pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.01073 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Successive Partial Disruptions with Orbital Precession in a White Dwarf-Black Hole System for Repeating GRB 250702B

Yuri Sato , Rin Oikawa , Kazuma Kato , Tatsuya Matsumoto , Kazumi Kashiyama
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray bursttidal disruptionwhite dwarfintermediate-mass black holeorbital precessionGRB 250702Bjet alignment
0
0 comments X

The pith

A white dwarf on a highly eccentric orbit around an intermediate-mass black hole reproduces the flares and irregular spacing of GRB 250702B through successive partial tidal disruptions.

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

The paper proposes that GRB 250702B, the longest gamma-ray burst observed with a one-day duration and four 100-second flares at irregular intervals of at least an hour, arises when a white dwarf on an eccentric orbit around a black hole of mass up to a million solar masses loses material in repeated partial disruptions. Each flare is powered by viscous accretion of roughly 0.02 solar masses stripped near pericenter, the orbital period sets the minimum time between events, and relativistic frame dragging precesses the orbit by at least 0.1 radians per passage when the minimum polar angle exceeds 0.12 radians, aligning the jet toward the observer only intermittently. This produces about 40 jet-launch episodes but only four on-axis detections, with the full activity lasting until the white dwarf is fully disrupted. A reader would care because the model unifies the burst's hierarchy of timescales and predicts an observable boost to the late-time radio afterglow from the off-axis jets.

Core claim

If a white dwarf follows a highly eccentric orbit with e approximately 0.97 around an intermediate-mass black hole of mass at most 10^6 solar masses with semi-major axis scaled as 50 solar radii times the cube root of the mass ratio, successive partial tidal disruptions occur at pericenter passages. The stripped mass of about 2 times 10 to the minus 2 solar masses accretes on the viscous timescale to set the 100-second flare duration, the orbital period governs recurrence, and frame-dragging precession of at least 0.1 radians for minimum polar angles above 0.12 radians produces irregular spacing and limits on-axis viewing to four out of roughly 40 total episodes before complete disruption.

What carries the argument

Relativistic frame-dragging precession of the orbital angular momentum vector between successive pericenter passages, acting on a highly eccentric white-dwarf orbit to cause intermittent jet alignment with the observer.

If this is right

  • Flare duration is fixed by the viscous accretion time of the stripped white-dwarf material.
  • The shortest recurrence interval equals the orbital period around the black hole.
  • The overall activity window is set by the secular orbital decay until the white dwarf is fully disrupted.
  • Approximately 40 jet-launching episodes occur, yet only four align on-axis with the observer.
  • The remaining off-axis jets increase the radio afterglow luminosity by roughly a factor of ten at late times.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar flare patterns with irregular spacing may appear in other long-duration gamma-ray bursts if intermediate-mass black holes are present in suitable environments.
  • Targeted radio monitoring weeks after the burst could confirm or refute the predicted afterglow boost from off-axis emission.
  • The precession rate implies a characteristic timescale for future on-axis events that could be searched for in X-ray or radio data.

Load-bearing premise

The specific values of eccentricity near 0.97, the scaled semi-major axis, and minimum polar angle above 0.12 radians must together produce exactly the observed flare timings and restrict on-axis events to four without requiring extra fine-tuning or external effects.

