arxiv: 2605.10557 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Observational Properties of Nonthermal Emission from Relativistic Jets Escaping Active Galactic Nucleus Disks

Ken Chen , Zi-Gao Dai

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords relativistic jetsAGN disksnonthermal emissiongamma-ray burstsblack hole mergersmulti-messenger astronomysynchrotron self-absorptionjet deceleration

0 comments

The pith

Relativistic jets from compact objects in AGN disks produce detectable multi-wavelength nonthermal emission that outshines the AGN background, with delays under 10^6 seconds to gravitational wave signals.

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

The paper examines how relativistic jets launched by stellar-mass compact objects embedded in AGN accretion disks propagate after breaking out of the disk. In a realistic AGN environment modeled as wind outflows, the high density causes the jet ejecta to decelerate rapidly, shifting the emission spectrum to lower energies, while strong synchrotron self-absorption creates a prominent quasi-thermal hump. This process applies to both gamma-ray burst jets and jets powered by accreting binary black hole merger remnants, yielding broadband emissions bright enough to exceed the AGN background across multiple wavelengths. The short time delays, typically less than 10^6 seconds, between gravitational wave triggers and these electromagnetic signals support reliable multi-messenger associations. The resulting radiation also acts as a probe of the AGN medium's spatial distribution, density structure, and physical properties.

Core claim

Relativistic jets launched from stellar-mass compact objects embedded in the accretion disk of an active galactic nucleus can produce nonthermal emission upon successfully breaking out of the disk. In the AGN environment modeled as wind outflows, this produces two distinct features: rapid deceleration of the jet ejecta accompanied by a prompt downshift of the emission spectral energy distribution, and persistently strong synchrotron self-absorption giving rise to a prominent quasi-thermal hump. Both gamma-ray burst jets and jets powered by accreting binary black hole merger remnants can produce detectable multi-wavelength emissions that substantially outshine the AGN background, with short,

What carries the argument

The AGN environment modeled as wind outflows, which sets the density structure governing jet deceleration, radiation transfer, and the resulting rapid spectral downshift plus quasi-thermal hump from synchrotron self-absorption.

If this is right

Detectable multi-wavelength nonthermal emissions from both gamma-ray burst jets and jets powered by accreting binary black hole merger remnants that substantially outshine the AGN background.
Short time delays between gravitational wave triggers and electromagnetic counterparts, typically less than 10^6 seconds, that greatly facilitate secure multi-messenger associations.
Interaction-induced radiation from these jet systems offers a diagnostic probe of the spatial distribution, density structure, and physical properties of the AGN medium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Targeted searches in AGN fields for quasi-thermal humps could reveal previously hidden jet activity from embedded compact objects.
Multi-messenger follow-up campaigns could focus observations on AGN hosts within 10^6 seconds after gravitational wave detections to catch the predicted counterparts.
The same wind-interaction signatures might appear in other dense environments, such as jets in star clusters or galactic nuclei with similar outflow structures.

Load-bearing premise

The AGN environment is realistically modeled as wind outflows whose density structure governs jet deceleration and radiation transfer.

