pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04966 · v1 · pith:4JIIODWKnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Bridging Roche Lobe Overflow and micro-TDEs: The Runaway Evolution of Eccentric Mass Transfer in Star-Black Hole Binaries

Tian-Shun Chen , Dong Lai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords eccentric mass transferRoche lobe overflowmicro-TDEsstar-black hole binariesSPH simulationsrunaway disruptionstable mass transferpericenter distance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Eccentric star-black hole binaries evolve either to runaway stellar disruption or to stable mass transfer depending on pericenter distance.

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

The paper uses SPH simulations to track a Sun-like star orbiting a 10 solar mass black hole at eccentricities from 0.3 to 0.7 and pericenter distances from 3.33 to 3.57 times the tidal radius. It shows that the systems follow one of two paths set by whether mass loss at closest approach makes the star expand faster than the orbit widens. Below a pericenter of about 3.45 the star expands adiabatically, fills its Roche lobe unstably, and disrupts completely. Above 3.57 the orbit widens enough to keep the transfer stable for at least 150 orbits. The stripped material then either feeds the black hole at hyper-Eddington rates or produces repeating flares.

Core claim

Binary systems may undergo mass transfer while maintaining significant orbital eccentricities. Stellar-mass black holes can strip stars on eccentric orbits and produce micro-tidal disruption events. Our SPH simulations reveal that these binaries can evolve along two distinct pathways, dictated by the competition between mass-transfer-driven stellar expansion and orbital widening: (i) Runaway disruption (b0≲3.45), in which mass loss at pericenter drives adiabatic expansion of the stellar envelope, leading to unstable Roche-lobe overflow and runaway disruption of the star. (ii) Stable mass transfer (b0≳3.57), in which the binary settles into a long-lived, stable mass-transfer phase lasting up

What carries the argument

The competition between mass-transfer-driven stellar expansion and orbital widening, tracked via SPH simulations of pericenter mass loss over tens to over 100 orbits.

If this is right

  • For b0 ≲ 3.45 the stripped debris forms a thick accretion flow with hyper-Eddington accretion rates onto the black hole, potentially powering fast X-ray/UV or blue/optical transients.
  • For b0 ≳ 3.57 the binary settles into a long-lived stable mass-transfer phase regulated by orbital expansion from pericenter mass loss.
  • Runaway cases end in complete stellar disruption via unstable Roche-lobe overflow.
  • These eccentric mass-transfer events could manifest observationally as repeating, quasi-periodic flares.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the bifurcation is real, X-ray monitoring campaigns could separate periodic flare sources from one-time transients by their orbital periods.
  • The narrow transition window between 3.45 and 3.57 invites targeted simulations at finer b0 spacing to test whether the switch is continuous or abrupt.
  • Repeating the runs with different stellar masses or rotation rates would show whether the same pericenter thresholds apply beyond the Sun-like case examined here.

