pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09326 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Characterizing the Scale Height and Filamentary Structure of Radiatively Cooled MADs

Akshay Singh (1), Asaf Pe'er (1) ((1) Bar-Ilan University), Damien Begue (1)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetically arrested disksradiative coolingblack hole accretionfilamentary structuredisk scale heightGR-MHD simulationssynchrotron emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Above a critical accretion rate, radiative cooling thins and densifies filaments in magnetically arrested black hole disks while raising efficiency.

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

The paper runs general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetically arrested disks around a non-spinning black hole, including synchrotron and bremsstrahlung cooling scaled across four orders of magnitude in mass accretion rate. It identifies both analytically and numerically a transition rate at which cooling outpaces heating from local magnetic coupling. Above this threshold the reduced thermal pressure produces thinner, denser interchange-driven filaments and markedly higher radiative output. Conventional measures of disk thickness fail under these conditions, prompting a new definition based on the polar angle at which density reaches its maximum.

Core claim

In the inner regions of these MAD flows, magnetic field accumulation already enforces a discrete filamentary gas structure. Once radiative losses exceed magnetic heating, the drop in gas thermal pressure further compresses the filaments, raises the overall radiative efficiency relative to lower-rate runs, and renders standard scale-height diagnostics unreliable; the authors therefore replace them with a measure anchored at the polar location of the density peak.

What carries the argument

The transition mass accretion rate, found where the radiative cooling time becomes shorter than the heating time supplied by local magnetic coupling, which in turn forces thinner denser filaments and necessitates redefining disk scale height by the polar position of the density maximum.

Load-bearing premise

Heating is supplied only through local coupling to the magnetic field, allowing the transition rate to be located where cooling overtakes that heating.

What would settle it

A simulation or observation at accretion rates above the predicted transition that shows no reduction in filament thickness or no rise in radiative efficiency would falsify the claimed effect of cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09326 by Akshay Singh (1), Asaf Pe'er (1) ((1) Bar-Ilan University), Damien Begue (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time-average maps of the electron temperature (upper-left), comoving synchrotron (upper-right) and bremsstrahlung power (lower-left) for the simulation S-4 with accretion rate 10−4M˙ Edd. We note the different scaling for the synchrotron and bremsstrahlung processes. It is therefore observed that synchrotron cooling dominates the bremsstrahlung cooling by several orders of magnitude. The electron temperatu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: θ − ϕ maps of the density (in code units) at r = 10rg for simulations with decreasing mass accretion rates, ranging from 10−4 M˙ Edd (top left) to 10−7 M˙ Edd (bottom right), shown at time t = 2.65 × 104M. The dashed red line marks the equatorial plane. At all azimuth, the density maxima are clearly offset from the midplane. Strong fluctuations in density are observed as the mass accretion rate increases, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Disk scale height (h/r) as a function of radius using the standard definition (left) and the revised definition (right). The standard diagnostic suggests that the scale height is largely unaffected by radiative cooling. In contrast, the revised definition clearly shows a significant decrease in disk thickness once the accretion rate reaches M˙ crit, capturing the physical compression of the flow that the t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The radial profile of the inflow velocity (vr/c) shown in the red solid line for an accretion rate of 10−4 M˙ Edd. The Keplerian velocity (vK ∝ r −1/2 ) is shown in the dashed line for an easy comparison. Substitute γ 2 eβ 2 e = 12  mpΘp τme 2 into Equation 17 and simplifying: 16cσT  mpΘp τme 2 = mpvr ρr . (19) Expressing the density via the accretion rate ρ = M /˙ (4πr2vr), and further using the defin… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Radiative cooling can strongly influence the structure and dynamics of black hole accretion disks. Here, we perform general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GR-MHD) simulations of magnetically arrested disks (MADs) around a non-spinning black hole. Radiative cooling is consistently included in the simulations and its intensity is scaled by the mass accretion rate ranging from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-4} \dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}$. Considering synchrotron and bremsstrahlung emission, we quantify how radiative losses modify the disk structure and the accretion dynamics. In the inner MAD disk regions, accumulation of magnetic field regulates gas accretion, enforcing the gas into a discrete interchange-driven filamentary structure. We identify, both analytically and numerically, a transition mass accretion rate above which radiative cooling becomes faster than the heating, which is assumed to occur via local coupling to the magnetic field. Above this mass accretion rate, cooling substantially reduces the gas thermal pressure, leading to considerably thinner and denser accretion filaments, and a substantial increase in radiative efficiency, relative to lower accretion rates. We show that under these conditions, conventional measures of the disk scale height become misleading in MAD flows. We therefore introduce an alternative definition based on the polar position of the density maximum, which more robustly characterizes the filamentary structure of the disks in the presence of strong magnetic fields and cooling.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs GR-MHD simulations of non-spinning MADs with radiative cooling (synchrotron and bremsstrahlung) whose intensity is scaled to mass accretion rates spanning 10^{-7} to 10^{-4} Eddington. It analytically and numerically identifies a transition accretion rate above which cooling exceeds heating (assumed to occur via local magnetic-field coupling), producing thinner and denser interchange-driven filaments, a jump in radiative efficiency, and rendering conventional disk scale-height measures misleading; an alternative scale-height definition based on the polar position of the density maximum is introduced to better characterize the filamentary structure.

