pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11794 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

The nature of tilted supercritical accretion discs

Brooks Brasseur, Deepika A. Bollimpalli, Matthew J. Middleton, P. Chris Fragile, Zach Smith

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords supercritical accretiontilted accretion discsstanding shocksblack hole spingeneral relativistic radiation MHDEddington limitsupermassive black hole growthaccretion disc advection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tilted supercritical accretion discs around spinning black holes can exceed the Eddington limit by up to a factor of ten due to standing shocks.

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

The paper presents the first three-dimensional general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations of large supercritical accretion discs that are tilted relative to the black hole spin axis. It shows that these tilted discs develop standing shocks in their inner regions that do not appear in aligned discs. The shocks boost the mass accretion rate onto the black hole by as much as a factor of ten, with the enhancement scaling linearly with the initial tilt angle and increasing with black hole spin. Tilted discs are also more advective than untilted ones. The results suggest a pathway for rapid early growth of supermassive black holes.

Core claim

The central claim is that tilted supercritical accretion discs allow black holes to accrete at rates up to ten times the Eddington limit, with the rate scaling linearly with tilt angle and proportionally with spin magnitude. This occurs because standing shocks form in the inner accretion flow, a feature absent in untilted discs. The same shocks make the discs more advective overall. All reported differences in accretion behavior are attributed to these shocks.

What carries the argument

Standing shocks that form uniquely in the inner regions of tilted accretion flows and drive enhanced mass inflow and advection.

