pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16093 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

JWST and Keck observations of the off-nuclear tidal disruption event TDE 2025abcr: An evolving reprocessing layer

Kishore C. Patra , Emily R. Liepold , Nicholas Earl , Ryan J. Foley , Chung-Pei Ma , Sebastian Gomez , Kyle W. Davis , Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz
show 9 more authors
K. Decker French Jonelle L. Walsh Ravjit Kaur Kirsty Taggart Joshua Candanoza V. Ashley Villar Prasiddha Arunachalam Phillip Macias Samaporn Tinyanont
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords tidal disruption eventsoff-nuclear TDEreprocessing layerinfrared excessvelocity evolutionwandering black holesstellar clusterminor merger
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations of off-nuclear TDE 2025abcr show emission-line velocity shifts from an evolving reprocessing layer and an infrared excess from either reprocessed gas or a stripped stellar cluster.

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

This paper reports multi-wavelength observations of TDE 2025abcr, an optically selected off-nuclear tidal disruption event at a projected distance of 9 kpc from its host galaxy nucleus. The authors track a clear velocity change in the N III + He II emission complex from blueshifted to redshifted over weeks and attribute it to radiative transfer in a time-varying reprocessing layer. They further show that the infrared spectral energy distribution follows a power-law slope shallower than a blackbody Rayleigh-Jeans tail and rule out dust, leaving free-free emission from the reprocessing gas or light from an unresolved stellar cluster as viable explanations. These results constrain the mass of the disrupting black hole to 10^6-10^7 solar masses and point to its origin in a minor galaxy merger.

Core claim

The central claim is that velocity evolution in the N III + He II complex, shifting from -500 km s^{-1} at day -7 to +1000 km s^{-1} by day +29, arises from radiative transfer effects in an evolving reprocessing layer, while the IR SED with νL_ν ∝ λ^{-2.13 ± 0.04} is explained by either free-free emission from that same reprocessing gas or an unresolved stellar cluster of mass log(M_*/M_⊙) = 7.57 ± 0.02 and age less than 2 Gyr, consistent with a stripped satellite remnant around a wandering black hole of 10^6-10^7 solar masses.

What carries the argument

The evolving reprocessing layer, which produces the observed line velocity shifts through changing radiative transfer conditions and supplies the free-free emission that accounts for the infrared excess.

If this is right

  • The disrupting black hole has a mass of 10^6-10^7 solar masses, substantially smaller than the 10^8.35 solar-mass black hole in the host nucleus.
  • The 9 kpc offset implies the black hole is wandering and most likely arrived via a minor merger that left a stripped satellite remnant.
  • Reprocessed emission provides a consistent explanation for the infrared excess without requiring dust.
  • If the stellar-cluster solution holds, the cluster mass and age indicate a young, stripped satellite galaxy remnant at the TDE site.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar velocity evolution should be detectable in other well-observed TDEs if reprocessing layers are common.
  • High-resolution imaging or spectroscopy could distinguish a stellar cluster from reprocessing by revealing absorption features or spatial extent.
  • Off-nuclear TDEs may serve as tracers for the population of wandering massive black holes produced by minor mergers.

Load-bearing premise

The observed velocity shift in the emission lines is produced by radiative transfer in an evolving reprocessing layer rather than by bulk motion of the gas or other dynamical effects.