Load-bearing premise

The SPH simulations with the chosen resolution and artificial viscosity accurately capture the long-term adiabatic response of the stellar envelope and the orbital evolution over tens to over 100 periods without dominant numerical artifacts.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution simulation or observation of a system with initial b0 equal to 3.5 that shows neither runaway disruption within roughly 50 orbits nor stable transfer persisting beyond 100 orbits would falsify the claimed sharp bifurcation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04966 by Dong Lai, Tian-Shun Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Iterative calculation of bound particles and stel￾lar centroid. The initial centroid is determined by a 20% maximum-density threshold; iteration is performed to up￾date the bound particle set and centroid until convergence. we compute the semi-major axis and eccentricity of the bound star relative to the BH using two complementary methods. (i) Dynamical method. We calculate the specific or￾bital energy E a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Snapshots of gas density slices in the orbital plane (z = 0) for Run A (with e0 = 0.55 and b0 = 3.33). The cyan cross represents the location of the BH. For panels (b), (c), and (d), the bottom sub-panels provide a zoomed-in view of the central region near the BH. The figure illustrates four distinct stages of the star-BH encounter: (a1) & (a2) initial setup of the system at apocenter and the first pericen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spatial evolution of the entropy increase, ∆S = ln(K/K0) where K = p/ρ5/3 and K0 is the initial value, for Run A (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of stellar mass loss during tidal peeling for Run A (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase space trajectory of the runaway mass￾loss instability for Run A. We plot the mass loss rate M˙ loss against the Roche lobe filling factor at pericenter (fperi ≡ R∗/RL). The points are colored by time. The red dashed line marks fperi = 1. A stable system would find an equilibrium near fperi ≈ 1 with a constant M˙ loss. Instead, our simulation shows a clear runaway trajectory moving upward and to the r… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the evolution of R∗, RL, ζad, and ζL for Run A. Initially (t ≲ 30P0), the star resides within its Roche lobe (R∗ < RL), although both radii increase over time: RL due to pericenter expansion and R∗ due to mass loss. Since ζad < ζL holds, the stellar radius grows at a significantly steeper rate than the Roche lobe. This differential growth leads to the crossover of R∗ and RL at t ≃ 34P0, where the sta… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the mass supply/accretion rate M˙ acc onto the BH for Run A. The dimensionless accretion rate ( ˙macc ≡ M˙ acc/M˙ Edd) is derived from the cumulative mass crossing the sink radius around the BH. The late-time decay is approximately described by ˙macc ∝ t −9/4 . The inset zooms in on the final pre-disruption cycles. In the inset, r denotes the binary separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Results for Run E (with b0 = 3.33 and e0 = 0.70). The cumulative mass loss reaches about 0.8 M0 by t ≃ 35P0, followed by disruption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Results for Run F (with b0 = 3.57 and e0 = 0.30). The cumulative mass loss at t = 35P0 is about 0.05 M0, and the binary reaches a stable mass-transfer state. expansion of the stellar envelope. Around t ≃ 80P0, the positive feedback loop becomes dominant, and by t ≃ 85P0, the cumulative mass loss exceeds 40% of the stellar mass. This delayed runaway indicates that Run C is still on the disruptive side of t… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Results for Run D (with b0 = 3.33 and e0 = 0.30). The cumulative mass loss reaches about 0.6 M0 by t ≃ 30P0, followed by disruption. Run C has the same eccentricity as Runs A and B (e0 = 0.55), but starts at the intermediate distance b0 = 3.45 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Binary systems may undergo mass transfer while maintaining significant orbital eccentricities. Stellar-mass black holes (sBHs) can strip stars on eccentric orbits and produce micro-tidal disruption events (micro-TDEs). While previous hydrodynamical studies have focused on compact systems on the verge of disruption, the transition between self-regulated eccentric mass transfer and runaway disruption remains poorly understood. We present SPH simulations of a Sun-like star interacting with a $10\,M_\odot$ sBH across a range of initial eccentricities ($e_0=0.30$--$0.70$) and pericenter distances ($b_0=3.33$--$3.57$ in units of the tidal radius), tracking the systems for tens to over 100 orbital periods. Our results reveal that these binaries can evolve along two distinct pathways, dictated by the competition between mass-transfer-driven stellar expansion and orbital widening: (i) Runaway disruption ($b_0\lesssim 3.45$), in which mass loss at pericenter drives adiabatic expansion of the stellar envelope, leading to unstable Roche-lobe overflow and runaway disruption of the star. The stripped debris forms a thick accretion flow with hyper-Eddington accretion rates onto the sBH, potentially powering fast X-ray/UV or blue/optical transients. (ii) Stable mass transfer ($b_0\gtrsim 3.57$), in which the binary settles into a long-lived, stable mass-transfer phase lasting up to 150 orbits (the limit of our simulation), regulated by orbital expansion from pericenter mass loss. These eccentric mass-transfer events could manifest observationally as repeating, quasi-periodic flares.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses SPH hydrodynamical simulations to study eccentric mass transfer in Sun-like star + 10 M⊙ black hole binaries with initial eccentricities 0.3–0.7 and pericenter distances b0 = 3.33–3.57 (in tidal radii). It reports that the systems bifurcate into two pathways: (i) runaway disruption for b0 ≲ 3.45, driven by mass-loss-induced adiabatic stellar expansion leading to unstable RLOF, hyper-Eddington accretion, and micro-TDE-like debris; (ii) stable, long-lived mass transfer (up to 150 orbits) for b0 ≳ 3.57, regulated by orbital expansion. These are presented as bridging Roche-lobe overflow and micro-TDEs with potential for repeating flares.

