Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

In the off-axis jet model of AT2018hyz's late radio flare, the radio emission centroid moves with apparent superluminal speed until the counter-jet dominates, while a delayed spherical outflow keeps the centroid within a non-relativistic di

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:01 UTC pith:GFXZQA2D

load-bearing objection Useful, honest synthetic-imaging paper that gives a clean VLBI discriminator for AT2018hyz; the main caveat is lateral spreading during the superluminal phase. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.21669 v2 pith:GFXZQA2D submitted 2025-12-25 astro-ph.HE

VLBI Diagnostics of Off-axis Jets in Radio Flares of Tidal Disruption Events

Tatsuya Matsumoto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventsradio flaresVLBIoff-axis jetssuperluminal motionemission centroidsynthetic radio imagesAT2018hyz
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that radio imaging of the emission centroid can decisively distinguish between the two leading explanations for AT2018hyz's late-time radio flare: a delayed, Newtonian outflow launched ~1000 days after the optical discovery, or a relativistic jet pointed away from our line of sight. Both models currently fit the observed light curve and spectrum, so a new observable is needed. The paper calculates synthetic VLBI images for both scenarios and finds that the centroid of the off-axis jet moves at apparent superluminal speeds, while the delayed outflow's centroid stays within a non-relativistic distance. A detection of superluminal centroid motion would therefore be a smoking-gun signature of the off-axis jet, and the paper argues this is the most powerful way to break the degeneracy.

Core claim

The paper claims that in the off-axis relativistic jet scenario, the centroid of the radio image exhibits apparent superluminal motion, X_cen >= cT, until the counter-jet begins to contribute significantly; in the delayed spherical outflow scenario, the centroid is confined within roughly (c beta) T and never exceeds the non-relativistic distance. This contrast is robust because the relativistic Doppler effect and the geometry of the equal-arrival-time surface place the jet's bright approaching side far from the origin, whereas a spherical Newtonian outflow is symmetric. The paper also finds that the jet image's aspect ratio evolves non-monotonically: it starts near unity, decreases as the j

What carries the argument

The central object is the synthetic radio image computed via the equal-arrival-time surface (EATS) of a top-hat jet, combined with the relativistic Doppler factor and synchrotron emissivity/absorption. The emission centroid is the flux-weighted mean position on the sky, and its evolution is tracked over time. The image aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of widths in the X (jet-axis) and Y (perpendicular) directions. The EATS geometry—egg-shaped for relativistic outflows and spherical for Newtonian ones—drives the predicted centroid superluminal motion and the non-monotonic aspect ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The jet is assumed to keep its original top-hat geometry and not spread sideways during the entire evolution, including the Newtonian phase; if lateral expansion occurs as expected when the Lorentz factor drops below 1/theta_j, the image geometry and centroid trajectory could change, possibly blurring the predicted superluminal signature.