What would settle it

High-resolution spectroscopy that resolves bulk velocity gradients without corresponding changes in line optical depth, or an infrared spectrum that fits a dust model better than free-free emission, would falsify the reprocessing-layer interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16093 by Chung-Pei Ma, Emily R. Liepold, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, Jonelle L. Walsh, Joshua Candanoza, K. Decker French, Kirsty Taggart, Kishore C. Patra, Kyle W. Davis, Nicholas Earl, Phillip Macias, Prasiddha Arunachalam, Ravjit Kaur, Ryan J. Foley, Samaporn Tinyanont, Sebastian Gomez, V. Ashley Villar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JWST MIRI F560W image of TDE 2025abcr. The TDE is marked with the red circle and the host galaxy’s nucleus with the red square. 2. OBSERVATIONS 2.1. X-ray X-ray observations were obtained with the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory X-ray Telescope (XRT; D. N. Burrows et al. 2005). The data were reduced using the HEASoft software package (v6.35) and the latest calibra￾tion files from CALDB. Event files were rep… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stacked Swift XRT image of the region around TDE 2025abcr. The positions of the host galaxy nucleus (black) and the TDE (white) are marked with “X”. White contours represent the Swift UVOT flux, which is consistent with the TDE position. The astrometric position (colored dots) and uncertainty (dashed circles) of the X-ray source derived using three methods are shown: the standard XRT position based on Swif… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: X-ray light curve observed near the TDE location. The X-ray flux rapidly declines and becomes undetectable after +40 days. ure 2 shows the X-ray source localization relative to the TDE and the host galaxy. We derived the X-ray source position using three astrometric methods: the standard XRT solution based on Swift star-tracker astrometry, the UVOT-enhanced solution, and a solution obtained by aligning XRT… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UV and optical light curves of TDE 2025abcr. The epochs of KCWI and JWST observations are marked. 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Rest Wavelength (Å) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Flu x (1 0 1 6 e r g s 1 c m 2 Å 1 ) He I He I He I He II H H H H N III HH H H N III TDE 2025abcr +29 d 4600 4625 4650 4675 4700 4725 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 N III He II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical spectrum of TDE 2025abcr at phase +29 days observed with KCWI. For clarity, the blue and red sides have been binned by factors of 6 and 10, respectively, relative to the native 0.5 Å sampling. Prominent H and He emission lines are marked. The N III Bowen complex is also identified. The inset shows a zoomed-in view of the N III+He II lines which are redshifted by ∼ 1000 km s−1 . The blue continuum a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: IR spectrum of TDE 2025abcr at phase +60 days observed with JWST NIRSpec and MIRI LRS. For clarity, the displayed NIRSpec spectrum is binned by a factor of 10 for the G140H/F100LP and G235H/F170LP segments and by a factor of 3 for the G395M/F290LP segment, while the MIRI LRS spectrum is shown at its native sampling. Prominent H and He emission lines are marked. G235H, and G395M settings, respectively, with… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Optical emission-line profiles from the Keck/KCWI spectrum of TDE 2025abcr obtained at phase +29 days, shown in velocity space at the native instrumental sampling. The Balmer lines are asymmetric but are centered at the host-galaxy rest frame, with no significant velocity offset. The N III+He II complex, however, is clearly redshifted by ∼ 1000 km s−1 . Relative Flux H He I H I 0.9546 m H He II He I He II … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: JWST IR emission lines observed at day +60, plotted in velocity space at the native instrumental sampling. Several lines in the IR spectrum are blended. The profiles (particularly He I 1.083 µm, H I 1.282 µm, and H I 1.875 µm) show extended red wings and peaks blueshifted on average by 180 ± 40 km s−1 . 