Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Physical Origin and Time Lag of Multi-Frequency Flares from SgrA*

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 Large-scale magnetic polarity inversions can drive Sgr A*'s near-infrared flares and the radio lag that follows them.

desk verdict A solid, internally consistent simulation study proposing polarity-inversion reconnection as the Sgr A* flare mechanism, with an emergent self-absorption time-delay prediction—but the absolute NIR flux claim depends on a post-hoc subgrid model choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12789 v1 pith:V7NTDMRZ submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Hong-Xuan Jiang , Yosuke Mizuno , Indu K. Dihingia , Feng Yuan , Xi Lin , Christian M. Fromm , Antonios Nathanail , Ziri Younsi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords SagittariusA*accretionflowsmagneticreconnectionpolarityinversionnon-thermalelectronssynchrotronradiationGRMHDsimulationstimedelays
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 claims that the near-infrared flares of Sagittarius A* are produced by large-scale polarity inversion events in a magnetized accretion flow, and that the delayed radio flares are the same events seen through a frequency-dependent absorbing screen. Using a 3D two-temperature general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulation initialized with alternating-polarity magnetic loops and general-relativistic radiative transfer (GRRT) post-processing with both thermal and non-thermal synchrotron emission, the authors reproduce near-infrared flares with peak fluxes near 14 mJy, comparable to observations. They locate the flaring region by tracing intensity along geodesics and find it at the reconnection sites of polarity inversions, only a few gravitational radii from the black hole. They further show that without self-absorption all frequencies peak simultaneously, while with it 43 GHz lags near-infrared emission by up to about 50 minutes, matching observed delays. If right, this gives a concrete physical origin for Sgr A*'s multi-wavelength flaring without invoking a magnetically arrested disk.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a 3D two-temperature GRMHD simulation initialized with alternating-polarity magnetic loops (loop wavelength 30 gravitational radii) in a SANE accretion flow, post-processed with GRRT that combines thermal emission with a kappa electron distribution function, a hybrid distribution that reduces to the Maxwell-Juttner form when the index is large. Subgrid prescriptions calibrated against particle-in-cell simulations of turbulence and magnetic reconnection set the kappa index and the non-thermal acceleration efficiency locally, so non-thermal electrons are injected where large-scale fluid variables indicate reconnection is favorable. The mechanism that carries the argument is the polarity inversion event itself: where the toroidal magnetic field reverses, current sheets form, electrons are accelerated, and the resulting synchrotron emission powers the near-infrared flare, while at millimeter wavelengths plasma self-absorption hides the same region until it shifts outward, creating the observed time lags.