What would settle it

A VLBI monitoring campaign of AT2018hyz's radio centroid over the next several years: if the centroid offset stays below cT at all observed epochs, the off-axis jet scenario with moderate viewing angles is excluded; if the offset exceeds cT, the delayed outflow scenario is excluded. Additionally, a high-resolution numerical simulation that includes lateral jet expansion could test whether the superluminal centroid phase survives in a more realistic jet geometry.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If VLBI observes a centroid offset exceeding cT in AT2018hyz, the delayed outflow scenario is ruled out and the off-axis jet interpretation is confirmed.
  • If the centroid remains within cT, the off-axis jet scenario with moderate viewing angles is excluded; only extreme viewing angles (theta_obs >~83 degrees) remain viable, and those predict a later backward centroid motion that still distinguishes the jet from a delayed outflow.
  • The non-monotonic aspect ratio evolution provides an independent imaging diagnostic that can be tested once the source is resolved, and it is generic to off-axis jets in other transients.
  • VLBI centroid astrometry, or precision IR astrometry with facilities like JWST, could detect the superluminal motion even when the source is not spatially resolved.
  • The same modeling framework can be applied to other jetted events such as microquasars and gamma-ray bursts to predict their radio image and centroid evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The clean separation between the two scenarios rests on the assumption that the jet retains its top-hat geometry without lateral expansion; if sideways spreading occurs as the jet decelerates, the centroid trajectory and aspect ratio may change, so testing this prediction with simulations that include lateral spreading would be a valuable next step.
  • The existence of a 'confusion zone' near theta_obs ~83 degrees, where the centroid speed becomes subluminal, suggests that some off-axis jets could masquerade as Newtonian outflows in centroid-only studies; the predicted backward centroid motion is then the only distinguishing feature and should be searched for in long-term monitoring.
  • The apparent superluminal motion is a projection effect, not a physical violation of relativity; any detection must be carefully disentangled from host-galaxy contamination and proper-motion systematics, which the paper partially addresses by suggesting IR observations.
  • The method could be extended to distinguish prompt outflows interacting with a non-monotonic CNM from delayed outflows, since that third scenario would produce yet another centroid evolution pattern.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents synthetic radio images and light curves for two competing explanations of the late-time radio flare in AT2018hyz: a delayed, non-relativistic spherical outflow and an off-axis relativistic top-hat jet. The calculation uses a piecewise-spherical thin-shell dynamics, synchrotron emission with SSA, equal-arrival-time surfaces, and full image-plane integration. The central diagnostic is the motion of the radio emission centroid: in the delayed-outflow scenario the centroid is confined to a non-relativistic distance ≲βcT, whereas in the off-axis jet scenario it exhibits apparent superluminal motion X_cen ≥ cT. The paper also predicts a non-monotonic evolution of the jet image aspect ratio and discusses late-time centroid recession. Parameter sets for AT2018hyz are chosen by manual forward modeling rather than formal fitting.