3.2. Optical and IR spectroscopy Both the optical ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the N III+He II emission complex in velocity space. The top three spectra are adopted from R. Stein et al. (2026); for clarity, only the smoothed versions are shown. The bottom spectrum, at day +29, is from our KCWI observation. N III emission (from Bowen fluorescence) is also de￾tected, which requires a strong EUV/soft X-ray radi￾ation field to resonantly pump He II and subsequently excite N … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: X-ray to IR SED of TDE 2025abcr. The best-fit blackbody model to the UV–optical–IR data is shown as the dotted curve, the best-fit star cluster spectrum in gray, and the combined best-fit model as the solid black curve. The best-fit IR slope is indicated, along with the Rayleigh–Jeans slope expected for a blackbody. For completeness, the full KCWI and JWST spectra are shown in the upper panel; however, th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Representative Keck KCWI spectra (black) and LOSVD-broadened stellar template fits (red) from three spatial bins located at increasing radius (top down) in the host galaxy. No significant emission-line contribution is evident in the spectra. Several stellar absorption features are marked. The 5200 Å N I sky line (vertical blue band) is masked in the spectral fits. The host galaxy PGC 174145 lies in the 2M… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stellar population constraints in age–mass space. The hatched region is ruled out by the observations: a stellar population in this region would overpredict the flux in at least one observed UV, optical, or IR data point by > 5σ. The unshaded region remains consistent with the data. The red contours show the MCMC posterior from the full SED fit in age–mass space (Section 3.3), and the star represents the … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Unsharp-masked JWST MIRI F560W image. The galaxy emission has been largely subtracted out, leaving behind just the nucleus and the TDE. The red curves trace the flux contours of the galaxy for reference. No tidal tails or other large-scale structures indicative of a major galaxy merger are evident. tical lines near 3444–3750 Å. If Bowen fluorescence is driving the observed evolution, these O III lines sho… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: MOSFiT fitting to the UV and optical light curves of TDE 2025abcr. APPENDIX A. MOSFIT ANALYSIS We modeled the Swift UV and ZTF optical photometry with MOSFiT, which employs an Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) framework using the emcee sampler (D. Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013). We assessed convergence using the potential scale reduction factor, requiring a value < 1.2 (A. Gelman & D. B. Rubin 1992); this crit… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Posterior distributions of the fitted MOSFiT parameters. The solid blue line represents the median of the posterior distribution, while the dashed black lines show the 16th and 84th percentiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Posterior distributions of the fitted SED model parameters. The solid blue line represents the median of the posterior distribution, while the dashed black lines show the 16th and 84th percentiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Off-nuclear tidal disruption events (TDEs) provide a rare probe of massive black holes (MBHs) outside galactic nuclei. Only a handful are known, including five X-ray-selected candidates and two optically selected events. We present observations of TDE 2025abcr, the second optically selected off-nuclear TDE, discovered at a projected offset of $9.08 \pm 0.02$ kpc from the nucleus of its host galaxy. We analyze X-ray, UV, optical, and infrared (IR) data from Swift, Keck, ZTF, and JWST. Broad H and He emission lines in the optical and IR confirm a TDE-H-He classification. From luminosity scaling relations and MOSFiT modeling, we infer a BH mass of $10^{6}$-$10^{7}\,M_{\odot}$, substantially smaller than the $10^{8.35 \pm 0.41}\,M_{\odot}$ BH inferred for the host-galaxy nucleus. We observe velocity evolution in the N III + He II emission complex, shifting from $-500$ km s$^{-1}$ at day $-7$ to $+1000$ km s$^{-1}$ by day $+29$, which we interpret as radiative transfer effects in an evolving reprocessing layer. The IR SED deviates from a thermal blackbody, with $\nu L_{\nu} \propto \lambda^{-2.13 \pm 0.04}$, significantly shallower than the Rayleigh-Jeans slope of $\lambda^{-3}$. We rule out dust as the source of this IR excess. Two possibilities remain: free-free emission from reprocessing gas, or an unresolved stellar cluster at the TDE location. Reprocessed emission provides a natural explanation for the IR excess but an underlying stellar cluster of mass $\log(M_{*}/M_{\odot}) = 7.57 \pm 0.02$ and age $<$2 Gyr is also consistent with the data. If interpreted as a stellar cluster, the inferred mass suggests a stripped remnant of a satellite galaxy. The wandering MBH most likely originated in a minor merger with a smaller galaxy, although dynamical ejection from the host nucleus cannot yet be ruled out.

