Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Radio data show AT 2022wtn launched a delayed, unusually fast and energetic non-relativistic outflow that only matches an accretion-disk state transition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 21:31 UTC pith:YHR7TNNP

load-bearing objection Solid multi-year radio campaign on an unusually energetic thermal TDE; the state-transition conclusion is plausible but rests on a free-expansion launch-date choice that the paper itself flags as uncertain. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06777 v1 pith:YHR7TNNP submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.HE

Radio Observations of the Unusual Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022wtn: a Fast and Highly Energetic Outflow

Gavin Farley , Tanmoy Laskar , Noah Franz , Collin T. Christy , Coleman Rohde , A. J. Goodwin , Kate D. Alexander , Edo Berger
show 6 more authors
Yvette Cendes Ryan Chornock Tarraneh Eftekhari Walter W. Golay Wenbin Lu Raffaella Margutti
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventsradio astronomysupermassive black holessynchrotron equipartitionaccretion disk state transitionoutflowscircumnuclear medium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

AT 2022wtn is a tidal disruption event whose radio emission brightened months after optical discovery and stayed luminous for years. Multi-frequency VLA and GMRT observations, interpreted with an updated equipartition analysis under both spherical and conical geometries, yield a sub-relativistic outflow with velocity roughly 0.21c (spherical) or 0.41c (conical) and kinetic energy of order 10^49–10^50 erg. These numbers sit well above those of ordinary unbound debris streams, collisionally induced outflows, or accretion winds, while an on-axis relativistic jet is ruled out by luminosity, light-curve shape, and an unphysically narrow opening angle. The only mechanism that simultaneously accounts for the delayed launch, high speed, and high energy is an outflow driven by a later state transition in the newly formed accretion disk. The result places AT 2022wtn at the energetic extreme of non-relativistic radio TDEs and underscores that these events can launch outflows with a wide range of properties.

Core claim

Only an accretion-disk state-transition outflow is consistent with the equipartition energy (~3.8 imes10^49 erg spherical; ~1.8 imes10^50 erg conical) and velocity (v≈0.21c spherical; ≈0.41c conical) derived for AT 2022wtn; relativistic jets, unbound debris, collisionally-induced outflows, and ordinary accretion winds are ruled out.

What carries the argument

Updated equipartition analysis of the radio spectral peak (radius and energy from peak frequency and flux under assumed spherical or conical filling factors), which converts the observed SEDs into physical velocity, kinetic energy, magnetic field, and ambient density.

Load-bearing premise

The outflow was launched near day 138 after optical discovery and stayed in free expansion long enough that a linear radius-versus-time fit correctly recovers that launch date and the resulting velocity.

What would settle it

A denser early radio light curve or independent multiwavelength timing that forces the launch date to be much earlier or much later than day 138, or a clear free-free absorption signature that removes the need for a delayed launch, would change the derived velocity and energy enough to reopen the excluded outflow models.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Non-relativistic radio TDEs can reach kinetic energies and speeds previously associated only with the most powerful thermal events, expanding the known range of outflow properties.
  • Delayed radio brightening can be a direct signature of a later accretion-disk state transition rather than of unbound debris or prompt winds.
  • Both spherical and mildly collimated geometries remain viable; distinguishing them requires better constraints on opening angle or ambient density.
  • Long-term multi-frequency radio monitoring is essential for catching state-transition outflows that appear months after the optical peak.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If state-transition outflows are common, a substantial fraction of the late-time radio TDE population may be powered by the same delayed-accretion mechanism rather than by prompt debris or winds.
  • The high ambient densities inferred near the black hole imply that circumnuclear gas in merging hosts can remain dense enough to produce luminous radio emission even at large radii.
  • A single multi-epoch radio campaign that samples both the free-expansion and decelerating phases can already discriminate among the main competing outflow models without requiring X-ray or gamma-ray detections.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents multi-epoch VLA and GMRT radio observations of the TDE AT 2022wtn spanning 97–866 days after optical discovery. The authors fit self-absorbed synchrotron SEDs (Granot & Sari 2002 form, νm < νa < νc), fix p to its mean value 3.26, and apply an updated equipartition formalism (Rohde et al., in prep., building on Barniol Duran et al. 2013 and Matsumoto & Piran 2023) for both spherical (fA = 1) and conical (fA = 0.1) geometries. They report β ≈ 0.21c and Eeq ∼ 3.8 × 10^49 erg (spherical) or β ≈ 0.41c and Eeq ∼ 1.8 × 10^50 erg (conical), with a circumnuclear density profile next ∝ R^−2.08. After excluding free-free absorption, a cooling break, and a relativistic jet, they compare the derived energy and velocity against unbound debris, collisionally-induced outflows, accretion-driven winds, and an accretion-disk state-transition outflow, concluding that only the last is consistent. The central claim is that AT 2022wtn is a uniquely powerful non-relativistic radio TDE whose outflow is best explained by a delayed state-transition launch at δt ≈ 138 days.