What would settle it

A single well-observed flare in which the 43 GHz and 86 GHz peaks coincide with or precede the near-infrared peak, or in which the 22-43 GHz lag is no larger than the 43-86 GHz lag, would contradict the self-absorption delay mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed flares of Sgr A* at 138 THz and the delayed millimeter flares share one physical origin: large-scale magnetic polarity inversion events in a Standard And Normal Evolution (SANE) accretion flow with a multi-loop initial field. These events drive magnetic reconnection in current sheets where the toroidal field reverses sign, accelerating electrons to Lorentz factors around 640, and the resulting non-thermal synchrotron emission produces near-infrared flares whose amplitude, duration, and variability match observations. Ray tracing identifies the brightest emission within roughly 3-4 gravitational radii of the black hole, at the reconnection sites, with Doppler boosting selecting which events appear as visible flares. The paper further argues that the radio delay is not a separate ejection process but an opacity effect: the same emitting structure is initially hidden by plasma self-absorption at 22-86 GHz and becomes visible only when it propagates outward to less opaque regions, producing measured lags of roughly 16.5, 20.2, and 34.8 minutes between adjacent bands and up to about 50 minutes between near-infrared and 43 GHz.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that particle-in-cell-calibrated subgrid formulas for the non-thermal electron population (the kappa index and acceleration efficiency) remain valid when transplanted from idealized, uniform-plasma simulations into the turbulent, reconnecting global flow around the black hole.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same polarity-inversion event produces both near-infrared and radio flares; without self-absorption, all bands would peak at the same time.
  • Observed radio lags measure the time for the flaring region to move outward to lower-density, less opaque plasma, so the lag encodes the propagation speed and geometry of the reconnection outflow.
  • Lower-frequency radio images during a flare should show peak emission at systematically larger radii, as the 43 GHz versus 86 GHz images do.
  • Non-thermal electrons, not thermal ones, are required to match the observed near-infrared flux; thermal-only models underpredict it.
  • The model predicts a finite life for flaring activity: after about 12,000 gravitational times, polarity inversions cease and the light curve goes quiescent, so Sgr A*'s flare duty cycle tracks the presence of multi-loop field structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: If self-absorption sets the radio lag, the lag should be a smooth, monotonic function of frequency across many bands, and a dedicated multi-band radio campaign during a single bright flare could test this directly.
  • Extension: The same mechanism may apply to other low-luminosity galactic nuclei accreting in the SANE state, where near-infrared-radio lags and polarimetry loops similar to Sgr A*'s would be expected.
  • Extension: The paper's comparison of turbulence-based and reconnection-based subgrid models shows that the predicted near-infrared flux is sensitive to which particle-in-cell prescription is used, so improved cross-scale prescriptions would sharpen the quantitative prediction.
  • Extension: Since the near-infrared source lies within a few gravitational radii and is Doppler-boosted, simultaneous astrometry and radio imaging could check whether the radio centroid trails the near-infrared centroid along the orbit, directly imaging the outward shift that produces the lag.
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 presents 3D two-temperature GRMHD simulations of a SANE accretion flow initialized with a multi-loop magnetic field configuration, post-processed with GRRT including thermal and non-thermal synchrotron emission. It claims that large-scale polarity inversion events are the origin of 138 THz (NIR) flares from Sgr A*, that these flares are consistent in amplitude and variability with observations thanks to non-thermal electrons, and that lower-frequency radio flares lag the NIR flares because of plasma self-absorption. The time-delay mechanism is supported by the contrast in Fig. 6, where removing self-absorption makes all frequencies peak simultaneously, while including it produces frequency-dependent lags up to tens of minutes.

Significance. If the NIR flare claim is robust, the paper provides an alternative to the widely studied MAD flux-eruption scenario for Sgr A* flares and offers a physically concrete explanation of the observed NIR-to-radio time delays. The ray-tracing localization of the flaring region (Fig. 9 and Figs. 2-4), the self-absorption on/off contrast (Fig. 6), and the order-of-magnitude energy budget (Eqs. 9-14) are genuine strengths. However, the headline NIR flux consistency is conditional on the choice of non-thermal subgrid prescription and on the mass normalization, so the significance is currently moderate rather than definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (3)-(4); Fig. 3; Appendix B.1] The headline NIR flux level is not robust to the choice of non-thermal subgrid prescription. At the flaring site identified in Fig. 3, σ≈0.28 and β≈2, with a weak guide field, i.e., conditions appropriate to the reconnection prescription. Equation (4) gives κ_rec≈7.5 (clamped) there, while Eq. (3) gives κ_tur≈6.4, so the two prescriptions predict materially different non-thermal tails. Appendix B.1 states that the turbulence model is preferred because it produces higher NIR flux and better IR SED agreement, and the reconnection model is not used for flare light curves. Since the flaring site is explicitly a reconnection site, the choice is post hoc. Please compute the flare light curves with the reconnection prescription and report the 138 THz peak flux; if it is below the observed level, either justify the turbulence choice on physical grounds or soften the claim that polarity-inversion reconnection produces the observed NIR flares.
  2. [Sec. 2.1; Appendix B.1] The claimed consistency of the NIR flare amplitude with observations is partly inherited from the normalization. The simulation mass unit is fitted to 3.5 Jy at 230 GHz, so the total flux at every frequency, including 138 THz, scales with that choice. Because the non-thermal model is also selected to match the IR SED, the absolute NIR agreement is not an independent prediction. Please report a scale-invariant diagnostic (e.g., the 138 THz / 230 GHz flux ratio and its flare/quiescent contrast) and clarify which aspects of the light curves are independent of the normalization.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (11); Fig. 3b] There is a numerical inconsistency in the energy-budget argument. Fig. 3b quotes σ≈0.28 for the flaring region, but Eq. (11) uses σ≳0.5 to obtain σ_e≈918 in Eq. (14). If σ_i≈0.28, Eq. (13) gives σ_e≈514, which is still of the same order as γ_e≈640 but changes the margin. Please reconcile the quoted values and state the sensitivity of the condition γ_e∼σ_e to the magnetic field and density used in Eq. (10).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The text refers to the '134 THz emissivity distribution' while the abstract and Fig. 1 use 138 THz; please use one frequency consistently throughout.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The sentence 'track the intensity evolution at the peak emission pixel along the geodesics (panels (a) and (d))' should refer to panels (c) and (d), which are the panels actually showing the intensity evolution.
  3. [Appendix A.1] The text after the floor density and pressure definitions contains an unresolved placeholder '(reference)'; please supply the missing citation.
  4. [Appendix B.3, Eq. (B5)] There is a typo: 'for each fair of data point' should read 'for each pair of data points'.
  5. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for Fromm et al. (2022) and a misplaced entry for Yusef-Zadeh et al. (2006) that appears to be attributed to a RANLP proceedings volume; please correct both.
  6. [Fig. 6] The left and right vertical axes are labeled 'Flux with self-absorption [Jy]' and 'Flux without self-absorption [Jy]', which is confusing because the solid and dashed curves share both axes; please clarify which axis applies to which curve.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The NIR flux consistency is partly obtained by fitting the 230 GHz normalization and choosing the turbulence subgrid model for IR agreement, but the self-absorption time-lag result is genuinely emergent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 and Appendix B.1]
    "the mass unit for scaling of the GRMHD simulations is obtained by fitting with a flux of 3.5 Jy at 230 GHz. From this, we roughly fit the spectral energy distribution (SED) from millimeter frequencies to the NIR band ... In the IR band, the turbulence model has better agreement with observation and generates higher NIR flux during flares that are closer to the observed peak flux in Abuter et al. (2018) (∼10−25 mJy). Therefore, we make it a preferred choice over the reconnection model the discussion of this work."