Significance. If the predicted superluminal centroid is robust, this is an important and timely result: it offers a concrete way to break the current light-curve/spectral degeneracy between the two leading AT2018hyz models, using VLBI astrometry rather than microphysical-fitting details. The derivation is transparent and internally consistent: the analytic scalings, e.g. F_ν∝T^{4.2} in Eq. (23), the critical viewing angle in Eqs. (28)–(29), and the aspect-ratio limits in Eq. (32), match the computed numerical images. The core diagnostic indeed does not depend on the fitted microphysical parameters; it follows from relativistic beaming geometry. The approach is also transferable to other off-axis jetted transients such as microquasars and GRBs. The main weakness is that the top-hat, no-lateral-expansion geometry is assumed throughout, including in the trans-relativistic epoch where the authors themselves note that sideways expansion is expected.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 4, Eqs. (24), Fig. 6] The no-lateral-expansion assumption is load-bearing for the smoking-gun centroid prediction. For the adopted AT2018hyz off-axis jet parameters (Γ0=30, θ_j=0.1, θ_obs=70°, E_iso=10^56 erg, n=2 cm^-3), the jet reaches Γ≈1/θ_j=10 at T~10^3 days (order-of-magnitude from Eq. 24 with R≈cT/(1−cosθ_obs)), i.e. during the observed flare and during the superluminal phase shown in Fig. 6. At T≈2000 days Γ is already a few, so the centroid remains superluminal well into the trans-relativistic regime where Sec. 2.1 states that lateral expansion is expected (Rhoads 1999). Because the centroid is a flux-weighted average over the jet surface, lateral spreading can change the brightness distribution across the approaching and counter-jet sides and could shorten, delay, or erase the X_cen ≥ cT phase. The citing of Mou (2025) in Sec. 4 addresses already-Newtonian conical outflows, not the trans-relativisti
  2. [Secs. 2.1 and 4, Eqs. (30)–(36)] The long-time predictions — the non-monotonic aspect ratio and the gradual centroid recession — are also computed under the fixed top-hat geometry all the way into the Newtonian phase. The paper admits in Sec. 4 that the no-expansion assumption “may not be justified in the Newtonian phase” and asserts that the findings “could remain unchanged,” but no calculation or simulation is supplied for this regime. Since these secondary claims are explicitly presented as generic predictions for microquasars/GRBs, they need either a dedicated robustness check or a clearly stated validity cutoff. The current text is too optimistic about the regime of applicability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (29)] The label “p=2.5” under the expression for the critical viewing angle appears to be a typo; all other calculations use p=2.2, and the numerical value 83° corresponds to p=2.2.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, paragraph on AT2018hyz observations] “slower pase” should be “slower pace.”
  3. [Fig. 6] The y-axis tick labels “100, 101” should be typeset as 10^0, 10^1 (or similar) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. 4, first paragraph] The phrase “exceeds the period over which a single human researcher can work” is informal; consider replacing with a neutral statement about practical observational timescales.
  5. [Table 1] For the delayed outflow row, θ_j is listed as “π”; this is understandable but could be clarified as “spherical (full sky).”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the centroid diagnostic follows from the forward model and relativistic geometry, not from the fitted light-curve parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central diagnostic—that an off-axis jet produces apparent superluminal centroid motion (X_cen ≳ cT) while a delayed outflow is confined to ≲(cβ)T—is derived from the model equations themselves, not from the data fits. Equation (27) is the standard apparent-velocity formula; Eq. (28) is a flux-weighted centroid estimate built from the model emissivity (Eq. 21); Eq. (29) gives a critical viewing angle. These analytical results are consequences of the assumed jet dynamics and Doppler beaming, and they are not inverted from or fitted to the observed centroid. The light-curve/spectrum fits in Sec. 3.1 only select model parameters (Table 1); they do not constrain the image centroid, and the paper does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The off-axis jet scenario is motivated by the author's earlier work (T. Matsumoto & T. Piran 2023), but the image calculation here is self-contained: it integrates the radiative-transfer equations, constructs equal-arrival-time surfaces, and computes synthetic intensity maps directly. The no-lateral-expansion assumption is explicitly flagged in Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4 as a caveat, supported by a cited simulation (G. Mou 2025); this is a modeling robustness concern, not a circular reduction. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation is therefore self-contained, with only benign self-citations that do not carry the argument.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

12 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free-parameter load is the non-trivial part: two complete AT2018hyz models (12 hand-chosen parameters across both scenarios) whose values are data-fitted without uncertainties. The imaging diagnostics themselves depend only on the standard geometry of relativistic EATS and synchrotron emission, which is why the circularity burden remains low despite the parameter fitting.