Significance. If the high β and Eeq and the state-transition interpretation hold, the paper adds a well-sampled, multi-frequency radio data set and a carefully documented equipartition analysis to the growing sample of non-relativistic radio TDEs, and it strengthens the case that delayed disk-state transitions can power luminous, fast outflows. Strengths include quantitative rejection of free-free absorption (Appendix B) and cooling-break alternatives (Section 3.3), systematic comparison to other TDEs with a consistent equipartition pipeline (Figure 5), public modeling code, and an explicit multiwavelength consistency check against Onori et al. (2025). The result is of clear interest to the TDE and radio-transient communities even if the launch-date assumption is later refined.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 4.2 and Eq. (7): the reported β ≈ 0.21c (spherical) / 0.41c (conical) that exclude unbound debris, CIO, and accretion winds rest on a free-expansion launch date of δt ≈ 138 days obtained by linear extrapolation of the first five Req points. The paper itself notes that a pure power-law fit yields R ∝ t^0.53 and a launch near 179 days, and that a broken power-law (free expansion then Sedov-like) is allowed but unconstrained. A later launch by only ∼40 days lowers β into the ∼0.1c range already accommodated by the competing models. The exclusion of those models is therefore only as secure as the free-expansion assumption over the first five epochs. The authors should either (i) present a quantitative sensitivity study of β and Eeq versus launch date (including the power-law and broken-power-law cases) and restate the model comparison with the resulting range, or (ii) provide indepen
  2. Section 5.3.5 and the abstract: the claim that “only” an accretion-disk state-transition outflow is consistent is stronger than the evidence once launch-date uncertainty is acknowledged. Even under the preferred launch date, the spherical β ≈ 0.21c sits at the upper edge of the 0.05–0.3c range quoted from Wu et al. (2025), and the conical β ≈ 0.41c exceeds it. The paper should soften the language to “favored” or “most consistent among the models considered,” and should explicitly note which of the two geometries remains inside the state-transition velocity window after the launch-date sensitivity is folded in.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section 3.2 / Appendix D: fixing p to the mean 3.26 after free fits show large epoch-to-epoch variation is reasonable, but the text should state the quantitative impact on Eeq and Req of using the free-p posteriors (or of fixing s = 1) so readers can judge the systematic floor.
  2. Section 4.1 / footnote 17: the choice of fΩ = 4 (spherical) versus 0.1 (conical) produces a factor-of-40 difference in next relative to some earlier TDE analyses; a short sentence clarifying why this geometric convention is preferred would help cross-paper comparisons.
  3. Appendix C: for the conical geometry the calculated γm ∼ 4 (rather than the assumed γm = 2) reduces Eeq by ∼40 %. This should be flagged in the main text when conical energies are quoted, or the conical comparison sample should be recomputed with consistent γm.
  4. Figure 3 and Table 2: the final epoch shows an upturn in Fp; a brief remark on whether this is physical or an artifact of the GMRT/VLA joint fit would be useful.
  5. Typographical: “F arley”, “W alter”, “calu-lation”, and a few missing spaces after periods appear in the draft; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: equipartition parameters are derived from observed SED peaks via standard formulae; model exclusion follows from comparison to external expectations under an explicit free-expansion assumption, not by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1, Eqs. (3)–(4) and surrounding text]
    "We employ the equations derived in Rohde et al. (in prep.), a simultaneous application of additional p-dependent adjustments (R.-F. Shen & B. Zhang 2009) to the equipartition formalism presented in R. Barniol Duran et al. (2013) and T. Matsumoto & T. Piran (2023)..."