If this is right

  • Mass accretion rates onto the black hole increase linearly with the initial tilt angle.
  • For a fixed tilt the enhancement grows with the magnitude of the black hole spin.
  • Tilted discs are more advective than untilted counterparts and carry more energy inward.
  • The Eddington limit can be exceeded in tilted supercritical flows.
  • The mechanism offers one route to explaining rapid growth of the first supermassive black holes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear scaling with tilt persists in nature, even modest misalignments could substantially speed up black hole growth at high redshifts.
  • Distinct variability or spectral features tied to the inner shocks might appear in observations of X-ray binaries or active nuclei with known disc-spin misalignments.
  • Running the same setup with alternate radiation transport schemes would test whether the shock-driven boost remains stable under different physical assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations accurately capture the standing shocks and their impact on accretion without being dominated by numerical artifacts from resolution, boundary conditions, or the radiation transport scheme.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution simulation or one using a different radiation transport method in which the standing shocks vanish and the accretion rate falls back to or below the Eddington limit would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11794 by Brooks Brasseur, Deepika A. Bollimpalli, Matthew J. Middleton, P. Chris Fragile, Zach Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass accretion rate through the black hole event horizon for our untilted (𝛽0 = 0 ◦ ) simulations in units of the Eddington accretion rate 𝑚¤ BH = 𝑀¤ BH/𝑀¤ Edd (using 𝜂NT to define 𝑀¤ Edd), smoothed using averages over 20 consecutive dumps (≈ 1850 𝑡𝑔 in time). The shaded regions show the 1𝜎 standard deviations, and the black dashed line shows the Eddington limit. If mass accretion is truly limited to 𝑀¤ Ed… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass fluxes, both inward (𝑚¤ in) and outward (𝑚¤ out), as well as the net 𝑚¤ net = 𝑚¤ in− ¤𝑚out, all scaled to Eddington and time-averaged over the final 20 000 𝑡𝑔 of each simulation for the a9r20 (top), a9r20b7.5 (second), a9r20b15 (third), a9r20b22.5 (fourth), and a9r20b30 (bottom) simulations. The other curves report the portion of 𝑚¤ out that has a positive Bernoulli parameter (𝑚¤ un), plus an analytic… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Mass accretion enhancement 𝜉 = ⟨ ¤𝑚BH (𝛽0 ) ⟩𝑡 /⟨ ¤𝑚BH (0 ◦ ) ⟩𝑡 as a function of tilt for our 𝑎∗ = 0.9 simu￾lations. Values are extracted by time-averaging over the final 20 000 𝑡𝑔 of each simulation. The error bars represent the 1𝜎 standard deviations of these averages. The best linear fit is shown by the thin black line. Bottom panel: Mass accretion enhancement 𝜉 for different spins for simul… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radiative luminosity, both outward (𝐿out) and inward (𝐿in), as well as the net 𝐿net = 𝐿out − 𝐿in, all scaled to Eddington and time averaged over the final 20 000 𝑡𝑔 of each simulation for the a9r20 (top), a9r20b7.5 (second), a9r20b15 (third), a9r20b22.5 (fourth), and a9r20b30 (bottom) simulations. The shaded regions show 1𝜎 standard deviations. The trapping radius 𝑟tr is apparent as the sharp dip in 𝐿net a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radiative efficiency 𝜂 = 𝐿/𝑀𝑐¤ 2 as a function of time for the 𝑎∗ = 0.9 simulations with tilts varying from 𝛽0 = 0 ◦ to 30◦ . The black dashed line shows the expected efficiency for a Novikov-Thorne disc with 𝑎∗ = 0.9. 4 STANDING SHOCKS We now discuss the feature that truly sets tilted accretion discs apart and explains many of the differences noted in Section 3. Owing to unbalanced radial pressure gradien… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radiative (top panel) and kinetic (bottom panel) luminosities as a function of time, measured at the equilibrium radius 𝑟eq (full 4𝜋 steradians) for the 𝑎∗ = 0.9 simulations with tilts varying from 𝛽0 = 0 ◦ to 30◦ . Data have been smoothed by using an averaging window of 20 consecutive dumps (≈ 1850 𝑡𝑔 in time). The shaded regions show 1𝜎 standard deviations. ing the Eddington limit by up to a factor of te… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Psuedocolor plot of time-averaged gas density and fluid veloc￾ity streamlines in the grid coordinate {𝜗, 𝜑} frame at 𝑟 = 13.2 𝑟𝑔 for simu￾lations a9r20b15. Time averaging is over the interval from 𝑡 = 115 000 𝑡𝑔 to 125 000 𝑡𝑔. Bottom: Radial mass flux density through the same 𝜗-𝜑 slice as the top panel showing outflowing gas as red and inflowing gas as blue. The pattern is consistent with radial epicy… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Isosurface plots of density (semitransparent red) and |curl V| (blue) for simulation a9r20b15. The quantity |curl V| is a good tracer of the location of a shock. The plot is restricted so that we only show the shock surface in regions where 𝜌 ≥ 10−5 g cm−3 to prevent overcrowding of the image from shocks associated with the lower-density outflowing winds. This figure is oriented looking directly down the i… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spacetime plots of the twist or precession angle, 𝛾 (measured in degrees), for the 𝛽0 = 15◦ tilted simulations a-9r200b15 (left), a5r50b15 (middle) and a9r20b15 (right). There is no evidence of significant, sustained global precession over any region. 50 100 150 200 R [rg] 0 5 10 15 20 25 t [10 3 t g] a∗ =−0.9 50 100 150 200 R [rg] a∗ =0.5 50 100 150 200 R [rg] a∗ =0.9 0.0 4.2 8.4 12.6 16.8 21.0 25.2 29.4… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spacetime plots of the tilt, 𝛽 (measured in degrees), for the simulations with initial tilts of 15◦ : a-9r200b15 (left), a5r50b15 (middle) and a9r20b15 (right). Most of the disc remains tilted at ≈ 15◦ . However, the prograde discs have a local peak in 𝛽 at small radii, while the retrograde case exhibits lower values of 𝛽 at small radii, which in this case means the disc is bending toward full anti-alignm… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, we report on the first 3D general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations of large supercritical accretion discs that are tilted with respect to the black hole spin axis. We explore a range of black hole spin parameters (from $a_* = -0.9$ to 0.9), initial tilts (in the range from $\beta_0 = 0^\circ$ to $30^\circ$), and target mass accretion rates. We first confirm that, for all the untilted simulations, the Eddington accretion limit is obeyed ($\dot{M}_\mathrm{BH} \lesssim \dot{M}_\mathrm{Edd}$), consistent with our previous findings. However, for tilted discs we find that the mass accretion rate can be enhanced by up to a factor of ten and that factor depends linearly on tilt $\dot{M}_\mathrm{BH} \propto \beta_0 \ge \dot{M}_\mathrm{Edd}$. This could be an important aspect in solving the puzzle of the growth of the first supermassive black holes. We also find that for a given tilt, the mass accretion rate enhancement is proportional to the magnitude of the spin. Additionally, we find that tilted supercritical accretion discs are more advective than their untilted counterparts. We attribute all of these differences to the presence of standing shocks in the inner regions of the accretion flow, a feature unique to tilted discs.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first 3D general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamic (GRRMHD) simulations of large supercritical accretion discs tilted relative to the black hole spin axis. Across a parameter scan of black hole spins (a_* from -0.9 to 0.9), initial tilt angles (β₀ from 0° to 30°), and target accretion rates, the authors find that untilted discs respect the Eddington limit (Ṁ_BH ≲ Ṁ_Edd), while tilted discs exhibit accretion rates enhanced by up to a factor of ten. This enhancement scales linearly with tilt (Ṁ_BH ∝ β₀) and with the magnitude of the black hole spin; tilted discs are also more advective. All differences are attributed to standing shocks present only in the inner regions of tilted flows.