free parameters (12)
  • Delayed outflow: E_ej = 1e52 erg = 1e52 erg
    Chosen by hand (Table 1, Sec. 3.1.1) to reproduce the AT2018hyz light curve/spectrum; ~50x larger than the equipartition estimate.
  • Delayed outflow: beta_0 = 0.25 = 0.25 c
    Chosen by hand in Table 1; constrained by the emission size.
  • Delayed outflow: CNM density normalization n = 8 cm^-3 at 3e17 cm = 8 cm^-3
    Chosen by hand in Table 1 to fit the light curve.
  • Delayed outflow: CNM slope k = 1/3 = 1/3
    Chosen so that the synthetic light-curve slope matches the observed F_nu ~ T^5 rise (Sec. 3.1.1).
  • Delayed outflow: epsilon_e = 0.3, epsilon_B = 0.1 = 0.3, 0.1
    Microphysics fractions chosen to match flux level; epsilon_B is 100x larger than the X-ray-derived limit quoted by Cendes et al. 2025.
  • Delayed outflow launch time T_0 = 700 days = 700 d
    Taken from previous studies (Cendes et al. 2022, 2025), itself an inference from equipartition; data-dependent.
  • Off-axis jet: E_iso = 1e56 erg = 1e56 erg (E_j ~ 1e54 erg)
    Chosen to make the jet decelerate at ~1000 days and stay relativistic at ~2000 days (Eqs. 24-25); near the maximum allowed TDE energy.
  • Off-axis jet: Gamma_0 = 30 = 30
    Initial Lorentz factor chosen in Table 1; qualitative results survive for other values.
  • Off-axis jet: viewing angle theta_obs = 70 deg = 70 deg
    'theta_obs = 70 deg provides the best match to the observations,' with an acknowledged degeneracy (Sec. 3.1.2).
  • Off-axis jet: CNM density n = 2 cm^-3, k = 0 = 2 cm^-3, k = 0
    Chosen by hand in Table 1.
  • Off-axis jet: epsilon_e = 0.07, epsilon_B = 0.001 = 0.07, 0.001
    Chosen by hand in Table 1 to match flux/spectral peak.
  • Electron power-law slope p = 2.2 = 2.2
    Fixed for both models; the author notes Cendes et al. (2025) prefer p < 2 from the spectral fit, so this is a modeling choice, not measured.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Piecewise-spherical / thin-shell outflow approximation, Eq. (2) with no radiative losses and solid-angle-invariant energy
    Sec. 2.1: each fluid element evolves as part of a spherical outflow and the emitting region is a thin shell. This underpins the entire image calculation.
  • domain assumption Top-hat jet with uniform energy and Lorentz factor, no lateral expansion
    Sec. 2.1 and the Sec. 4 caveat. The jet keeps its original opening angle even in the Newtonian phase; sideways spreading is neglected.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron emissivity/absorption in a homogeneous shell with constant downstream density and standard Sari et al. (1998) microphysics, including the deep-Newtonian f_DN factor
    Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A11). Standard afterglow synchrotron model; the deep-Newtonian prescription is from the author's own prior work (Matsumoto & Piran 2021).
  • domain assumption The CNM density is a single power law n(r) = n r^-k out to the jet radius
    Sec. 2.1-2.2 and Table 1. A non-monotonic CNM (a known alternative prompt-outflow scenario, e.g. Zhuang et al. 2025) is excluded by the models considered.
  • domain assumption The flare emission is optically thin at 5 GHz over the epochs relevant for the centroid diagnostic
    Sec. 3.2: 'At 5 GHz, the entire emitting region in both scenarios is optically thin.' The centroid images are computed at 5 GHz.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17493 in / 11700 out tokens · 90497 ms · 2026-08-03T14:01:31.878108+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The origin of late-time radio flares in tidal disruption events remains unclear. In particular, the peculiar radio flare observed in AT2018hyz has motivated two leading scenarios: a delayed outflow launched $\sim1000\,\rm days$ after discovery, or an off-axis relativistic jet directed far from our line of sight. Very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) imaging provides the most direct way to distinguish between these scenarios. In this paper, we calculate synthetic radio images for both models and examine their observational signatures. The motion of the emission centroid is the most powerful diagnostic for breaking the degeneracy. In the delayed-outflow scenario, the centroid motion is confined within a non-relativistic distance, whereas in the off-axis jet scenario it exhibits apparent superluminal motion. Detecting such superluminal motion would therefore provide a smoking-gun signature of the off-axis jet interpretation. We also find that the jet image exhibits characteristic features, including a non-monotonic evolution of the image aspect ratio. These results are expected to be generic and applicable to other jetted explosions, such as microquasars and gamma-ray bursts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.21669 by Tatsuya Matsumoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic picture of the adopted coordinate system in our calculation. For a jet geometry, the jet is as￾sumed to have a bipolar structure and each jet propagates along z axis. An observer is located within the xz plane, whose viewing angle θobs is measured from the z axis. The in￾coming (traveling into the positive z direction) and outgoing jets are called an approaching and counter jets, respectively. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The radio light curve and spectrum of AT2018hyz for the delayed outflow model. (Top) The 5 GHz light curve. The black and gray curves show the model light curves of a spherical outflow launched at T = 700 (delayed) and 0 day (prompt), respectively. The black dashed line represents the analytical scaling of the flux, Fν ∝ T 12−k(p+5) 4 . (Bottom) The radio spectrum at each epoch. Solid curves show the model… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the synthetic radio intensity maps at 5 GHz calculated for the delayed outflow (left) and off￾axis jet (right) scenarios. The parameters are the same as ones used in the calculations for the light curves and spectra. In each map, the surface brightness is normal￾ized to the upper 95% of the distribution, and values exceeding the 95th percentile are clipped to that per￾centile level. For AT2018hyz wit… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The long-time evolution of the aspect ratio of the approaching jet image for different viewing angles. should move backward at some point, allowing distinc￾tion from the delayed Newtonian outflow. 4. VERY LONG-TIME EVOLUTION In the previous section, we focused on AT2018hyz and its evolution up to ∼ 104 days (≃ 30 yrs). Over longer timescales, the jet image also exhibits several interesting behaviors. Altho… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The long time evolution of the radio luminosity at 5 GHz (top), and the location of the emission centroid (bottom) for various viewing angles. conservation: R(T) =  75Eej 8πmpn T 2 1/5 . (33) By equating them one can derive the timescale Tmin ≃ 2.3 × 104 day  n 1 cm−3 −1/3  Eej 1056 erg1/3 (1 − cos θobs) 5/3 . (34) In addition to the image, the location of the emission centroid also shows a character… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Simulations of interaction between outflow and surrounding broken power-law circumnuclear medium: implications for different radio light curves of TDEs