What would settle it

Observation of candidate AGN-embedded jet systems showing no rapid deceleration, no spectral downshift, and no quasi-thermal hump in multi-wavelength data after gravitational wave triggers would indicate the wind outflow prescription does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10557 by Ken Chen, Zi-Gao Dai.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Schematic description of a jet successfully breaking out of the AGN disk and propagating through the AGN environment. AGN-driven wind outflows and AGN photons fill the region above the disk. The interaction between the jet and the ambient medium drives strong shock, producing nonthermal emission via particle acceleration. Besides, the cocoon, formed by the energy deposition from the jet propagating within … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Properties of the shocked materials in the successful jets at breakout. The left panel shows the distance from the jet base to the collimating shock converge point, within which the jet remains predominantly unshocked, and beyond it the jet material is shocked to resist the cocoon pressure. The right panel shows the critical baryonic loading of the shocked jet material, which determines the terminal LF the… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of the synchrotron, synchrotron self-Compton scattering, and external inverse-Compton scattering emission luminosity. Solid lines show the total Compton–synchrotron YTOT, with each line corresponding to various parameters in the power and duration of the jet system, as well as the ambient density. All jets are set to launch at R0 = 103Rg of an accretion disk surrounding a SMBH of mass M = 107M⊙,… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Dynamics of jets propagating within the AGN environment. The left panel shows the dynamical evolution of a jet with Lj = 1050 erg s−1 and tj = 10 s, where the blue line, orange dashed line, and blue dotted line represents the LF of forward shock, LF of reverse shock, and the velocity of forward shock, respectively. The cyan and purple line exhibits the LF of forward shock, changing the system parameter to … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Characteristic Lorentz factors and emission frequencies of relativistic electrons. In each panel, the solid and dashed lines represent the parameters in FS and RS. The blue, orange, and magenta line denotes the minimum LF γm, the cooling LF γc, and the synchrotron self-absorption LF γa, respectively. In addition to the associated synchrotron frequencies, the critical frequencies for SSC scattering are show… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spectral energy distributions of nonthermal emissions for GRB jet cases. Each panel corresponds to different parameter: Lj = 1050 erg s−1 and tj = 10 s, Lj = 1051 erg s−1 and tj = 100 s, and n0 = 106 cm−3 . Emissions from both the forward and reverse shock at various observer times are presented, where solid lines denote synchrotron radiation, while the dashed lines denote SSC emission. As a benchmark for … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Spectral energy distributions of nonthermal emissions for BBH remnant-driven jet cases. The left panel depicts a relativistic jet with Lj = 1046 erg s−1 and tj = 105 s, consistent with the jet launched in a BBH merger system of mass m = 100M⊙, where the remnant BH receives a kick velocity of vk = 107.5 cm s−1 . The right panel corresponds to a more powerful jet with Lj = 1048 erg s−1 . a BH of mass m = 100… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: X-ray (left panels) and optical (g-band, right panels) light curves of GRB jet emission. The jet is set as Lj = 1050 erg s−1 and tj = 10 s. The upper panels shows the total observed flux evolution, decomposed into contributions from the FS and RS synchrotron components, and the corresponding SSC components. The lower panels display the light curves for varying parameters, where cyan and light green lines r… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Multiband light curves of BBH merger remnant-driven jet emission. The jet is set as Lj = 1046 erg s−1 and tj = 105 s. In the upper panels, the total emission and its radiative components from a more powerful jet with Lj = 1048 erg s−1 are also shown. The spikes and sharp declines observed in the light curves arise from the artificial termination of reverse shock evolution, along with its radiative contrib… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Relativistic jets launched from stellar-mass compact objects embedded in the accretion disk of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) can produce nonthermal emission upon successfully breaking out of the disk. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the long-term propagation dynamics and broadband nonthermal radiation signatures of such jets in a realistic AGN environment, explicitly modeled as wind outflows. Our modeling reveals two distinct features imprinted by the high-density AGN medium: rapid deceleration of the jet ejecta, accompanied by a prompt downshift of the emission spectral energy distribution, and persistently strong synchrotron self-absorption, giving rise to a prominent quasi-thermal hump in the emission spectrum. Crucially, both gamma-ray burst jets and jets powered by accreting binary black hole merger remnants can produce detectable multi-wavelength emissions that substantially outshine the AGN background. Moreover, the short time delays between gravitational wave triggers and these electromagnetic counterparts--typically less than 106 s--greatly facilitate secure multi-messenger associations. Besides, our findings highlight that interaction-induced radiation from AGN-embedded jet systems offers a powerful diagnostic probe of the spatial distribution,density structure, and physical properties of the AGN medium.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper models jet breakout through AGN wind outflows to predict rapid deceleration, a spectral downshift, and a quasi-thermal hump that could produce detectable EM counterparts to GW events with delays under 10^6 s, but supplies almost no details on the hydro or radiation methods.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work takes relativistic jets from compact objects inside AGN disks, treats the surrounding medium as wind outflows, and shows how that dense environment forces quick deceleration plus strong synchrotron self-absorption, creating a prominent quasi-thermal hump in the spectrum. The authors argue both GRB-style jets and those from accreting BBH merger remnants can outshine the AGN background and arrive soon enough after a GW trigger to make secure associations feasible. They also note the radiation could serve as a probe of the AGN medium's density structure. That combination of rapid deceleration and the hump in a wind-like setting is the clearest new element; prior jet-breakout studies exist, but the specific application to long-term propagation inside AGN disks and the resulting observational imprint is a focused step forward. The qualitative picture is laid out cleanly and ties directly to multi-messenger interests. The soft spot is the complete absence of any quantitative information on the hydrodynamic scheme, radiation-transfer method, density-profile parameters, or direct comparisons to data or other simulations. Without those, it is impossible to tell whether the claimed features hold up or shift with modest changes to the wind prescription, exactly as the stress-test note flags. The central predictions rest on that wind model being realistic, yet no calibration or robustness checks appear. This is the sort of paper that would interest people working on AGN-embedded mergers, jet-AGN interactions, and possible EM counterparts to LIGO/Virgo events. A reader already thinking about disk environments might pick up useful conceptual points, but anyone needing numbers for follow-up calculations will come away empty. I would send it to peer review so the methods and parameter choices can be examined properly; the topic is timely enough to warrant that step even if the current write-up needs substantial filling out.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper models the long-term propagation and broadband nonthermal emission of relativistic jets from stellar-mass compact objects embedded in AGN accretion disks, treating the AGN environment explicitly as wind outflows. It identifies two key imprints of the dense medium—rapid jet deceleration with prompt spectral downshift and persistently strong synchrotron self-absorption producing a quasi-thermal hump—and argues that both GRB jets and jets from accreting BBH merger remnants can generate detectable multi-wavelength emission that outshines the AGN background, with typical GW-to-EM delays below 10^6 s that aid secure multi-messenger associations. The work further positions such interaction-induced radiation as a diagnostic of AGN medium properties.