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 multi-wavelength observations of the off-nuclear TDE 2025abcr at 9.08 kpc projected offset, using Swift, Keck, ZTF, and JWST data. It classifies the event as TDE-H-He based on broad H and He lines, infers a BH mass of 10^6-10^7 M_sun via luminosity scaling and MOSFiT (distinct from the host nucleus mass of 10^8.35 M_sun), documents velocity evolution in the N III + He II complex from -500 km s^{-1} (day -7) to +1000 km s^{-1} (day +29), and fits an IR SED with νL_ν ∝ λ^{-2.13 ± 0.04}. Dust is ruled out; the IR excess is attributed to either free-free emission from an evolving reprocessing layer or an unresolved stellar cluster (log(M_*/M_⊙) = 7.57 ± 0.02, age <2 Gyr), with the latter suggesting a stripped satellite remnant from a minor merger.

Significance. If the central interpretations are substantiated, the work contributes a rare, well-observed optically selected off-nuclear TDE that expands the sample of wandering MBHs and highlights potential reprocessing physics. The JWST IR photometry and Keck spectroscopy provide high-quality data on velocity shifts and SED shape that could constrain TDE emission models, with the dual interpretation (reprocessing vs. cluster) offering testable predictions for future monitoring.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and optical spectroscopy section: The central claim that the N III + He II velocity evolution (from -500 km s^{-1} to +1000 km s^{-1}) arises from radiative transfer effects in an evolving reprocessing layer is stated directly but lacks any quantitative RT modeling, optical-depth calculations, or line-profile synthesis to distinguish it from bulk-motion alternatives such as outflows or orbital dynamics around the inferred 10^6-10^7 M_⊙ BH.
  2. [IR SED analysis] IR SED analysis section: The power-law index νL_ν ∝ λ^{-2.13 ± 0.04} is used to exclude dust (contrasted with Rayleigh-Jeans λ^{-3}), yet the manuscript simultaneously leaves open an unresolved stellar cluster without presenting the full χ² fits, parameter covariances, or error budgets that would demonstrate whether free-free emission from reprocessing gas is statistically preferred over the cluster solution.
  3. [BH mass inference] BH mass inference paragraph: The 10^6-10^7 M_⊙ range is derived from luminosity scaling relations and MOSFiT, but the text provides no tabulated error budgets, full data-reduction pipeline details, or sensitivity tests to host contamination, which are load-bearing for the claim that this is a distinct wandering MBH rather than nuclear activity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract references 'five X-ray-selected candidates' without citations; adding specific references to prior off-nuclear TDE literature would improve context.
  2. [IR SED analysis] Notation for the IR spectral index (νL_ν ∝ λ^{-2.13 ± 0.04}) should be cross-checked against the exact wavelength range and filter transmission used in the fit for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review, which has helped us identify areas for clarification and improvement. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our interpretations while noting where additional details or caveats will be incorporated in revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and optical spectroscopy section: The central claim that the N III + He II velocity evolution (from -500 km s^{-1} to +1000 km s^{-1}) arises from radiative transfer effects in an evolving reprocessing layer is stated directly but lacks any quantitative RT modeling, optical-depth calculations, or line-profile synthesis to distinguish it from bulk-motion alternatives such as outflows or orbital dynamics around the inferred 10^6-10^7 M_⊙ BH.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our interpretation relies on qualitative consistency with the observed temporal evolution of the line complex, its correlation with continuum changes, and precedents in the TDE literature rather than new quantitative radiative transfer calculations. Full RT modeling or line-profile synthesis is beyond the scope of this primarily observational manuscript. In revision we will expand the discussion to explicitly address alternative explanations (outflows, orbital motion) and articulate why the reprocessing-layer scenario remains our favored reading of the data, while adding a clear caveat that detailed modeling is required for definitive distinction. This is a partial revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [IR SED analysis] IR SED analysis section: The power-law index νL_ν ∝ λ^{-2.13 ± 0.04} is used to exclude dust (contrasted with Rayleigh-Jeans λ^{-3}), yet the manuscript simultaneously leaves open an unresolved stellar cluster without presenting the full χ² fits, parameter covariances, or error budgets that would demonstrate whether free-free emission from reprocessing gas is statistically preferred over the cluster solution.

    Authors: We agree that the statistical details of the two SED models should be presented explicitly. In the revised manuscript we will add the χ² values, best-fit parameters, and associated error budgets for both the free-free reprocessing and stellar-cluster solutions. With only a small number of IR photometric points, both models remain statistically acceptable, which is why we present them as viable alternatives; the added information will allow readers to evaluate the relative fits directly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [BH mass inference] BH mass inference paragraph: The 10^6-10^7 M_⊙ range is derived from luminosity scaling relations and MOSFiT, but the text provides no tabulated error budgets, full data-reduction pipeline details, or sensitivity tests to host contamination, which are load-bearing for the claim that this is a distinct wandering MBH rather than nuclear activity.

    Authors: We will incorporate the requested transparency in revision. A new table or dedicated subsection will tabulate the error budgets from both the luminosity scaling relations and the MOSFiT fits, summarize the relevant data-reduction steps, and include sensitivity tests to possible host-galaxy contamination. These additions will strengthen the case that the inferred mass is distinct from the nuclear BH mass. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: all central claims are direct measurements or applications of external standard tools.