    The claim that large-scale polarity inversions produce 138 THz flares consistent with observations is evaluated only after the simulation density is normalized to the observed 230 GHz flux and the non-thermal subgrid model is selected because it gives NIR fluxes closer to the observed peak flux. The turbulence model is therefore not an independent prediction of the polarity-inversion mechanism at NIR wavelengths; its agreement with the IR SED is used as the criterion for choosing it. The time-delay claim is separate and remains emergent: Fig. 6 shows that all frequencies peak simultaneously when self-absorption is removed, so the lag is a radiative-transfer outcome independent of which non-thermal model is chosen.

full rationale

The paper's most distinctive result is genuinely emergent: the comparison with and without plasma self-absorption (Fig. 6) shows that the multi-frequency time delay vanishes when self-absorption is turned off, so the lag is an outcome of the radiative transfer rather than an input. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used; the multi-loop initial configuration and the PIC-calibrated subgrid prescriptions come from external references. The partial circularity is confined to the absolute NIR consistency claim. The simulation's mass unit is fitted to 3.5 Jy at 230 GHz, and of the two externally calibrated non-thermal models the turbulence model is adopted because it produces higher NIR flux and better IR SED agreement. Thus the 138 THz flux level is partly determined by the fitted normalization and by the post-hoc model choice, not by an independent test of the polarity-inversion mechanism. The analysis window (8,000–11,000 GM/c^3) is also selected during a period with stronger polarity inversion events and stronger NIR flares, which further softens the statistical comparison. These issues weaken the observational-consistency headline but do not affect the central emergent time-delay and common-origin claims, so the overall circularity is partial rather than complete.

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

The model introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its free parameters are the usual simulation setup choices plus a fitted mass normalization and a post-hoc subgrid model selection. The dominant unproven input is the transfer of PIC-derived non-thermal electron prescriptions to the global GRMHD flow.