Significance. If the hydrodynamic and radiative-transfer results prove robust, the study would supply concrete, observationally testable predictions for electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational-wave events occurring inside AGN disks, strengthening multi-messenger astronomy. The reported spectral features (downshift and quasi-thermal hump) could serve as direct probes of AGN density structure, an area where current observations are limited.

major comments (3)

[Abstract/Methods] Abstract and Methods: the abstract states results from 'our modeling' yet supplies no quantitative information on the hydrodynamic scheme (e.g., whether 1D/2D relativistic hydro or analytic breakout model), radiation-transfer method (synchrotron emissivity, self-absorption optical depth calculation), adopted parameters (jet luminosity, Lorentz factor, wind mass-loss rate, density normalization), or any comparison to existing jet-in-disk simulations. Without these, the claimed rapid deceleration, spectral downshift, and quasi-thermal hump cannot be assessed for robustness.
[Modeling of AGN environment] AGN environment modeling: the density structure is taken as wind outflows whose radial profile governs both jet deceleration and radiation transfer. No validation against AGN disk simulations or observational constraints is presented; if the actual vertical/radial gradient is steeper, clumpy, or set by disk scale height rather than the assumed wind, the breakout time, synchrotron self-absorption turnover, and resulting multi-wavelength luminosities would shift, directly affecting the outshining and delay claims.
[Results on time delays] Multi-messenger timing claim: the assertion that GW-to-EM delays are 'typically less than 10^6 s' is load-bearing for the secure-association argument, yet no explicit calculation, parameter scan, or dependence on wind density is shown. A sensitivity test demonstrating that the delay remains below this threshold across plausible wind parameters is required.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: 'less than 106 s' should read 'less than 10^6 s'.
[Abstract] Abstract: the sentence beginning 'Besides, our findings...' is awkwardly phrased and could be integrated more smoothly into the preceding paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve the presentation of our methods, assumptions, and results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract/Methods] Abstract and Methods: the abstract states results from 'our modeling' yet supplies no quantitative information on the hydrodynamic scheme (e.g., whether 1D/2D relativistic hydro or analytic breakout model), radiation-transfer method (synchrotron emissivity, self-absorption optical depth calculation), adopted parameters (jet luminosity, Lorentz factor, wind mass-loss rate, density normalization), or any comparison to existing jet-in-disk simulations. Without these, the claimed rapid deceleration, spectral downshift, and quasi-thermal hump cannot be assessed for robustness.

Authors: We agree that the abstract was too concise. The Methods section describes our 1D relativistic hydrodynamics scheme and the synchrotron radiation transfer including emissivity and self-absorption calculations, along with the adopted parameters. To make these elements immediately accessible, we have expanded the abstract with key quantitative details on the modeling approach and parameters. We have also added an explicit comparison to prior jet-in-disk simulations in the revised Methods section. revision: yes
Referee: [Modeling of AGN environment] AGN environment modeling: the density structure is taken as wind outflows whose radial profile governs both jet deceleration and radiation transfer. No validation against AGN disk simulations or observational constraints is presented; if the actual vertical/radial gradient is steeper, clumpy, or set by disk scale height rather than the assumed wind, the breakout time, synchrotron self-absorption turnover, and resulting multi-wavelength luminosities would shift, directly affecting the outshining and delay claims.