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    3D hydro simulations show that TDE outflow interactions with a broken power-law CNM can reproduce the range of observed radio light curves via early flares inside the Bondi radius and possible late rebrightenings outside it.

  2. On the Faint Early-time Radio and X-ray Emissions in TDE2025aarm

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    The faint radio and X-ray emission of TDE2025aarm can be explained by a narrow unbound-debris outflow and shock-accelerated electrons, challenging spherical-wind and obscured-disk interpretations.

  3. On the Faint Early-time Radio and X-ray Emissions in TDE2025aarm

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    Faint radio emission in TDE2025aarm implies a collimated outflow from unbound debris with solid angle ≲0.1 sr, while X-rays can arise from the same shock via synchrotron or inverse-Compton scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al

    Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12729, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12729 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 772, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12729 2025

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    G., et al

    Berger, E., Zauderer, A., Pooley, G. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  4. [4]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab046

    Bruni, G., O’Connor, B., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab046 2021

  5. [5]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    Cendes, Y., Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., & Polisensky, E. 2021, ApJ, 908, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd323 2021

  6. [6]

    D., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 2022

  7. [7]

    D., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08998, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08998

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08998, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08998

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08998 2025

  9. [9]

    T., Alexander, K

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b 2024

  10. [10]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8e0 2018

  11. [11]

    2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed

    Fender, R. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Vol. 39, 381–419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303339 Fern´ andez, J. J., Kobayashi, S., & Lamb, G. P. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2879

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0303339 2006

  12. [12]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019

  13. [14]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1214 2018

  14. [15]

    W., Berger, E., Cendes, Y., et al

    Golay, W. W., Berger, E., Cendes, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16756, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.16756

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16756 2025

  15. [16]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2099

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Short, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2099

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2099 2020

  16. [17]

    J., Alexander, K

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1258 2023

  17. [18]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1 2025

  18. [19]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    Govreen-Segal, T., & Nakar, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1628 2023

  19. [20]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2454 Image of TDE Radio Flare13

    Granot, J., De Colle, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2454 Image of TDE Radio Flare13

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2454 2018

  20. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 570, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20335.x

    Granot, J., & Piran, T. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 570, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20335.x

    arXiv 2012

  21. [22]