free parameters (8)
  • Mass scaling (accretion rate normalization) = normalized to match 3.5 Jy at 230 GHz
    Converts simulation units to physical units; sets absolute flux levels for all predicted light curves and SED (Sec. 2.1, App. B.1).
  • Magnetic loop wavelength lambda_r = 30 r_g
    Hand-chosen to balance magnetic dissipation against jet power; controls the frequency and size of polarity inversion events (Eq. 1, Sec. 2.1).
  • Initial plasma beta minimum = beta_min = 100
    Sets initial magnetic field strength relative to gas pressure; affects reconnection vigor (Sec. 2.1).
  • BH spin = a = 0.9375
    Chosen; affects the mass-energy extraction and the dynamics of the accretion flow (Sec. 2.1).
  • Torus initial radii = r_in = 20 r_g, r_max = 40 r_g
    Fishbone-Moncrief torus geometry chosen for the simulation (Sec. 2.1).
  • Observing inclination = 25 degrees
    Chosen for GRRT camera; affects Doppler boosting and image morphology (Sec. 2.1).
  • Magnetization cutoff sigma_cut = 5
    Non-thermal emissivity is forced to zero where sigma > 5; the choice is tested against sigma_cut = 1 and 10 (App. B.5).
  • Subgrid non-thermal model selection = turbulence model preferred
    The turbulence-based kappa and efficiency fits are adopted over the reconnection-based ones because they match the observed IR SED better (App. B.1).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Ideal GRMHD equations in the Kerr metric describe the accretion flow
    The simulation solves the ideal MHD equations for an Eulerian observer (App. A.1, Eq. A1), a standard framework in this field.
  • domain assumption Two-temperature electron heating follows Rowan et al. (2017) and Kawazura et al. (2019)
    Electron temperature is obtained from turbulent and reconnection heating prescriptions without resolving the microphysics (Sec. 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper PIC-derived kappa and efficiency fits (Eqs. 3-7) apply to the global GRMHD flow
    The subgrid models are transplanted from idealized PIC simulations of uniform turbulence and reconnection to the large-scale, inhomogeneous GRMHD reconnection sites; the paper states this cross-scale transfer is a critical unresolved challenge (Sec. 2.2).
  • domain assumption The electron-ion plasma is quasi-neutral with n_e approximately n_p
    Used to convert ion magnetization to electron magnetization in the energy budget (Sec. 3.3, Eq. 13).
  • ad hoc to paper The cooling approximation of Scepi et al. (2022) captures synchrotron cooling of the high-energy tail
    Emissivity and absorptivity are suppressed by a factor sqrt(nu/nu_break) above the break frequency (App. A.3).
  • domain assumption The multi-loop initial magnetic configuration is representative of Sgr A*'s accretion state
    The paper motivates this from wind-fed accretion and dynamo studies but acknowledges the multi-loop state is more akin to a transition phase and cannot maintain persistent flaring (Sec. 4).
  • ad hoc to paper The time window 8,000-11,000 GM/c^3 is representative of flaring activity
    This window was selected because more polarity inversion events and stronger NIR flares occur there (Sec. 2.1); the light curve shown in Fig. 10d does cover the later quiescent phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Physical Origin and Time Lag of Multi-Frequency Flares from SgrA*." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7NTDMRZ

@misc{pith2026250712789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Physical Origin and Time Lag of Multi-Frequency Flares from SgrA*},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7NTDMRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12789}
}
abstract