Significance. If the reported bifurcation is physically robust rather than numerical, the work would provide a concrete evolutionary link between stable eccentric mass transfer and runaway disruption, with direct implications for transient rates and accretion physics in stellar-mass BH binaries. The long integration times and explicit mapping to observable signatures are strengths, but the absence of documented convergence or energy-conservation metrics over >100 orbits limits the current weight of the result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Simulation setup and results sections] Simulation setup and results sections: The central bifurcation at b0 ≈ 3.45–3.57 is extracted from SPH runs integrated for tens to >100 orbits, yet the manuscript provides no convergence tests in particle number, artificial viscosity parameters, or global energy conservation diagnostics. Without these, it is impossible to rule out that the reported adiabatic envelope expansion (and thus the distinction between runaway and stable pathways) is influenced by numerical dissipation or heating on orbital timescales.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The range b0 = 3.33–3.57 is stated, but the precise mapping of the two pathways to the sampled b0 values would benefit from an explicit table or figure reference in the abstract itself.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for recognizing the potential implications of the reported bifurcation between runaway disruption and stable eccentric mass transfer. We address the major comment on numerical convergence below and will incorporate the requested diagnostics in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation setup and results sections] Simulation setup and results sections: The central bifurcation at b0 ≈ 3.45–3.57 is extracted from SPH runs integrated for tens to >100 orbits, yet the manuscript provides no convergence tests in particle number, artificial viscosity parameters, or global energy conservation diagnostics. Without these, it is impossible to rule out that the reported adiabatic envelope expansion (and thus the distinction between runaway and stable pathways) is influenced by numerical dissipation or heating on orbital timescales.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript lacks explicit documentation of convergence tests and energy conservation metrics, which is a substantive limitation for long-term SPH integrations. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) presenting: (i) resolution studies at doubled particle number for representative runs at b0 = 3.45 and b0 = 3.57, (ii) sensitivity tests varying the artificial viscosity parameters, and (iii) time-series plots of total energy (kinetic + gravitational + internal) and its fractional conservation error over the full integration lengths (>100 orbits). These additions will directly demonstrate that the adiabatic envelope expansion and the bifurcation are not driven by numerical dissipation or heating. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of numerical hydrodynamics

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes of SPH simulations evolved over tens to >100 orbits for different initial b0 values. The claimed bifurcation at b0 ~3.45-3.57 between runaway disruption (adiabatic envelope expansion) and stable mass transfer (orbital widening) is an emergent numerical result, not an algebraic identity, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or reduction via self-citation. No load-bearing equations or uniqueness theorems are invoked that collapse to the inputs by construction. The central claims remain independent of the simulation setup itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the outcomes of SPH simulations whose validity depends on standard hydrodynamical assumptions and on the specific initial conditions chosen for the grid of runs.

free parameters (2)
  • initial eccentricity e0
    Input parameter scanned from 0.30 to 0.70
  • initial pericenter distance b0
    Input parameter scanned from 3.33 to 3.57 in tidal-radius units
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Smoothed-particle hydrodynamics with the adopted resolution and artificial viscosity faithfully reproduces the adiabatic expansion of the stellar envelope and the orbital response to mass loss over >100 periods
    Invoked implicitly by the decision to run and interpret the long-term SPH integrations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5846 in / 1411 out tokens · 31240 ms · 2026-06-28T05:05:04.082262+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