What would settle it

Radio observations showing no order-of-magnitude enhancement in the late-time afterglow flux compared with standard GRB models would rule out the contribution from the 36 off-axis jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01073 by Kazuma Kato, Kazumi Kashiyama, Rin Oikawa, Tatsuya Matsumoto, Yuri Sato.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our physical picture for GRB 250702B. Panel (a) shows the geodesic orbit of the WD, where the red line represents our numerical result with a = 20 R⊙, e = 0.97, MBH = 1 × 105 M⊙, aspin = 0.9, and θmin = 0.12 rad (7◦ ). The BH spin axis is indicated by the vertical black line. The orbit exhibits relativistic precession. Mass loss from the WD is not included in this calculation. Panel (b) illustrates an unob… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Afterglow light curves in the X-ray (5 keV; orange), near-infrared (2 × 1014 Hz; blue), and radio (1.3 GHz; red) bands, compared with the observed data of GRB 250702B (X-ray: orange circles; near-infrared: blue diamonds; radio: red squares). The thick solid and thin dashed lines denote the predicted emission for the maximum (40 jets) and minimum (4 jets) cases, respectively. Black ar￾rows indicate the time… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Predicted radio (1.3 GHz) afterglow light curves for the maximum (40 jets; red solid line) and minimum (4 jets; red dashed line) cases. The gray solid lines show the emission from individual jets in the maximum case, while the black dashed lines represent the emission from individual jets in the minimum case. At T ∼ 108 s, the maximum case is approximately an order of magnitude brighter than the minimum ca… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The peculiar gamma-ray burst GRB 250702B is the longest event ever observed, lasting about one day and exhibiting four prompt-emission flares of $\sim100$ s with irregular recurrence intervals of at least one hour. To explain this hierarchy of timescales, we consider a scenario in which a stellar object undergoes repeated partial tidal disruptions by a black hole (BH). We find that if a white dwarf (WD) is on a highly eccentric orbit ($e\approx0.97$) around an intermediate-mass black hole (BH) with $M_{\rm BH}\lesssim10^{6}\,M_\odot$ and $a = 50\,R_\odot\left(M_{\rm BH}/10^{6}\,M_\odot\right)^{1/3}$, the observed properties of GRB 250702B can be naturally reproduced. In this framework, the duration of each flare is determined by the viscous accretion timescale of material stripped near pericenter, with a typical mass $\Delta M \approx 2\times10^{-2}\,M_\odot$. The minimum recurrence time corresponds to the orbital period, while the total activity period is set by the secular orbital evolution timescale leading to the complete disruption of the WD. Furthermore, if $M_{\rm BH}\gtrsim10^{5}\,M_\odot$ and the orbit has a minimum polar angle relative to the BH equatorial plane of $\theta_{\rm min}\gtrsim0.12 {\rm rad}$, relativistic frame dragging induces $\gtrsim0.1$ rad precession of the orbital angular momentum between successive pericenter passages, comparable to a typical GRB jet half-opening angle, resulting in intermittent alignment with the observer and irregular flare spacing. The WD experiences $\approx40$ jet-launch episodes before complete disruption, but only four are expected to be observed on-axis. The remaining off-axis jets become visible at late times, enhancing the radio afterglow by about an order of magnitude, providing a testable prediction of this scenario.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the long-duration repeating GRB 250702B, with four ~100 s flares and irregular recurrence intervals, arises from successive partial tidal disruptions of a white dwarf on a highly eccentric orbit (e≈0.97) around an intermediate-mass black hole (M_BH ≲ 10^6 M_⊙) with semi-major axis a = 50 R_⊙ (M_BH/10^6 M_⊙)^{1/3}. Flare durations are set by viscous accretion of stripped mass ΔM ≈ 2×10^{-2} M_⊙, recurrence by the orbital period, and irregular spacing by Lense-Thirring precession (≳0.1 rad per passage for θ_min ≳0.12 rad and M_BH ≳10^5 M_⊙) that produces only four on-axis alignments out of ~40 total episodes before full disruption, with a prediction of enhanced late-time radio afterglow from off-axis jets.

Significance. If the central scenario is validated by explicit calculations, it would link white-dwarf partial disruptions to a new class of repeating high-energy transients and supply a concrete, observationally testable prediction for radio afterglow brightening, thereby strengthening the case for intermediate-mass black holes as engines of unusual GRBs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The orbital parameters (e≈0.97, a scaling, θ_min ≳0.12 rad) and ΔM ≈ 2×10^{-2} M_⊙ are selected to reproduce the observed flare durations, minimum recurrence time, and exactly four on-axis episodes out of ~40; the manuscript provides no explicit integration of nodal precession along the eccentric orbit or robustness test against variations in black-hole spin, undermining the claim that the irregular spacing arises naturally rather than by construction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The precession angle ≳0.1 rad is asserted to be induced by frame dragging for M_BH ≳10^5 M_⊙ when θ_min ≳0.12 rad, yet the black-hole spin parameter a* is unspecified and no derivation or numerical evaluation of the integrated precession per pericenter passage is shown; without this, the fraction of on-axis events cannot be verified as generic rather than tuned to the observed four flares.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for explicit calculations to support the precession mechanism. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to include the requested derivations, numerical integrations, and robustness tests. These additions confirm that the irregular flare spacing arises naturally from the Lense-Thirring precession for the stated parameter range.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The orbital parameters (e≈0.97, a scaling, θ_min ≳0.12 rad) and ΔM ≈ 2×10^{-2} M_⊙ are selected to reproduce the observed flare durations, minimum recurrence time, and exactly four on-axis episodes out of ~40; the manuscript provides no explicit integration of nodal precession along the eccentric orbit or robustness test against variations in black-hole spin, undermining the claim that the irregular spacing arises naturally rather than by construction.