Significance. If the results are robust, the work provides a plausible mechanism for sustained super-Eddington accretion that could help resolve the puzzle of rapid supermassive black hole growth at high redshift. The direct 3D GRRMHD treatment with radiation transport is a clear strength, enabling self-consistent capture of shock heating and radiative effects in the optically thick regime without ad-hoc assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical Methods] Numerical Methods section: the manuscript provides no resolution convergence tests for the identification, location, or strength of the standing shocks. Because the central quantitative claims (factor-of-ten enhancement and linear scaling with β₀) are attributed entirely to these shocks, it is essential to demonstrate that shock properties and the resulting torque balance are insensitive to grid scale in the radiation-pressure-dominated inner flow.
  2. [Results] Results on accretion-rate measurements: the reported linear dependence Ṁ_BH ∝ β₀ and the factor-of-ten boost are presented without quantitative error bars, details on time-averaging intervals, or the radial location at which Ṁ_BH is evaluated. In the absence of such analysis, the statistical significance of the trend across the parameter scans cannot be assessed.
  3. [Radiation Transport Implementation] Radiation transport and shock physics: no tests are described that vary the radiation closure (e.g., M1 versus flux-limited diffusion) or that quantify radiative diffusion across the shocks. In the supercritical regime the inner flow is optically thick; any numerical broadening or weakening of the shocks by the transport scheme would directly affect the claimed accretion enhancement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the notation 'Ṁ_BH ∝ β₀ ≥ Ṁ_Edd' is syntactically unclear and should be rewritten for precision.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels: several panels comparing tilted and untilted runs would benefit from explicit annotation of the shock locations to aid the reader in connecting the visuals to the text claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential importance of our findings for understanding super-Eddington accretion. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Methods] Numerical Methods section: the manuscript provides no resolution convergence tests for the identification, location, or strength of the standing shocks. Because the central quantitative claims (factor-of-ten enhancement and linear scaling with β₀) are attributed entirely to these shocks, it is essential to demonstrate that shock properties and the resulting torque balance are insensitive to grid scale in the radiation-pressure-dominated inner flow.

    Authors: We agree that explicit resolution convergence tests for the standing shocks would strengthen the robustness of our central claims. While our chosen grid resolution follows standard practice for 3D GRRMHD simulations of this type and the shocks are captured across multiple cells, we will add a dedicated subsection with new convergence tests (lower and higher resolution runs for representative tilted cases) in the revised manuscript to demonstrate that shock location, strength, and the resulting accretion enhancement are insensitive to grid scale. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results on accretion-rate measurements: the reported linear dependence Ṁ_BH ∝ β₀ and the factor-of-ten boost are presented without quantitative error bars, details on time-averaging intervals, or the radial location at which Ṁ_BH is evaluated. In the absence of such analysis, the statistical significance of the trend across the parameter scans cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission of these quantitative details. We will revise the Results section to explicitly state the radial location at which Ṁ_BH is evaluated, the time-averaging intervals used after the flow reaches quasi-steady state, and the method for computing error bars (e.g., standard deviation over the averaging window). This will enable readers to assess the statistical significance of the reported linear trend with β₀. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Radiation Transport Implementation] Radiation transport and shock physics: no tests are described that vary the radiation closure (e.g., M1 versus flux-limited diffusion) or that quantify radiative diffusion across the shocks. In the supercritical regime the inner flow is optically thick; any numerical broadening or weakening of the shocks by the transport scheme would directly affect the claimed accretion enhancement.

    Authors: We used the M1 closure, which is well-suited to the optically thick inner regions. No direct comparisons with alternative closures were performed owing to the substantial computational expense of these large 3D runs. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section to justify the choice of M1, reference prior validation studies on untilted discs, and discuss the expected impact of numerical diffusion on the shocks. We note that the shocks are primarily a hydrodynamic feature whose existence and torque balance are robust across different radiation treatments in the literature; a full closure-variation study lies beyond the scope of the present work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of numerical simulations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from 3D GRRMHD simulations of tilted supercritical accretion discs. Key claims (enhanced Ṁ_BH up to 10× Eddington with linear dependence on β₀, greater advection, standing shocks) are simulation outputs, not analytic derivations or fitted parameters that reduce to inputs by construction. The untilted confirmation is noted as consistent with prior work, but this is not load-bearing for the tilted results and introduces no self-definitional or self-citation circularity. No equations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that collapse the reported enhancements to the simulation inputs themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard GRMHD equations plus radiation transport assumptions and numerical choices for initial disk structure, tilt, and spin. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • initial tilt angle beta_0
    Explored from 0 to 30 degrees as input parameter controlling the reported linear enhancement.
  • black hole spin a_*
    Scanned from -0.9 to 0.9; enhancement scales with its magnitude.
  • target mass accretion rate
    Varied as simulation input to reach supercritical regime.
axioms (2)
  • standard math General relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamics equations govern the flow
    Invoked as the simulation framework throughout.
  • domain assumption Standing shocks form only in tilted configurations and drive the accretion enhancement
    Central attribution in the abstract; not independently derived from first principles here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1462 out tokens · 32873 ms · 2026-05-10T16:34:53.322593+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Salmonson J