Authors: The adopted wind-outflow density profile follows standard observational and theoretical prescriptions for AGN winds. We acknowledge that more complex features such as clumpiness or disk-scale-height effects are not included and could alter quantitative outcomes. In the revision we have added a dedicated discussion of these assumptions, supporting references to AGN disk simulations, and a limited sensitivity test varying the radial gradient to demonstrate that the primary conclusions on deceleration and spectral features remain robust. revision: partial
Referee: [Results on time delays] Multi-messenger timing claim: the assertion that GW-to-EM delays are 'typically less than 10^6 s' is load-bearing for the secure-association argument, yet no explicit calculation, parameter scan, or dependence on wind density is shown. A sensitivity test demonstrating that the delay remains below this threshold across plausible wind parameters is required.

Authors: The quoted delay bound is obtained directly from the jet propagation times in our hydrodynamic runs. To address the request for transparency, we have added an explicit parameter scan and a new figure in the revised manuscript that shows the GW-to-EM delay as a function of wind mass-loss rate and density normalization, confirming that the delay stays below 10^6 s over the explored range of plausible AGN wind parameters. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; modeling outputs are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper presents results from explicit physical modeling of jet propagation and nonthermal radiation in a wind-outflow AGN density profile. Claims about rapid deceleration, spectral downshift, quasi-thermal humps, outshining luminosities, and GW-EM delays <10^6 s are derived from the assumed density structure and radiative transfer calculations rather than being redefined or fitted to match the target observables. No equations or sections in the provided text reduce predictions to self-citations, fitted subsets renamed as forecasts, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work by the same authors. The wind prescription is stated as an explicit modeling choice, leaving the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that the AGN medium can be treated as wind outflows whose density controls jet dynamics and radiation, together with standard nonthermal emission processes; no free parameters or new entities are enumerated in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The AGN environment is explicitly modeled as wind outflows
Stated directly as the modeling choice for the high-density medium surrounding the embedded compact objects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1430 out tokens · 45878 ms · 2026-05-12T04:47:33.407609+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al

Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al.\ 2025, , 993, 1, L25. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2025
[2]

2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017a, , 119, 16, 161101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101
[3]

, keywords =

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017b, , 848, 2, L12. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041
[4]

Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys

Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al.\ 2020, , 125, 10, 101102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020
[5]

2026, ApJL, 996, L44, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2bff

Bartos, I. & Haiman, Z.\ 2026, , 996, 2, L44. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2bff

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2bff 2026
[6]

Begelman, M. C. & Cioffi, D. F.\ 1989, , 345, L21. doi:10.1086/185542

work page doi:10.1086/185542 1989
[7]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.8185

Bellm, E.\ 2014, The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, 27. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.8185

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.8185 2014
[8]

& Piran, T.\ 2013, , 769, 1, 69

Beniamini, P. & Piran, T.\ 2013, , 769, 1, 69. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/69

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/69 2013
[9]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., et al.\ 2011, , 740, 2, 100. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011
[10]

& Dai, Z.-G.\ 2025, , 987, 2, 214

Chen, K. & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2025, , 987, 2, 214. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addb48

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addb48 2025
[11]

& Dai, Z.-G.\ 2024, , 961, 2, 206

Chen, K. & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2024, , 961, 2, 206. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd 2024
[12]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc45f

Chen, K., Ren, J., & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2023, , 948, 2, 136. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc45f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc45f 2023
[13]

Delfavero, V., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2025, , 989, 1, 67. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade4c1

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade4c1 2025
[14]

J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A

Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A. S.\ 2021, , 916, 1, 48. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac042c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac042c 2021
[15]

J., Cantiello, M., et al.\ 2025, , 981, 1, 16

Fabj, G., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., et al.\ 2025, , 981, 1, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896 2025
[16]

Ford, K. E. S. & McKernan, B.\ 2025, , arXiv:2506.08801. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.08801

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08801 2025
[17]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1461

Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., Wu, X.-F., et al.\ 2013, , 435, 3, 2520. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1461

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1461 2013
[18]

doi:10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., Zou, Y.-C., et al.\ 2013, , 57, 6, 141. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001 2013
[19]

W., & Svensson, R.\ 1988, , 334, L5

Ghisellini, G., Guilbert, P. W., & Svensson, R.\ 1988, , 334, L5. doi:10.1086/185300

work page doi:10.1086/185300 1988
[20]