Sagittarius~A$^*$, the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, exhibits flares across various wavelengths, yet their origins remain elusive. We performed 3D two-temperature General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of magnetized accretion flows initialized from multi-loop magnetic field configuration onto a rotating black hole and conducted General Relativistic Radiative Transfer (GRRT) calculations considering contributions from both thermal and non-thermal synchrotron emission processes. Our results indicate that the polarity inversion events from the multi-loop magnetic field configurations can generate $138\,\rm THz$ flares consistent with observations with the help of non-thermal emission. By tracing the intensity evolution of light rays in GRRT calculations, we identify the precise location of the flaring region and confirm that it originates from a large-scale polarity inversion event. We observe time delays between different frequencies, with lower-frequency radio flares lagging behind higher frequencies due to plasma self-absorption in the disk. The time delay between near-infrared and 43 GHz flares can reach up to $\sim 50$ min, during which the flaring region gradually shifts outward, becoming visible at lower frequencies. Our study confirms that large-scale polarity inversion in a Standard And Normal Evolution (SANE) accretion flow with a multi-loop initial magnetic configuration can be a potential mechanism driving flares from Sgr~A$^*$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12789 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-frequency light curves and Discrete Cross-Correlation Function (DCCF). Panels (a)-(d) show light curves from GRRT post-processing calculations at 22 GHz (black), 43 GHz (red), 86 GHz (blue), and 138 THz (NIR, purple). Panel (e) presents the DCCFs for 22-43, GHz (blue), 43-86 GHz (orange), and 86, GHz-138 THz (green), with the shaded regions indicating the 1𝜎 uncertainty range. exhibits good agreement with near… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Large-scale polarity inversion as a source of observed NIR flaring event. Panels (a) and (b) show the normalized NIR emissivity (𝑗 NIR I , normalized by its maximum value) and the corresponding magnetic field lines during the flaring (left) and quiescent states (right) at 𝑡 = 8, 320 M and 9, 500 M, respectively. The color of the magnetic field lines represents the relative strength of the toroidal component. To clea… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. One-dimensional (1D) radial profile taken from the zoomed-in region shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plasma properties and non-thermal electron signatures in the reconnection site. Panel (a) shows the plasma magnetization, 𝜎; (b) shows the plasma beta, 𝛽; (c) shows the non-thermal acceleration efficiency from our turbulence model; and (d) shows the resulting non-therm…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Outward shift in the location of the peak emission in radiative transfer. Panels (a) and (b) show the GRRT images at 𝑡 = 8, 380 and 8, 420 𝐺𝑀/𝑐 3 , corresponding to the 43 and 86 GHz flares, respectively. The brightest pixel in each panel is marked with a red cross. Pa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Common origin of the multi-frequency flares and the self￾absorption induced time delay. Panels (a) to (d) correspond to light curves at 138 THz, 86 GHz, 43 GHz, and 22 GHz, shown in purple, blue, red, and black, respectively. The light curves are obtained from GRRT pos…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Computational grid distribution (left) and initial magnetic configuration (right). In the left panel, we use 2-level SMR. Based grid and refined grid regions are presented in black and red, respectively. In the right panel, we show the initial magnetic configuration us…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral energy distribution from observations and simulations. The observational data is compiled from Zylka et al. (1995); An et al. (2005); Bower et al. (2015); Brinkerink (2015); Bower et al. (2019); Connors et al. (2017); Gallo et al. (2006, 2007). The pink and cy…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Geodesic line and intensity evolution. Panels (a) to (c) show the intensity evolution along the ray paths, with each panel representing a different coordinate direction: 𝑟, 𝜃, and 𝜙. The yellow and blue lines correspond to the two positions marked in the GRRT image in …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Panels (a)-(c) show the time evolution of the normalized magnetic flux (black), jet power (red), and accretion rate (blue). Solid lines represent the fiducial run, while dashed lines indicate the low-resolution test. Panel (d) presents the NIR light curve from 𝑡 = 8, …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of NIR light curves for different 𝜎cut values. The solid blue line represents the fiducial run (𝜎cut = 5), the dashed red line corresponds to 𝜎cut = 1, and the dot-dashed green line represents 𝜎cut = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Statistical analysis of the multi-frequency light curves. (a) Autocorrelation functions of the light curves at different frequencies: 22, GHz (black), 43, GHz (red), 86, GHz (blue), and 138, THz (purple). The same color scheme is used in Panels (b)-(d). (b) and (c) di…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Polarization Signatures of Inspiraling Hotspots around Kerr Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Inspiraling hotspots near Kerr black holes produce precessing, unwinding Stokes Q-U polarization loops, unlike the closed loops of stable circular orbits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abuter, G. C. R., Accardo, M., Amorim, A., et al. 2017, 94, 1

    2017

  2. [2]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834294

    Abuter, R., Amorim, A., Baub¨ock, M., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834294

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834294 2018

  3. [3]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    Abuter, R., Amorim, A., Baub¨ock, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 2019

  4. [4]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037717

    Abuter, R., Amorim, A., Baub¨ock, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037717

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037717 2020

  5. [5]

    H., et al

    Aimar, N., Dmytriiev, A., Vincent, F. H., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244936

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244936 2023

  6. [6]

    1997, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Alexander, T. 1997, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 218, Astronomical Time Series, ed. D. Maoz, A. Sternberg, & E. M. Leibowitz, 163, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8941-3 14

    doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8941-3 1997

  7. [7]