full rationale

The paper reports observed line velocities from Keck spectra, fits an IR power-law index to JWST photometry, and applies the external MOSFiT code plus published luminosity scaling relations to estimate BH mass. None of these steps define a quantity in terms of itself, rename a fitted parameter as a prediction, or rest on a self-citation chain whose validity depends on the present work. The interpretive statement that the velocity shift arises from radiative transfer in a reprocessing layer is presented as a qualitative reading of the data rather than a derived result from the paper's own equations. The IR excess analysis compares the measured slope to the known Rayleigh-Jeans value and leaves two physical possibilities open, without forcing one by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard astrophysical assumptions and interpretations of new data rather than new fundamental axioms or entities with independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Black hole mass = 10^6 - 10^7 M_sun
    Inferred from luminosity scaling relations and MOSFiT modeling
  • IR spectral index = -2.13 +/- 0.04
    Fitted directly to the observed SED
  • Stellar cluster mass and age = log(M*/M_sun) = 7.57 +/- 0.02, age < 2 Gyr
    Derived if IR excess is attributed to an unresolved cluster
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard luminosity scaling relations for TDEs apply to off-nuclear events
    Used to convert observed luminosity into black-hole mass estimate
  • domain assumption MOSFiT modeling yields reliable black-hole masses for TDE light curves
    Applied without additional validation shown in abstract
invented entities (2)
  • Evolving reprocessing layer no independent evidence
    purpose: Accounts for the observed shift in emission-line velocities
    Postulated interpretation of the velocity evolution data
  • Unresolved stellar cluster no independent evidence
    purpose: Alternative source for the observed IR excess
    Consistent with mass and age but not independently confirmed

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5805 in / 1846 out tokens · 103326 ms · 2026-05-10T07:46:54.340916+00:00 · methodology

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

110 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R., Smith, A

    Angus, C. R., Smith, A. J., Magill, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04406, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04406

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04406 2026

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b

    Auchettl, K., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b 2017

  4. [4]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 531, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016323

    Beifiori, A., Maraston, C., Thomas, D., & Johansson, J. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 531, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016323

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016323 2011

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 18

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  6. [6]

    Z., et al

    Blecha, L., Sijacki, D., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2646

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2646 2016

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517, doi: 10.1038/311517a0 Böker, T., Sarzi, M., McLaughlin, D. E., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 105, doi: 10.1086/380231

    work page doi:10.1038/311517a0 1984

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty896

    Bonetti, M., Haardt, F., Sesana, A., & Barausse, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty896

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty896 2018

  9. [9]

    The Swift X-ray Telescope

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    work page Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  10. [10]

    2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023,, 1.12.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10022973 2023

  11. [11]

    2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.002

    Cappellari, M. 2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.002

    2012

  12. [12]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  13. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  14. [14]

    B., et al

    Charalampopoulos, P., Leloudas, G., Malesani, D. B., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142122

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142122 2022

  15. [15]

    E., Jarrett, T

    Cluver, M. E., Jarrett, T. H., Hopkins, A. M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/90 2014

  16. [16]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  17. [17]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Foley, R. J. 2021, ApJL, 907, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd852

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd852 2021

  18. [18]

    A., Nukala, A., Connor, I., et al

    Dodd, S. A., Nukala, A., Connor, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1112

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1112 2023

  19. [19]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567

    work page doi:10.1086/185567 1989

  20. [20]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  21. [21]

    Fried, D. L. 1966, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917-1983), 56, 1372, doi: 10.1364/JOSA.56.001372 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1364/josa.56.001372 1966

  22. [22]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7 2024

  23. [23]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    work page doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 1992

  24. [25]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021b, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

  25. [26]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 780, doi: 10.1086/586877

    Gualandris, A., & Merritt, D. 2008, ApJ, 678, 780, doi: 10.1086/586877

    work page doi:10.1086/586877 2008

  26. [27]

    A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 2018

  27. [28]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 —

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/25 2013

  28. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.12272, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.12272

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.12272, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.12272

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12272 2026

  29. [31]

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

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 2016

  30. [32]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0

    work page doi:10.1038/254295a0 1975

  31. [34]

    , keywords =

    Hoffman, L., & Loeb, A. 2007b, MNRAS, 377, 957, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11694.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11694.x 2007

  32. [35]

    W.-S., Huber, M

    Holoien, T. W.-S., Huber, M. E., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ae1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ae1 2019

  33. [36]

    F., Croton, D., Bundy, K., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Croton, D., Bundy, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/915

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/915 2010

  34. [37]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337

    Hung, T., Gezari, S., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337 2017

  35. [38]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  36. [39]

    H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 2498, doi: 10.1086/301330

    work page doi:10.1086/301330 2000

  37. [40]