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Bandopadhyay, A., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2025, ApJ, 987, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add9a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add9a5 2025

  2. [2]

    B., & Granot, J

    Beniamini, P., Perets, H. B., & Granot, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22779 14

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22779 2025

  3. [3]

    C., Ryu, T., et al

    Broggi, L., Stone, N. C., Ryu, T., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 48, doi: 10.33232/001c.120086

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.120086 2024

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b24

    Chen, J.-H., Dai, L., Liu, S.-F., & Ou, J.-W. 2024, ApJ, 977, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b24 2024

  5. [5]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2019, ApJL, 883, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab412d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab412d 2019

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 71, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/71

    Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V. 2016, ApJ, 825, 71, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/71

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/71 2016

  7. [7]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv350

    Rosswog, S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv350

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv350 2015

  8. [8]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/74 2011

  9. [9]

    S., & Dosopoulou, F

    Hamers, A. S., & Dosopoulou, F. 2019, ApJ, 872, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab001d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab001d 2019

  10. [10]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412

    work page doi:10.1086/165412 1987

  11. [11]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533 Kıro˘ glu, F., Lombardi, J. C., Kremer, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc24c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533 2023

  12. [12]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

    Kremer, K., Lombardi, J. C., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f 2022

  13. [13]

    L., et al

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abeb14 2021

  14. [14]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts567

    Li, G., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts567 2013

  15. [15]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    Linial, I., & Quataert, E. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470 —. 2024b, ApJ, 974, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67cf

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3470

  16. [16]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d 2023

  17. [17]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b 2025

  18. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab459

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Raveh, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab459

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab459 2021

  19. [19]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2203 2023

  20. [20]

    Manukian, H., Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & O’Leary, R. M. 2013, ApJL, 771, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/l28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/l28 2013

  21. [21]

    R., Coughlin, E

    Miles, P. R., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2020, ApJ, 899, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9f 2020

  22. [22]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551 1992

  23. [23]

    J., & Gingold, R

    Monaghan, J. J., & Gingold, R. A. 1983, Journal of Computational Physics, 52, 374, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(83)90036-0 O’Connor, B., Gill, R., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1741 Paczy´ nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(83)90036-0 1983

  24. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05243

    Parkosidis, A., Toonen, S., Dosopoulou, F., & Laplace, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05243

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.05243 2025

  25. [25]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  26. [26]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25 Reg¨ os, E., Bailey, V. C., & Mardling, R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 544, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08813.x

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.25 2018

  27. [27]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, ApJ, 904, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce 2020

  28. [28]

    E., et al

    Ryu, T., Sari, R., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555651

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555651 2025

  29. [29]

    F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1170, doi: 10.1086/520911 —. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1387, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1387

    work page doi:10.1086/520911 2007

  30. [30]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae773 2024

  31. [31]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2011

  32. [32]

    H., N´ emeth, P., et al

    Vos, J., Østensen, R. H., N´ emeth, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322200

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322200 2013

  33. [33]

    2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 264

    Vos, J., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., Chen, X., et al. 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 264

    2019

  34. [34]

    Perets, H. B. 2024, A&A, 685, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348357

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348357 2024

  35. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d3

    Xin, C., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., Wang, Y., & Ryu, T. 2024, ApJ, 961, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d3 2024

  36. [36]

    Mass Transfer in Tidally Heated Stars Orbiting Massive Black Holes and Implications for Repeating Nuclear Transients

    Yao, P. Z., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10611, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10611

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.10611 2025

  37. [37]

    Y., Mckeever, E., Arras, P., & Weinberg, N

    Yu, H., Lau, S. Y., Mckeever, E., Arras, P., & Weinberg, N. N. 2026, ApJ, 999, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3718

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3718 2026