    M., Zhao, J.-H., et al

    An, T., Goss, W. M., Zhao, J.-H., et al. 2005, ApJL, 634, L49, doi: 10.1086/498687

    doi:10.1086/498687 2005

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07521 Avetis Grigorian, A., & Dexter, J

    Antonopoulou, E., Loules, A., & Nathanail, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07521 Avetis Grigorian, A., & Dexter, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10982. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10982

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07521 2025

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    K., Bautz, M

    Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45, doi: 10.1038/35092510

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/77

    Ball, D., ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., & Chan, C.-k. 2016, ApJ, 826, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/77

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    Ball, D., Sironi, L., & ¨Ozel, F. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al

    Bower, G. C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/69

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Dexter, J., Asada, K., et al

    Bower, G. C., Dexter, J., Asada, K., et al. 2019, ApJL, 881, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3397

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M., eds. 1976, Time series analysis. Forecasting and control

    1976

  7. [15]

    Brinkerink, C. D. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 499, Revolution in Astronomy with ALMA: The Third Year, ed. D. Iono, K. Tatematsu, A. Wootten, & L. Testi, 167

    2015

  8. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2466

    Chatterjee, K., Markoff, S., Neilsen, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2466

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Su, K.-Y., Narayan, R., & Natarajan, P

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Su, K.-Y., Narayan, R., & Natarajan, P. 2024, ApJ, 977, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9561

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Connors, R. M. T., Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3150

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Mizuno, Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio, A., Fromm, C. M., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01506-w

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, A&A, 612, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732025

    Davelaar, J., Mo´scibrodzka, M., Bronzwaer, T., & Falcke, H. 2018, A&A, 612, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732025

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, 16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936150 Del Zanna, L., Tomei, N., Franceschetti, K., Bugli, M., &

    Davelaar, J., Olivares, H., Porth, O., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, 16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936150 Del Zanna, L., Tomei, N., Franceschetti, K., Bugli, M., &

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, Fluids, 7, 1, doi: 10.3390/fluids7020087

    Bucciantini, N. 2022, Fluids, 7, 1, doi: 10.3390/fluids7020087

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Markoff, S., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Dexter, J., McKinney, J. C., Markoff, S., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu581

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

    Dexter, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., Jim´enez-Rosales, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1353

    Dibi, S., Markoff, S., Belmont, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1353

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C. M., & Rezzolla, L. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3165

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Dimitropoulos, I., Nathanail, A., Petropoulou, M., Contopoulos, I., & Fromm, C. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14312, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14312

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2010, Astrophysical Journal, 725, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/450

    Dodds-Eden, K., Sharma, P., Quataert, E., et al. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 725, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/450

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Morris, M., et al

    Eckart, A., Baganoff, F. K., Morris, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 427, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040495

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Sch¨odel, R., et al

    Eckart, A., Baganoff, F. K., Sch¨odel, R., et al. 2006, A&A, 450, 535, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054418

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2008, A&A, 492, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810924

    Eckart, A., Sch¨odel, R., Garc´ıa-Mar´ın, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810924

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    N., et al

    Eckart, A., Garc´ıa-Mar´ın, M., Vogel, S. N., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117779 El Mellah, I., Cerutti, B., & Crinquand, B. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346781 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Al...

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    G., & Moncrief, V

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

    1976 doi

  26. [35]

    M., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al

    Fromm, C. M., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142295

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 600, doi: 10.1086/521524 19

    Gallo, E., Migliari, S., Markoff, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 600, doi: 10.1086/521524 19

    2007 doi

  28. [38]

    F., McKinney, J

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

    2003 doi

  29. [39]

    A., & Stone, J

    Gardiner, T. A., & Stone, J. M. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 205, 509, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2004.11.016 —. 2008, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 4123, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.12.017

    2005 doi

  30. [40]

    2003, Nature, 425, 934, doi: 10.1038/nature02065

    Genzel, R., Sch¨odel, R., Ott, T., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934, doi: 10.1038/nature02065

    2003 doi

  31. [41]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    Gottlieb, O., Issa, D., Jacquemin-Ide, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    2023 doi

  32. [42]

    C., Miller, J

    Grete, P., Dolence, J. C., Miller, J. M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.12309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.12309

    2022 doi arXiv

  33. [43]