    Anninos P., Fragile P. C., Salmonson J. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635..723A 635, 723

    work page doi:10.1086/497294 2005

  2. [2]

    Asahina Y., Ohsuga K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929...93A 929, 93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37 2022

  3. [3]

    Asahina Y., Ohsuga K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cd9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973...45A 973, 45

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cd9 2024

  4. [4]

    Ba \ n ados E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.553..473B 553, 473

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25180 2018

  5. [5]

    M., Petterson J

    Bardeen J. M., Petterson J. A., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195L..65B 195, L65

    work page doi:10.1086/181711 1975

  6. [6]

    K., & Ferrara, A

    Begelman M. C., Volonteri M., Rees M. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..289B 370, 289

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x 2006

  7. [7]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaa2259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...348..670B 348, 670

    Boggs S. E., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaa2259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...348..670B 348, 670

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa2259 2015

  8. [8]

    C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M

    Dai L., McKinney J. C., Roth N., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Miller M. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859L..20D 859, L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 2018

  9. [9]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...36D 730, 36

    Dexter J., Fragile P. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...36D 730, 36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/36 2011

  10. [10]

    Dijkstra M., Haiman Z., Mesinger A., Wyithe J. S. B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14031.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1961D 391, 1961

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14031.x 2008

  11. [11]

    C., Anninos P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..347F 623, 347

    Fragile P. C., Anninos P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..347F 623, 347

    work page doi:10.1086/428433 2005

  12. [12]

    C., Blaes O

    Fragile P. C., Blaes O. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687..757F 687, 757

    work page doi:10.1086/591936 2008

  13. [13]

    C., Liska M., 2025, in Bambi C., Mizuno Y., Shashank S., Yuan F., eds, , New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations

    Fragile P. C., Liska M., 2025, in Bambi C., Mizuno Y., Shashank S., Yuan F., eds, , New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations. pp 361--387, @doi 10.1007/978-981-97-8522-3_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8522-3_11 2025

  14. [14]

    C., Blaes O

    Fragile P. C., Blaes O. M., Anninos P., Salmonson J. D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..417F 668, 417

    work page doi:10.1086/521092 2007

  15. [15]

    C., Olejar A., Anninos P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...22F 796, 22

    Fragile P. C., Olejar A., Anninos P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...22F 796, 22

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/1/22 2014

  16. [16]

    2025, MNRAS, 540, 2820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf890

    Fragile P. C., Middleton M. J., Bollimpalli D. A., Smith Z., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.2820F 540, 2820

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf890 2025

  17. [17]

    Fragos T., Tremmel M., Rantsiou E., Belczynski K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L..79F 719, L79

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/l79 2010

  18. [18]

    Fukue J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/56.3.569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASJ...56..569F 56, 569

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/56.3.569 2004

  19. [19]

    C., Henisey K

    Generozov A., Blaes O., Fragile P. C., Henisey K. B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...81G 780, 81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/81 2014

  20. [20]

    W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.506..339G 506, 339

    Grefenstette B. W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.506..339G 506, 339

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12997 2014

  21. [21]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y.-F., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796..106J 796, 106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/106 2014

  22. [22]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..303K 55, 303

    Kaaret P., Feng H., Roberts T. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..303K 55, 303

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 2017

  23. [23]

    Kaaz N., Liska M. T. P., Jacquemin-Ide J., Andalman Z. L., Musoke G., Tchekhovskoy A., Porth O., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955...72K 955, 72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace051 2023

  24. [24]

    King A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531..550K 531, 550

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1171 2024

  25. [25]

    King A., Nixon C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..464K 462, 464

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1598 2016

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373L..90K 373, L90

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x 2006

  27. [27]

    R., Davies M

    King A. R., Davies M. B., Ward M. J., Fabbiano G., Elvis M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552L.109K 552, L109

    work page doi:10.1086/320343 2001

  28. [28]

    A., & McCollough, M

    King A. R., Pringle J. E., Hofmann J. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12943.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1621K 385, 1621