    Authors: We agree that the submitted manuscript relied on analytical estimates for the precession angle without showing an explicit integration or spin-variation tests. The parameters were chosen to match observed timescales via order-of-magnitude matching to the Lense-Thirring rate, but this left open whether the four on-axis alignments emerge generically. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (Section 3.3) that presents a numerical integration of the nodal precession along the eccentric orbit using the Kerr geodesic equations in the weak-field limit. We also performed a parameter sweep over black-hole spin a* ∈ [0.5, 0.99] and confirmed that ΔΩ ≳ 0.1 rad per pericenter passage holds for M_BH ≳ 10^5 M_⊙ and θ_min ≳ 0.12 rad, yielding approximately four on-axis events out of ~40 total passages without fine-tuning. The revised text now states the fiducial a* = 0.8 and includes the integration results as Figure 4. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The precession angle ≳0.1 rad is asserted to be induced by frame dragging for M_BH ≳10^5 M_⊙ when θ_min ≳0.12 rad, yet the black-hole spin parameter a* is unspecified and no derivation or numerical evaluation of the integrated precession per pericenter passage is shown; without this, the fraction of on-axis events cannot be verified as generic rather than tuned to the observed four flares.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not specify a* or provide the integrated precession derivation. We have now added an analytic expression for the orbit-averaged Lense-Thirring precession angle per pericenter passage, ΔΩ ≈ (4π G M_BH a* / c^2 a (1-e^2)^{3/2}) × f(e,θ_min), together with its numerical evaluation for the adopted parameters. The revised abstract and Section 3.3 explicitly state a* = 0.8 and show that the resulting ΔΩ remains ≳0.1 rad across the quoted mass and inclination range, producing a statistical fraction of on-axis events consistent with the four observed flares. These additions allow direct verification that the irregular spacing is a generic outcome of the model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; parameters selected to match data via standard formulas

full rationale

The paper presents a scenario in which specific orbital parameters (e≈0.97, a scaled to M_BH, θ_min≳0.12 rad) are chosen so that the orbital period matches the minimum observed recurrence, the stripped mass ΔM≈2×10^{-2} M_⊙ matches flare durations via viscous timescales, and Lense-Thirring precession yields ≳0.1 rad per passage comparable to typical GRB jet angles. The total episode count ≈40 follows from cumulative mass loss until full disruption, and the on-axis fraction of four follows from the precession rate relative to jet opening angle. These relations use standard tidal-disruption mass-loss rates, orbital-period formulas, and frame-dragging precession expressions applied to the chosen parameters; no step redefines an output as an input, renames a fitted quantity as a prediction, or relies on self-citation for the central claim. The radio-afterglow enhancement is presented as a testable consequence rather than a fitted input. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of the target observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard tidal-disruption and accretion physics plus two fitted orbital parameters and one geometric threshold chosen to match the GRB light curve; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • orbital eccentricity e = 0.97
    Set to ≈0.97 so that pericenter passages produce the observed ~100 s flare duration via viscous accretion of stripped material.
  • semi-major axis scaling a = 50 R_⊙ (M_BH/10^6 M_⊙)^{1/3}
    Fixed by the formula a = 50 R_⊙ (M_BH/10^6 M_⊙)^{1/3} to set the orbital period to the minimum recurrence time of at least one hour.
  • minimum polar angle θ_min = 0.12 rad
    Chosen ≳0.12 rad so that frame-dragging precession reaches ≳0.1 rad between pericenter passages, producing intermittent on-axis alignment.
  • stripped mass per passage ΔM = 2e-2 M_⊙
    Set to ≈2×10^{-2} M_⊙ to match the energy and duration of each flare under viscous accretion.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tidal forces near pericenter strip a fixed fraction of the white dwarf's mass that subsequently accretes on the viscous timescale.
    Standard assumption in tidal-disruption literature invoked to link pericenter passage to flare duration.
  • standard math Relativistic frame dragging around a spinning black hole induces orbital precession of the angular-momentum vector between successive pericenter passages.
    Lense-Thirring precession applied to the eccentric orbit; the magnitude is stated to be comparable to the jet half-opening angle when θ_min ≳0.12 rad.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5690 in / 2117 out tokens · 38677 ms · 2026-05-16T09:12:26.385383+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Black Hole Binary Detection Landscape for the Laser Interferometer Lunar Antenna (LILA): Signal-to-Noise Calculations & Science Cases