    H., De Villiers, J.-P., & Hawley, J

    Hirose, S., Krolik, J. H., De Villiers, J.-P., & Hawley, J. F. 2004, ApJ, 606, 1083, doi: 10.1086/383184

    2004 doi

  34. [44]

    D., & Reynolds, C

    Hogg, J. D., & Reynolds, C. S. 2018, ApJ, 861, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac439

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 1522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Rincon, F., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Liska, M. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    K., Liu, C., Mizuno, Y., & Zhu, T

    Jiang, H.-X., Dihingia, I. K., Liu, C., Mizuno, Y., & Zhu, T. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 101, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/101

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    K., et al

    Jiang, H.-X., Mizuno, Y., Dihingia, I. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03237, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03237

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [48]

    M., & Nathanail, A

    Jiang, H.-X., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C. M., & Nathanail, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1106

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    2019, PhRvE, 100, 022307, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.100.022307

    Jo, H.-H., Lee, B.-H., Hiraoka, T., & Jung, W.-S. 2019, PhRvE, 100, 022307, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.100.022307

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace894

    Giannios, D. 2023, ApJ, 954, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace894

    2023 doi

  41. [51]

    Kawazura, Y., Barnes, M., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 771, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812491116

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 1271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad176

    Lin, X., Li, Y.-P., & Yuan, F. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 1271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad176

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1357

    Lin, X., & Yuan, F. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1357

    2024 doi

  44. [54]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 3656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    2020 doi

  45. [55]

    F., Levinson, A., & Aloy, M

    Mahlmann, J. F., Levinson, A., & Aloy, M. A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa943

    2020 doi

  46. [56]

    Markoff, S., Falcke, H., Yuan, F., & Biermann, P. L. 2001, A&A, 379, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011346

    2001 doi

  47. [57]

    Gammie, C. F. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b28

    2021 doi

  48. [58]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba9d6 —

    Mattia, G., & Fendt, C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba9d6 —. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d59

    2020 doi

  49. [59]

    McKinney, J. C. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1561, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10256.x

    2006

  50. [60]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    2012

  51. [61]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefe

    Meringolo, C., Cruz-Osorio, A., Rezzolla, L., & Servidio, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefe

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., et al

    Michail, J. M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5332

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    M., & Vincent, F

    Mossoux, E., Finociety, B., Beckers, J. M., & Vincent, F. H. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 636, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937136

    2020 doi

  54. [64]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2308

    Murchikova, L., & Witzel, G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2308

    2021 doi

  55. [65]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.16740, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.16740

    Najafi-Ziyazi, M., Davelaar, J., Mizuno, Y., & Porth, O. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.16740, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.16740

    2023 doi arXiv

  56. [66]

    M., Porth, O., et al

    Nathanail, A., Fromm, C. M., Porth, O., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1165

    2020 doi

  57. [67]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1118

    Rezzolla, L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1118

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    Pandya, A., Zhang, Z., Chandra, M., & Gammie, C. F. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/822/1/34

    2016 doi

  59. [69]

    Parfrey, K., Giannios, D., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu162

    2015 doi

  60. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad737b

    Parfrey, K., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2024, ApJ, 975, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad737b

    2024 doi

  61. [71]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 5923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa826

    Petersen, E., & Gammie, C. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa826

    2020 doi

  62. [72]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx596

    Ponti, G., George, E., Scaringi, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx596

    2017 doi

  63. [73]

    Porth, O., Mizuno, Y., Younsi, Z., & Fromm, C. M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 2023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab163

    2021 doi

  64. [74]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journals, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

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

    2019 doi

  65. [75]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3336, doi: 10.21105/joss.03336

    Prather, B., Wong, G., Dhruv, V., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3336, doi: 10.21105/joss.03336

    2021 doi

  66. [76]

    Prather, B. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01361, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01361

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [77]

    P., et al

    Rauch, C., Ros, E., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2016, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 11, 52, doi: 10.1017/S1743921316012321

    2016 doi

  68. [78]

    Gammie, C. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2084

    2015 doi

  69. [79]

    M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C

    Ressler, S. M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx364 20

    2017 doi

  70. [80]

    M., White, C

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

    2023 doi

  71. [81]

    M., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., White, C. J., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2020, ApJL, 896, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9532

    2020 doi

  72. [82]

