the optical light curve of this object exhibits a double-peaked profile (see the cyan circles in the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper : DBSP and LRIS spectra of AT2022hvp. Bottom: The +44 d spectrum divided by a blackbody+host model, which shows signatures of broad emission lines around O III, N III, and He II. (N. Roth et al. 2016), a detailed investigation of which is beyond the scope of thi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AT 2022csn: A Photometrically Peculiar Optical/UV Tidal Disruption Event in a Type II AGN

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

    AT 2022csn is a luminous optical/UV tidal disruption event with an 18-day double-peaked light curve, low blackbody temperature, and large radius, hosted by a likely Type II AGN.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1516

    doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 2023

  2. [2]

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

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

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

  3. [3]

    D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  4. [4]

    W., Perley, D

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 430, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  5. [5]

    R., Baldassare, V

    Angus, C. R., Baldassare, V. F., Mockler, B., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1452, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 772, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y 2022

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  7. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    Beniamini, P., Granot, J., & Gill, R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa538 2020

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    Beniamini, P., Piran, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1950 2023

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09192.x

    2005

  2. [10]

    K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al

    Blanchard, P. K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B

    Bloom, J. S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 203, doi: 10.1126/science.1207150

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Levan, A

    Brown, G. C., Levan, A. J., Stanway, E. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1520

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Levan, A

    Brown, G. C., Levan, A. J., Stanway, E. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2193 16

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    N., Kennea, J

    Burrows, D. N., Kennea, J. A., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 421, doi: 10.1038/nature10374

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2004, PASP, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Berger, E., et al

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

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    D., et al

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

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Krimm, H

    Cenko, S. B., Krimm, H. A., Horesh, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Bogdanovi´ c, T

    Cheng, R. M., & Bogdanovi´ c, T. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 064020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064020

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Broderick, J. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 675, doi: 10.1086/341650

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Bloom, J

    Coughlin, M. W., Bloom, J. S., Nir, G., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1 De Colle, F., & Lu, W. 2020, NewAR, 89, 101538, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101538

    2023

  17. [25]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Alexander, K. D. 2018, ApJ, 854, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8e0

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Eftekhari, T., Tchekhovskoy, A., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad72ea

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    J., et al

    Fulton, M., Srivastav, S., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-1214, 1

    2022

  22. [30]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    Gafton, E., & Rosswog, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, Nature, 485, 217, doi: 10.1038/nature10990

    Gezari, S., Chornock, R., Rest, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 217, doi: 10.1038/nature10990

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

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

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

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

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

    doi

  26. [34]

    J., Alexander, K

    Goodwin, A. J., Alexander, K. D., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 522, 5084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1258

    doi

  27. [35]

    J., Anderson, G

    Goodwin, A. J., Anderson, G. E., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae362

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Goodwin, A. J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 981, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    doi

  29. [37]

    J., Burn, M., Anderson, G

    Goodwin, A. J., Burn, M., Anderson, G. E., et al. 2025b, ApJS, 278, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbe80

    doi

  30. [38]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

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

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb620

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-1722, 1

    Hammerstein, E. 2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-1722, 1

    2021

  35. [43]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08250, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08250

    Hammerstein, E., Cenko, B., Andreoni, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08250, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08250

    2025 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2023a, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

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

    doi

  37. [45]

    B., Gezari, S., et al

    Hammerstein, E., Cenko, S. B., Gezari, S., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 957, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb84

    doi

  38. [46]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Kochanek, C. S., Prieto, J. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3813, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2272

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Auchettl, K., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f3d

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, A&A, 672, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245078

    Homan, D., Krumpe, M., Markowitz, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245078

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    B., & Arcavi, I

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

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3269

    Huang, H.-T., & Lu, W. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3269

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

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

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, A&A, 541, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219052

    Brinchmann, J. 2012, A&A, 541, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219052

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    N., Shenoy, S., & Ma lek, K

    Jin, G., Kauffmann, G., Best, P. N., Shenoy, S., & Ma lek, K. 2025, A&A, 694, A309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451974

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Kaur, K., & Stone, N. C. 2025, ApJ, 979, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b86

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, PhRvD, 85, 024037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024037

    Kesden, M. 2012, PhRvD, 85, 024037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024037

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Duncan, K

    Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2567 17

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Ryder, S

    Kool, E. C., Ryder, S. D., Stockdale, C. J., et al. 2015, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8388, 1

    2015

  51. [59]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

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

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eb8

    Kumar, H., Berger, E., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eb8

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Zurek, W

    Laguna, P., Miller, W. A., Zurek, W. H., & Davies, M. B. 1993, ApJL, 410, L83, doi: 10.1086/186885

    1993 doi

  56. [64]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/1

    Laskar, T., Berger, E., Tanvir, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/1

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    C., et al

    Leloudas, G., Fraser, M., Stone, N. C., et al. 2016, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0002, doi: 10.1038/s41550-016-0002

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 199, doi: 10.1126/science.1207143

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

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

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    Lu, W., Matsumoto, T., & Matzner, C. D. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1770

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/25

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279

    2023 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 6233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3636

    Mummery, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3636

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    K., Berger, E., et al

    Nicholl, M., Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1837

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    2019, A&A, 631, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935634

    Nordin, J., Brinnel, V., van Santen, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935634

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562

    1995 doi

  72. [80]

    R., Cenko, S

    Pasham, D. R., Cenko, S. B., Levan, A. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/68

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al

    Pasham, D. R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 88, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1

    2011 doi

  76. [84]

    2023, A&A, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    Petrushevska, T., Leloudas, G., Ili´ c, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    Roth, N., Kasen, D., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2016, ApJ, 827, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc390

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., & Piran, T. 2023, ApJL, 946, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc390

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833883

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 3820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2843

    Sazonov, S., Gilfanov, M., Medvedev, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2843

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    2007, A&A, 464, 715, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066175

    Selvelli, P., Danziger, J., & Bonifacio, P. 2007, A&A, 464, 715, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066175

    2007 doi

  83. [91]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    Sfaradi, I., Beniamini, P., Horesh, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    I., Bolte, M., Epps, H

    Sheinis, A. I., Bolte, M., Epps, H. W., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 851, doi: 10.1086/341706

    2002 doi

  85. [93]

    C., & Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2281

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    J., & Hummer, D

    Storey, P. J., & Hummer, D. G. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41

    1995 doi

  87. [95]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/33

    Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Li, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/33

    2015 doi

  88. [96]

    D., Giannios, D., & Kelley, L

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Kelley, L. Z. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2085

    2014 doi

  89. [97]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50

    2010 doi

  90. [98]

    Teboul, O., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJL, 957, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037 van der Walt, S., Crellin-Quick, A., & Bloom, J. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1247, doi: 10.21105/joss.01247 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W. S., Onori, F., Hung, T., &

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Cenko, S

    Arcavi, I. 2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe0c van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1976 18

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6b

    Yao, Y., Lu, W., Harrison, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6b

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    M., et al

    Yao, Y., De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa3d

    2020 doi

  95. [103]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac898a

    Yao, Y., Lu, W., Guolo, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac898a

    2022 doi

  96. [104]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

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

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  98. [106]

    A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/152

    2013 doi

  99. [107]

    A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 425, doi: 10.1038/nature10366

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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