Significance. If the transition criterion and new scale-height metric prove robust, the results would clarify how radiative cooling alters filamentary accretion in the MAD regime and could inform modeling of sources near the transition from radiatively inefficient to efficient accretion, such as Sgr A* or low-luminosity AGN.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analytical/numerical identification of transition (abstract and associated methods/results sections)] The central transition mass-accretion-rate criterion is obtained by equating the cooling timescale to a heating timescale that assumes local coupling between gas and magnetic field. In the GRMHD runs, however, dissipation arises from numerical resistivity, reconnection, and grid-scale effects; no direct comparison is presented between the assumed heating rate and the actual dissipation rate measured from the simulation data. This verification is required to confirm that the reported transition location is not shifted by the mismatch between the analytic assumption and the numerical dissipation mechanism.
  2. [Scale-height definition and filament characterization sections] The claim that conventional scale-height measures become misleading under strong cooling relies on the filamentary structure being substantially altered above the transition. Quantitative evidence (e.g., explicit comparison of the conventional H/R versus the new polar-density-maximum definition across the full accretion-rate range, including error bars or convergence checks) is needed to demonstrate that the new definition is demonstrably superior rather than merely different.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise functional form used to scale the cooling intensity with accretion rate and confirm that the same scaling is applied uniformly in both the analytic criterion and the simulations.
  2. Add a brief statement on numerical resolution, convergence tests, and any resolution-dependent effects on the measured filament thickness or dissipation rate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped clarify key aspects of our work. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analyses and quantitative comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Analytical/numerical identification of transition (abstract and associated methods/results sections)] The central transition mass-accretion-rate criterion is obtained by equating the cooling timescale to a heating timescale that assumes local coupling between gas and magnetic field. In the GRMHD runs, however, dissipation arises from numerical resistivity, reconnection, and grid-scale effects; no direct comparison is presented between the assumed heating rate and the actual dissipation rate measured from the simulation data. This verification is required to confirm that the reported transition location is not shifted by the mismatch between the analytic assumption and the numerical dissipation mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that a direct verification strengthens the result. The local-coupling assumption for heating is physically motivated by the dominance of magnetic reconnection in MADs, but we acknowledge the distinction from numerical dissipation. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection comparing the assumed heating timescale to the actual dissipation rate extracted from the simulations (via magnetic energy decay rates and reconnection diagnostics) across the accretion-rate range. This comparison will confirm that the transition location remains robust and is not materially shifted by numerical effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Scale-height definition and filament characterization sections] The claim that conventional scale-height measures become misleading under strong cooling relies on the filamentary structure being substantially altered above the transition. Quantitative evidence (e.g., explicit comparison of the conventional H/R versus the new polar-density-maximum definition across the full accretion-rate range, including error bars or convergence checks) is needed to demonstrate that the new definition is demonstrably superior rather than merely different.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative evidence is needed to demonstrate superiority. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new figure (and accompanying text) that explicitly compares the conventional H/R (density-weighted vertical scale) against the new polar-density-maximum definition over the full range of accretion rates. Time-averaged values will be shown with error bars representing the standard deviation from temporal variability. This will illustrate the clear divergence above the transition and how the new metric more faithfully tracks the thinned, dense filaments. We will also discuss resolution adequacy for the filamentary features, though a full multi-resolution convergence study across all rates would require additional simulations beyond the current scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on explicit assumption and direct simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper states an explicit assumption that heating occurs via local coupling to the magnetic field, then analytically and numerically compares this to the cooling time to locate a transition accretion rate. Structural consequences (thinner filaments, higher efficiency) and the new scale-height definition (polar position of density maximum) are presented as downstream results of that comparison and the GR-MHD runs. No step redefines a quantity in terms of itself, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or reduces the central claim to a self-citation chain. The analysis is self-contained against the stated physics and simulation data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard GR-MHD assumptions for black hole accretion and the specific assumption that heating occurs via local magnetic coupling; no major free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • cooling intensity scaling
    Radiative cooling intensity is scaled proportionally to the mass accretion rate over the range 10^{-7} to 10^{-4} Eddington as an input parameter varied across simulation runs.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Heating occurs via local coupling to the magnetic field
    Invoked to analytically identify the transition accretion rate where cooling becomes faster than heating.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1470 out tokens · 80337 ms · 2026-05-12T01:51:35.506961+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Fragile, P

    Abramowicz, M. A., & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2013-1

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-1 2013

  2. [2]

    R., & Ohsuga, K

    Asahina, Y., Takahashi, H. R., & Ohsuga, K. 2020, ApJ, 901, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaf51 2020

  3. [3]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , author =

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., Zhang, G. Q., Zhang, B. B., &