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12943.x 2008

  29. [29]

    King A., Lasota J.-P., Middleton M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NewAR..9601672K 96, 101672

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672 2023

  30. [30]

    L., Schmitt, H

    Kinney A. L., Schmitt H. R., Clarke C. J., Pringle J. E., Ulvestad J. S., Antonucci R. R. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...537..152K 537, 152

    work page doi:10.1086/309016 2000

  31. [31]

    Liska M., Hesp C., Tchekhovskoy A., Ingram A., van der Klis M., Markoff S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474L..81L 474, L81

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx174 2018

  32. [32]

    Liska M. T. P., Kaaz N., Musoke G., Tchekhovskoy A., Porth O., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944L..48L 944, L48

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4 2023

  33. [33]

    Mayer L., Kazantzidis S., Escala A., Callegari S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.466.1082M 466, 1082

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09294 2010

  34. [34]

    J., Parker M

    Middleton M. J., Parker M. L., Reynolds C. S., Fabian A. C., Lohfink A. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.1568M 457, 1568

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw035 2016

  35. [35]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..154M 475, 154

    Middleton M. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..154M 475, 154

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2986 2018

  36. [36]

    J., Fragile P

    Middleton M. J., Fragile P. C., Ingram A., Roberts T. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..282M 489, 282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2005 2019

  37. [37]

    C., Zhuravlev V

    Morales Teixeira D., Fragile P. C., Zhuravlev V. V., Ivanov P. B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796..103M 796, 103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/103 2014

  38. [38]

    D., Thorne K

    Novikov I. D., Thorne K. S., 1973, in Dewitt C., Dewitt B. S., eds, Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus). pp 343--450

    1973

  39. [39]

    Ohsuga K., Mori M., Nakamoto T., Mineshige S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..368O 628, 368

    work page doi:10.1086/430728 2005

  40. [40]

    F., Baumgardt H., Hut P., Makino J., McMillan S

    Portegies Zwart S. F., Baumgardt H., Hut P., Makino J., McMillan S. L. W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature02448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.428..724P 428, 724

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02448 2004

  41. [41]

    K., & Bamford, S

    Poutanen J., Lipunova G., Fabrika S., Butkevich A. G., Abolmasov P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377.1187P 377, 1187

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x 2007

  42. [42]

    J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/275516a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.275..516R 275, 516

    Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1038/275516a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.275..516R 275, 516

    work page doi:10.1038/275516a0 1978

  43. [43]

    Scheuer P. A. G., Feiler R., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/282.1.291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.282..291S 282, 291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/282.1.291 1996

  44. [44]

    Schneider R., Valiante R., Trinca A., Graziani L., Volonteri M., Maiolino R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3250S 526, 3250

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2503 2023

  45. [45]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  46. [46]

    Sironi L., Tran A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968..102S 968, 102

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4607 2024

  47. [47]

    S a dowski A., Narayan R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3929S 456, 3929

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2941 2016

  48. [48]

    Smith A., Bromm V., 2019, @doi [Contemporary Physics] 10.1080/00107514.2019.1615715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ConPh..60..111S 60, 111

    work page doi:10.1080/00107514.2019.1615715 2019

  49. [49]

    R., Mineshige S., Ohsuga K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853...45T 853, 45

    Takahashi H. R., Mineshige S., Ohsuga K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853...45T 853, 45

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa082 2018

  50. [50]

    J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D

    Taylor A. J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ade789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...989L...7T 989, L7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade789 2025

  51. [51]

    R., & Asahina, Y

    Utsumi A., Ohsuga K., Takahashi H. R., Asahina Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...26U 935, 26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb8 2022

  52. [52]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/466521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..624V 633, 624

    Volonteri M., Rees M. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/466521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..624V 633, 624

    work page doi:10.1086/466521 2005

  53. [53]

    J., Quataert E., Blaes O., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab089e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...51W 878, 51

    White C. J., Quataert E., Blaes O., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab089e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...51W 878, 51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab089e 2019

  54. [54]

    R., Nixon C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3016W 478, 3016

    Wu S., Coughlin E. R., Nixon C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3016W 478, 3016

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty971 2018

  55. [55]

    Yang J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..262Y 923, 262

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32 2021

  56. [56]

    Yoshioka S., Mineshige S., Ohsuga K., Kawashima T., Kitaki T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psac076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74.1378Y 74, 1378

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psac076 2022

  57. [57]

    M., Mullen, P

    Zhang L., Stone J. M., Mullen P. D., Davis S. W., Jiang Y.-F., White C. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...995...26Z 995, 26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f91 2025