    2016, ApJL, 828, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L14

    Jiang, N., Dou, L., Wang, T., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L14

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/l14 2016

  38. [41]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Hu, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe772 2021

  39. [42]

    C., Li, D

    Jin, C. C., Li, D. Y., Jiang, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09580, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09580

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09580 2025

  40. [43]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, 2122, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15261.x

    Jones, D. H., Read, M. A., Saunders, W., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 683, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x 2009

  41. [44]

    2012, PhRvD, 86, 064026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.064026

    Kesden, M. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 064026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.064026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.064026 2012

  42. [45]

    , keywords =

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 2017

  43. [46]

    2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 364973, doi: 10.1155/2012/364973

    Komossa, S. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 364973, doi: 10.1155/2012/364973

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/364973 2012

  44. [47]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  45. [48]

    S., White, S

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  46. [49]

    2017a, ApJ, 841, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 841, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb 19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb 2017

  47. [50]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5792

    Leloudas, G., Dai, L., Arcavi, I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5792

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5792 2019

  48. [51]

    R., & Ma, C.-P

    Liepold, E. R., & Ma, C.-P. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66b8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad66b8 2024

  49. [52]

    arXiv , author =:2302.07884 , journal =

    Liepold, E. R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J. L. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 945, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbbcf

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

  50. [53]

    R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J

    Liepold, E. R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J. L. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b0 2025

  51. [54]

    R., et al

    Lin, D., Strader, J., Carrasco, E. R., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 656, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1 2018

  52. [55]

    J., et al

    Lin, D., Strader, J., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2020, ApJL, 892, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab745b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab745b 2020

  53. [56]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3405 2020

  54. [58]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012b, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/134

  55. [59]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/3

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Kasen, D., & Rosswog, S. 2016, ApJ, 819, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/3

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/3 2016

  56. [60]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Magorrian, J., & Tremaine, S. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 447, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x 1999

  57. [61]

    P., Ulmer, M

    Maksym, W. P., Ulmer, M. P., Eracleous, M. C., Guennou, L., & Ho, L. C. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1379 2013

  58. [62]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae927

    Malyali, A., Rau, A., Bonnerot, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae927

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae927 2024

  59. [63]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01 2019

  60. [64]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184 2013

  61. [65]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024, ApJ, 960, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0 2024

  62. [66]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f 2019

  63. [67]

    Moffat, A. F. J. 1969, A&A, 3, 455

    1969

  64. [68]

    C., et al

    Morrissey, P., Matuszewski, M., Martin, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad597 2018

  65. [69]

    Morton, D. C. 1991, ApJS, 77, 119, doi: 10.1086/191601

    work page doi:10.1086/191601 1991

  66. [70]

    Mummery, A., & Balbus, S. A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1184 2021

  67. [71]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    Mummery, A., Nathan, E., Ingram, A., & Gardner, M. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15048, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15048

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.15048

  68. [72]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf938

    Mummery, A., & van Velzen, S. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf938

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf938 2025

  69. [73]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3001

  70. [74]

    H., & Ostriker, J

    Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJL, 699, L178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l178 2009

  71. [75]

    M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al

    Naoz, S., Will, C. M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5e3b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5e3b 2020

  72. [76]

    2023,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2301.019 http://ascl.net/2301.019

    Rizzi, L. 2023,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2301.019 http://ascl.net/2301.019

    2023

  73. [77]

    2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & Böker, T. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0 2020

  74. [78]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2824

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2824 2020

  75. [79]

    G., et al

    Onori, F., Cannizzaro, G., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2053

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2053 2019

  76. [80]

    J., Knigge, C., Matthews, J

    Parkinson, E. J., Knigge, C., Matthews, J. H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac027

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac027 2022

  77. [81]

    C., Foley, R

    Patra, K. C., Foley, R. J., Earl, N., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12572

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [82]

    2024, STPSF, 2.2.0 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15747364

    Perrin, M., Long, J., Osborne, S., et al. 2025,, 2.1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15747364

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15747364 2025

  79. [83]

    L., & Colpi, M

    Pfister, H., Volonteri, M., Dai, J. L., & Colpi, M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1962

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1962 2020

  80. [84]

    E., Liepold, E

    Quenneville, M. E., Liepold, E. R., & Ma, C.-P. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e68 2022

Showing first 80 references.