& Proga, D.\ 2019, , 630, A94

Giustini, M. & Proga, D.\ 2019, , 630, A94. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833810

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833810 2019
[21]

doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3501

Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Bromberg, O.\ 2021, , 500, 3, 3511. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3501

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3501 2021
[22]

J., Ford, K

Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2020, , 124, 25, 251102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.251102 2020
[23]

B., et al.\ 2006, , 638, 1, 391

Granot, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Taylor, G. B., et al.\ 2006, , 638, 1, 391. doi:10.1086/497680

work page doi:10.1086/497680 2006
[24]

& Sari, R.\ 2002, , 568, 2, 820

Granot, J. & Sari, R.\ 2002, , 568, 2, 820. doi:10.1086/338966

work page doi:10.1086/338966 2002
[25]

2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.05144 10

He, L., Zhu, L.-G., Liu, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2025, , arXiv:2511.05144. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.05144

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05144 2025
[26]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d54

Huang, B.-Q., Liu, T., Li, X.-Y., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 1, 67. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d54

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d54 2024
[27]

Huang, Y. F. & Cheng, K. S.\ 2003, , 341, 1, 263. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06430.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06430.x 2003
[28]

F., Gou, L

Huang, Y. F., Gou, L. J., Dai, Z. G., et al.\ 2000, , 543, 1, 90. doi:10.1086/317076

work page doi:10.1086/317076 2000
[29]

& Gr \"o bner, M.\ 2024, , 529, 2, 883

Ishibashi, W. & Gr \"o bner, M.\ 2024, , 529, 2, 883. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae569

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae569 2024
[30]

S., Dittmann, A

Jermyn, A. S., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., et al.\ 2021, , 914, 2, 105. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfb67

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfb67 2021
[31]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1

Kaaz, N., Murguia-Berthier, A., Chatterjee, K., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 1, 31. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1 2023
[32]

D., Perna, R., Lazzati, D., et al.\ 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 23

Kang, H. D., Perna, R., Lazzati, D., et al.\ 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 23. doi:10.33232/001c.131902

work page doi:10.33232/001c.131902 2025
[33]

R., et al.\ 2024, , 972, 1, 101

Kathirgamaraju, A., Li, H., Ryan, B. R., et al.\ 2024, , 972, 1, 101. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a3 2024
[34]

Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S.\ 2008,

work page 2008
[35]

& Most, E

Kim, Y. & Most, E. R.\ 2025, , 111, 8, 083025. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083025

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083025 2025
[36]

, keywords =

King, A. & Pounds, K.\ 2015, , 53, 115. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015
[37]

doi:10.1086/381733

Kobayashi, S., M \'e sz \'a ros, P., & Zhang, B.\ 2004, , 601, 1, L13. doi:10.1086/381733

work page doi:10.1086/381733 2004
[38]

& Zhang, B.\ 2003, , 582, 2, L75

Kobayashi, S. & Zhang, B.\ 2003, , 582, 2, L75. doi:10.1086/367691

work page doi:10.1086/367691 2003
[39]

S., Reeves, J., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13

Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2 2021
[40]

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac98ad

Lazzati, D., Soares, G., & Perna, R.\ 2022, , 938, 2, L18. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac98ad

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac98ad 2022
[41]

doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

Lei, L., Zhu, Q.-F., Kong, X., et al.\ 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 3, 035013. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acb877 2023
[42]

& Rieke, G

Lyu, J. & Rieke, G. H.\ 2017, , 841, 2, 76. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7051

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7051 2017
[43]

and Copin, Y

Matzner, C. D.\ 2003, , 345, 2, 575. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06969.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06969.x 2003
[44]

McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Cook, H. E., et al.\ 2025, , 990, 2, 217. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf114

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf114 2025
[45]

McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., & O'Shaughnessy, R.\ 2020, , 498, 3, 4088. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2681

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2681 2020
[46]

R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18474.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.414.1418K 414, 1418

Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P.\ 2012, , 420, 4, 3528. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x 2012
[47]

McPike, E., Perna, R., Ford, K. E. S., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2602.04135. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.04135

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04135 2026
[48]

& Ioka, K.\ 2013, , 777, 2, 162

Mizuta, A. & Ioka, K.\ 2013, , 777, 2, 162. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/162 2013
[49]