    1999, ApJ, 513, 679, doi: 10.1086/306884

    Granot, J., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 679, doi: 10.1086/306884

    doi:10.1086/306884 1999

  22. [23]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb620 2025

  23. [24]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 2023

  24. [25]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Yao, Y., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade8f2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade8f2 2025

  25. [26]

    B., & Arcavi, I

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

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

  26. [27]

    2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe 2041

  27. [28]

    F., Goodwin, A., Price, D

    Hu, F. F., Goodwin, A., Price, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeb79

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adeb79 2025

  28. [29]

    F., & Cheng, K

    Huang, Y. F., & Cheng, K. S. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 263, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06430.x

    arXiv 2003

  29. [30]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1770 2024

  30. [31]

    Matsumoto, T., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1182 2023

  31. [32]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2418

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2418 2021

  32. [33]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1269 2023

  33. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba 2024

  34. [35]

    Matsumoto, T., Piran, T., & Krolik, J. H. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac382

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac382 2022

  35. [36]

    D., & Aloy, M

    Mimica, P., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., & Aloy, M. A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv825

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv825 2015

  36. [37]

    F., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 1994, Nature, 371, 46, doi: 10.1038/371046a0

    doi:10.1038/371046a0 1994

  37. [38]

    P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W

    Mooley, K. P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W. 2022, Nature, 610, 273, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 2022

  38. [39]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 2018

  39. [40]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14715, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14715

    Mou, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14715, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14715

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.14715 2025

  40. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25033

    Mou, G., & Shu, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25033 2025

  41. [42]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2128

    Nedora, V., Dietrich, T., & Shibata, M. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2128 2023

  42. [43]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt037

    Piran, T., Nakar, E., & Rosswog, S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt037

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt037 2013

  43. [44]

    Rees, M. J. 1966, Nature, 211, 468, doi: 10.1038/211468a0

    doi:10.1038/211468a0 1966

  44. [45]

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

    doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  45. [46]

    Rhoads, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737, doi: 10.1086/307907

    doi:10.1086/307907 1999

  46. [47]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 1708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3241

    Ricci, R., Troja, E., Bruni, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3241

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3241 2021

  47. [48]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  48. [49]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1286

    Sadeh, G., Linder, N., & Waxman, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1286

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1286 2024

  49. [50]

    1998, ApJL, 494, L49, doi: 10.1086/311160

    Sari, R. 1998, ApJL, 494, L49, doi: 10.1086/311160

    doi:10.1086/311160 1998

  50. [51]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

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

    doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  51. [52]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, L061307, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L061307

    Sato, Y., Murase, K., Bhattacharya, M., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, L061307, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L061307

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.l061307 2024

  52. [53]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3717 2024

  53. [54]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2065

    Short, P., Nicholl, M., Lawrence, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2065

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2065 2020

  54. [55]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107

    Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/107 2013

  55. [56]

    Takahashi, K., Ioka, K., Ohira, Y., & van Eerten, H. J. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3022

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3022 2022

  56. [57]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2085 2014

  57. [58]

    Teboul, O., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJL, 957, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037 2023

  58. [59]

    J., Jauncey, D

    Tingay, S. J., Jauncey, D. L., Preston, R. A., et al. 1995, Nature, 374, 141, doi: 10.1038/374141a0 van Eerten, H., Zhang, W., & MacFadyen, A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 235, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/235 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    doi:10.1038/374141a0 1995

  59. [60]

    C., Tsuna, D., Mockler, B., & Piro, A

    Wu, S. C., Tsuna, D., Mockler, B., & Piro, A. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.14008, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.14008

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.14008 2025

  60. [61]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1d61

    Zhang, F., Shu, X., Yang, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1d61

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1d61 2024

  61. [62]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98

    Zhuang, J., Shen, R.-F., Mou, G., & Lu, W. 2025, ApJ, 979, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98 2025

  62. [63]

    2018, ApJL, 865, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaddf8

    Zrake, J., Xie, X., & MacFadyen, A. 2018, ApJL, 865, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaddf8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaddf8 2018