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LILA can detect IMBH binaries at redshifts 20-30, IMRIs, and provide months-to-years early warnings with high-SNR events for gravity tests.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  2. [2]

    B., & Granot, J

    Beniamini, P., Perets, H. B., & Granot, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22779

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22779 2025

  3. [3]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  4. [4]

    N., Kennea, J

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10374 2011

  5. [5]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22784, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22784

    Carney, J., Andreoni, I., O’Connor, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22784, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22784

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22784 2025

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    Chen, J.-H., Shen, R.-F., & Liu, S.-F. 2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6 2023

  7. [7]

    Simulating the late stages of WD-BH/NS mergers: an origin for fast X-ray transients and GRBs with periodic modulations

    Chen, J.-P., Shen, R.-F., & Chen, J.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.27399. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.27399

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    A., King, A., Starling, R

    Eyles-Ferris, R. A., King, A., Starling, R. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22843, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22843

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22843 2025

  9. [9]

    C., Blaes, O

    Fragile, P. C., Blaes, O. M., Anninos, P., & Salmonson, J. D. 2007, ApJ, 668, 417, doi: 10.1086/521092

    work page doi:10.1086/521092 2007

  10. [10]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

    Franchini, A., Lodato, G., & Facchini, S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2417 2016

  11. [11]

    P., Levan, A

    Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22778

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22778 2025

  12. [12]

    Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 570, L61, doi: 10.1086/340991 8

    work page doi:10.1086/340991 2002

  13. [13]

    B., Gill, R., Beniamini, P., & O’Connor, B

    Granot, J., Perets, H. B., Gill, R., Beniamini, P., & O’Connor, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14847

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14847 2025

  14. [14]

    H., & Piran, T

    Krolik, J. H., & Piran, T. 2011, ApJ, 743, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/134 2011

  15. [15]

    Y., & Yu, H

    Lau, S. Y., & Yu, H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10163

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10163 2025

  16. [16]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.241103 2018

  17. [17]

    J., Tanvir, N

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1207143 2011

  18. [18]

    J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Levan, A. J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14286

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14286 2025

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877

    Li, D. Y., Yang, J., Zhang, W. D., & the Einstein Probe collaborations. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25877

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25877 2025

  20. [20]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx174 2018

  21. [21]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1770 2024

  22. [22]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/9

    MacLeod, M., Goldstein, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Guillochon, J., & Samsing, J. 2014, ApJ, 794, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/9 2014

  23. [23]

    L., et al

    Neights, E., Burns, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22792, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22792 O’Connor, B., Gill, R., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22787

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22792 2025

  24. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18694

    Oganesyan, G., Kammoun, E., Ierardi, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18694

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.18694 2025

  25. [25]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Lin, D. N. C. 1995, ApJ, 438, 841, doi: 10.1086/175127

    work page doi:10.1086/175127 1995

  26. [26]

    1997, ApJL, 489, L37, doi: 10.1086/310957

    Sari, R. 1997, ApJL, 489, L37, doi: 10.1086/310957

    work page doi:10.1086/310957 1997

  27. [27]

    2023, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 37, 51, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.12.004

    Sato, Y., Obayashi, K., Theodre Zhang, B., et al. 2023, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 37, 51, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.12.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.12.004 2023

  28. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 5647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1273

    Sato, Y., Obayashi, K., Yamazaki, R., Murase, K., & Ohira, Y. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1273 2021

  29. [29]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2085 2014

  30. [30]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/50 2010

  31. [31]

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x 2011

  32. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10829

    Wang, Y., Chen, C., & Zhang, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10829

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10829 2025

  33. [33]

    S., Fragione, G., & Perna, R

    Ye, C. S., Fragione, G., & Perna, R. 2023, ApJ, 953, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1eb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace1eb 2023

  34. [34]

    Zalamea, I., Menou, K., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L25, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00930.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00930.x 2010

  35. [35]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4965, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1610 2019

  36. [36]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.26283, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.26283

    Zhang, J.-P., Wang, C.-W., Yu, Z.-H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.26283, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.26283

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.26283 2025