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  4. [4]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca276

    Pevzner, B. 2023, ApJS, 264, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca276

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca276 2023

  5. [5]

    S., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1976, Ap&SS, 42, 401, doi: 10.1007/BF01225967

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01225967 1976

  6. [6]

    2018, A&A, 613, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732149

    Bronzwaer, T., Davelaar, J., Younsi, Z., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732149

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732149 2018

  7. [7]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf200

    Chael, A. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf200

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf200 2025

  8. [8]

    Chan, H.-S., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.00525, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.00525 14

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00525 2026

  9. [9]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Dibi, S., Drappeau, S., Fragile, P. C., Markoff, S., & Dexter, J. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1928, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21857.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21857.x 2012

  10. [10]

    K., Mizuno, Y., Fromm, C

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3165 2023

  11. [11]

    Drappeau, S., Dibi, S., Dexter, J., Markoff, S., & Fragile, P. C. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt388

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt388 2013

  12. [12]

    A., Narayan, R., Ostriker, E., & Yi, I

    Esin, A. A., Narayan, R., Ostriker, E., & Yi, I. 1996, ApJ, 465, 312, doi: 10.1086/177421 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., & Alberdi, e. a. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    work page doi:10.1086/177421 1996

  13. [13]

    G., & Moncrief, V

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

    work page doi:10.1086/154565 1976

  14. [14]

    C., & Meier, D

    Fragile, P. C., & Meier, D. L. 2009, ApJ, 693, 771, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/771

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/1/771 2009

  15. [15]

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

    Smith, Z. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf890

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf890 2025

  16. [16]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594

    work page doi:10.1086/374594 2003

  17. [17]

    Igumenshchev, I. V. 2008, ApJ, 677, 317, doi: 10.1086/529025

    work page doi:10.1086/529025 2008

  18. [18]

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

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1812491116 2019

  19. [19]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa955 2020

  20. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a

    Musoke, G. 2024, ApJ, 966, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad344a 2024

  21. [21]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4

    Porth, O. 2023, ApJL, 944, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f4

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

  22. [22]

    Liska, M. T. P., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., Porth, O., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 935, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db 2022

  23. [23]

    H., Papaloizou, J

    Lubow, S. H., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/267.2.235 Martí, J. M., & Müller, E. 2003, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, 7, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2003-7 —. 2015, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 1, 3, doi: 10.1007/lrca-2015-3

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/267.2.235 1994

  24. [24]

    C., & Gammie, C

    McKinney, J. C., & Gammie, C. F. 2004, ApJ, 611, 977, doi: 10.1086/422244

    work page doi:10.1086/422244 2004

  25. [25]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    Narayan, R. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu762 2014

  26. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac285 2022

  27. [27]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/55.6.l69 2003

  28. [28]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Narayan, R., Sadowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x 2012

  29. [29]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 626, doi: 10.1086/500349

    Zanna, L. 2006, ApJ, 641, 626, doi: 10.1086/500349

    work page doi:10.1086/500349 2006

  30. [30]

    Porth, O., Mizuno, Y., Younsi, Z., & Fromm, C. M. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab163

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab163 2021

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd 2019

  32. [32]

    2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    Rezzolla, L., & Zanotti, O. 2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1 2022

  34. [34]

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

    Rowan, M. E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R. 2019, ApJ, 873, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d7 2019

  35. [35]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)

    work page 1986

  36. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09556

    Salas, L., Liska, M., Markoff, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09556

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.09556 2024

  37. [37]

    2025, ApJL, 981, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb749 Sądowski, A., Wielgus, M., Narayan, R., et al

    Singh, A., Bégué, D., & Pe’er, A. 2025, ApJL, 981, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb749 Sądowski, A., Wielgus, M., Narayan, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3116

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb749 2025

  38. [38]

    Stepney, S., & Guilbert, P. W. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/204.4.1269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/204.4.1269 1983

  39. [39]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., & McKinney, J. C. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L55, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01256.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01256.x 2012

  40. [40]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x Tóth, G. 2000, Journal of Computational Physics, 161, 605, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.6519

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

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.15532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.15532

    Wallace, J., Bégué, D., & Pe’er, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.15532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.15532

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.15532 2025

  42. [42]

    J., Mullen, P

    White, C. J., Mullen, P. D., Jiang, Y.-F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cf 2023

  43. [43]

    N., Du, Y., Prather, B

    Wong, G. N., Du, Y., Prather, B. S., & Gammie, C. F. 2021, ApJ, 914, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b8 2021

  44. [44]

    B., et al

    Yoon, D., Chatterjee, K., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 3178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3031 2020

  45. [45]

    2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504 15

    You, B., Cao, X., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504 15

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abo4504 2023

  46. [46]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 2014

  47. [47]

    Q., Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B

    Zhang, G. Q., Bégué, D., Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. B. 2024, ApJ, 962, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167b 2024

  48. [48]

    M., Mullen, P

    Zhang, L., Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f91

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