    2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics

    Rezzolla, L., & Zanotti, O. 2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics

    2013

  73. [83]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  74. [84]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx379

    Ripperda, B., Porth, O., Xia, C., & Keppens, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx379

    2017 doi

  75. [85]

    E., & Reynolds, C

    Rodman, P. E., & Reynolds, C. S. 2024, ApJ, 960, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0384

    2024 doi

  76. [86]

    E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R

    Rowan, M. E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9380

    2017 doi

  77. [87]

    Scepi, N., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac337 Sch¨odel, R., Morris, M. R., Muzic, K., et al. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 532, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116994

    2022 doi

  78. [88]

    2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 601, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628530

    Subroweit, M., Garc´ıa-Mar´ın, M., Eckart, A., et al. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 601, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628530

    2017 doi

  79. [89]

    R., Lebrun-Grandi´e, D., Arndt, D., et al

    Trott, C. R., Lebrun-Grandi´e, D., Arndt, D., et al. 2022, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 33, 805, doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3097283 ˇCemelji´c, M., Yang, H., Yuan, F., & Shang, H. 2022, ApJ, 933, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70cc

    2022

  80. [90]

    2019, A&A, 627, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834854

    Vio, R., Andreani, P., Biggs, A., & Hayatsu, N. 2019, A&A, 627, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834854

    2019 doi

  81. [91]

    2024, A&A, 689, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449265

    Vos, J., Davelaar, J., Olivares, H., Brinkerink, C., & Falcke, H. 2024, A&A, 689, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449265

    2024 doi

  82. [92]

    J., & Quataert, E

    White, C. J., & Quataert, E. 2022, ApJ, 926, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac423c

    2022 doi

  83. [93]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 665, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244493

    Wielgus, M., Moscibrodzka, M., Vos, J., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 665, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244493

    2022 doi

  84. [94]

    P., et al

    Witzel, G., Martinez, G., Willner, S. P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0891

    2021 doi

  85. [95]

    2006, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 48, 203, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/48/2/003

    Xiao, F. 2006, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 48, 203, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/48/2/003

    2006 doi

  86. [96]

    2024, Science Advances, 10, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    2024 doi

  87. [97]

    M., & Olivares, H

    Younsi, Z., Porth, O., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C. M., & Olivares, H. 2020, in Perseus in Sicily: From Black Hole to Cluster Outskirts, ed. K. Asada, E. de Gouveia Dal Pino, M. Giroletti, H. Nagai, & R. Nemmen, Vol. 342, 9–12, doi: 10.1017/S1743921318007263

    2020 doi

  88. [98]

    Younsi, Z., Wu, K., & Fuerst, S. V. 2012, A&A, 545, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219599

    2012 doi

  89. [99]

    Yuan, F., Lin, J., Wu, K., & Ho, L. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2183, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14673.x

    2009

  90. [100]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    2003 doi

  91. [101]

    2004, ApJ, 606, 894, doi: 10.1086/383117

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2004, ApJ, 606, 894, doi: 10.1086/383117

    2004 doi

  92. [102]

    D., & Wilkins, D

    Yuan, Y., Blandford, R. D., & Wilkins, D. R. 2019a, MNRAS, 484, 4920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz332

    doi

  93. [103]

    D., & Wilkins, D

    Yuan, Y., Spitkovsky, A., Blandford, R. D., & Wilkins, D. R. 2019b, MNRAS, 487, 4114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1599

    doi

  94. [104]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 361, doi: 10.1086/588803

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., Heinke, C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 361, doi: 10.1086/588803

    2008 doi

  95. [105]

    A., et al

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., Roberts, D. A., et al. 2006, International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language

    2006

  96. [106]

    Processing, RANLP, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.033.0051

    doi

  97. [107]

    D., et al

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Bushouse, H., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 198, doi: 10.1086/503287

    2006 doi

  98. [108]

    H., Herrnstein, R

    Zhao, J.-H., Young, K. H., Herrnstein, R. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 586, L29, doi: 10.1086/374581

    2003 doi

  99. [109]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3406

    Zhou, H. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3406

    2024 doi

  100. [110]

    1995, A&A, 297, 83, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9410086

    Lesch, H. 1995, A&A, 297, 83, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9410086

    1995 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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