& Piran, T.\ 2017, , 834, 1, 28

Nakar, E. & Piran, T.\ 2017, , 834, 1, 28. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28 2017
[50]

& Sari, R.\ 2012, , 747, 2, 88

Nakar, E. & Sari, R.\ 2012, , 747, 2, 88. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/88

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/88 2012
[51]

doi:10.1086/497296

Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R.\ 2005, , 635, 1, 516. doi:10.1086/497296

work page doi:10.1086/497296 2005
[52]

& Dai, Z.-G.\ 2024, , 977, 1, 123

Pang, S.-L. & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2024, , 977, 1, 123. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9007

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9007 2024
[53]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4

Perna, R., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2021z, , 915, 1, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4
[54]

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd319

Perna, R., Lazzati, D., & Cantiello, M.\ 2021b, , 906, 2, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd319

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd319 2041
[55]

M., & Kallman, T

Proga, D., Stone, J. M., & Kallman, T. R.\ 2000, , 543, 2, 686. doi:10.1086/317154

work page doi:10.1086/317154 2000
[56]

M., Granot, J., & Beniamini, P.\ 2025, , 988, 2, L68

Rahaman, S. M., Granot, J., & Beniamini, P.\ 2025, , 988, 2, L68. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aded07

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aded07 2025
[57]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stad816

Ray, M., Lazzati, D., & Perna, R.\ 2023, , 521, 3, 4233. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad816

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad816 2023
[58]

& Elvis, M.\ 2010, , 516, A89

Risaliti, G. & Elvis, M.\ 2010, , 516, A89. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912579

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912579 2010
[59]

C., Bom, C

Rodr \' guez-Ram \' rez, J. C., Bom, C. R., Fraga, B., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 3, 6076. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3575

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3575 2024
[60]

P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

Rossi, E. M., Lodato, G., Armitage, P. J., et al.\ 2010, , 401, 3, 2021. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15802.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15802.x 2010
[61]

doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1896

Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., & Kocsis, B.\ 2025, , 544, 4, 4576. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1896

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1896 2025
[62]

Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P.\ 1979,

work page 1979
[63]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

Santana, R., Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P.\ 2014, , 785, 1, 29. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/29 2014
[64]

& Esin, A

Sari, R. & Esin, A. A.\ 2001, , 548, 2, 787. doi:10.1086/319003

work page doi:10.1086/319003 2001
[65]

& Piran, T.\ 1999, , 520, 2, 641

Sari, R. & Piran, T.\ 1999, , 520, 2, 641. doi:10.1086/307508

work page doi:10.1086/307508 1999
[66]

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

Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R.\ 1998, , 497, 1, L17. doi:10.1086/311269

work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998
[67]

& Piran, T.\ 1995, , 455, L143

Sari, R. & Piran, T.\ 1995, , 455, L143. doi:10.1086/309835

work page doi:10.1086/309835 1995
[68]

B., Armitage, P

Salvesen, G., Simon, J. B., Armitage, P. J., et al.\ 2016, , 457, 1, 857. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw029

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw029 2016
[69]

S., Wills, B

Shang, Z., Brotherton, M. S., Wills, B. J., et al.\ 2011, , 196, 1, 2. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/2

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/2 2011
[70]

P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

Shen, R.-F. & Zhang, B.\ 2009, , 398, 4, 1936. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15212.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15212.x 2009
[71]

and Copin, Y

Sirko, E. & Goodman, J.\ 2003, , 341, 2, 501. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x 2003
[72]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

Sironi, L., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J.\ 2013, , 771, 1, 54. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/54 2013
[73]

M., Page, M

Symeonidis, M., Giblin, B. M., Page, M. J., et al.\ 2016, , 459, 1, 257. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw667

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw667 2016
[74]

Electromagnetic Flares from Compact-Object Mergers in AGN Disks: Signatures and Predictions

Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., Kimura, S. S., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2604.05020. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.05020

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05020 2026
[75]

S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 1, 21

Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 1, 21. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b 2024
[76]

S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 1, 13

Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 1, 13. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4bb

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4bb 2023
[77]

2020, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B.\ 2020, , 898, 1, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c 2020
[78]

C., et al.\ 2021, , 916, 2, L17

Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., et al.\ 2021, , 916, 2, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46 2021
[79]

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al.\ 2015, , 219, 1, 9. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9 2015
[80]

doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100490

Wang, Y., Chen, C., & Zhang, B.\ 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 50, 100490. doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100490

work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100490 2026

Showing first 80 references.