    The updated equipartition expressions that supply every Req and Eeq value are taken from a contemporaneous work by an overlapping author set (C. Rohde is a co-author). The citation is not machine-checked or externally falsified beyond the paper’s own recomputation of a few literature TDEs; however, the formulae recover the standard Newtonian limits and the paper’s central claim does not rest solely on the update, so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's chain is observational: multi-epoch SEDs are fit for νp and Fp (p fixed to the data-driven mean 3.26 after free-p variation is judged unphysical), then Req and Eeq are obtained from the Newtonian equipartition expressions of Barniol Duran et al. (2013) / Matsumoto & Piran (2023) with p-dependent corrections (Rohde et al. in prep.). Velocity follows from the kinematic definition β = [ct/Req(1+z)+1]^{-1} once a launch epoch is chosen. The launch date δt≈138 d is obtained by linear extrapolation of the first five Req points under free expansion; the paper itself reports the alternative power-law fit (R∝t^{0.53}, launch ~179 d) and notes that a broken power-law is unconstrained. The high-β / high-E values are then compared to literature ranges for unbound debris, CIO, accretion winds and state-transition outflows. None of these steps reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by definition, nor does a self-citation uniqueness theorem force the geometry or the final model choice. The single minor self-citation (Rohde et al. in prep. for the updated formulae) is validated by recomputing literature TDEs and is not load-bearing for the exclusion argument. The free-expansion assumption is a genuine modeling choice that affects absolute β, but that is an assumption risk, not circularity. Score 1 reflects only that minor self-citation; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard synchrotron/equipartition machinery plus a handful of fitted or chosen numbers (mean p, εe, filling factors, launch epoch) and the domain assumption that the radio emission is non-relativistic and single-zone. No new physical entities are invented; the state-transition scenario is taken from existing literature and shown to be the only one consistent with the derived numbers.

free parameters (5)
  • electron power-law index p = 3.26 (mean)
    Left free in MCMC, found to vary unphysically; fixed to mean value 3.26 for all subsequent analysis (Section 3.2, Appendix D).
  • electron energy fraction εe = 0.1
    Fixed to 0.1 by convention to obtain minimum energy (Section 4.1).
  • area filling factor fA = 1 or 0.1
    Set to 1 (spherical) or 0.1 (conical ~20° opening angle) by hand (Section 4.1).
  • outflow launch date = 138 ± 5 days
    Inferred by linear fit of first five Req points under free-expansion assumption, giving δt≈138 d (Section 4.2).
  • volume filling factor / shell thickness = 0.36
    Emitting region assumed confined to shell of thickness 0.1 R, yielding fV≈0.36 (Section 4.1).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Electron and magnetic energy densities are near equipartition (ε=1), giving a lower limit on total energy.
    Standard assumption in radio TDE literature; invoked throughout Section 4 to convert νp, Fp into Req and Eeq.
  • domain assumption Radio SEDs are single-zone synchrotron with break ordering νm < νa < νc and νp = νa.
    Justified by spectral shape and self-consistency checks in Appendix C; used for all SED fits (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Outflow is non-relativistic (Γ=1).
    Supported by low luminosity and lack of X-ray/γ-ray counterparts; used to set Γ=1 in filling-factor definitions (Section 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Ambient density is obtained by dividing Ne by the geometric volume swept by the shock (no extra compression factor of 1/4).
    Explicit choice differing from some prior TDE papers; explained in footnote 16 (Section 4.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29781 in / 3019 out tokens · 34881 ms · 2026-07-10T21:31:36.184542+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present multi-epoch, multi-frequency radio observations of the tidal disruption event (TDE) AT 2022wtn, obtained with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), spanning 97-866 days after optical detection. The peak radio flux density increases until 300 days post optical discovery, flattens out for several hundred days, then begins to decrease at 534 days. Utilizing an updated equipartition analysis framework, we estimate several physical parameters of the event and the surrounding medium. We model AT 2022wtn with two different geometries: a spherical and a conical emitting region. The spherical outflow model gives an expansion velocity of $v\approx0.21c$ and a kinetic energy of $\sim3.8\times10^{49}$ erg, and the conical outflow model yields a higher energy ($\sim1.8\times10^{50}$) and velocity ($v\approx0.41c$) than the spherical case. After ruling out the possibility of a relativistic jet, we consider several potential origins for sub-relativistic outflow regions in TDEs including unbound debris streams, collisionally-induced outflows, an accretion-driven wind, and an outflow from an accretion disk state transition, and find only an accretion disk state transition outflow to be consistent with the high energy and velocity found in our equipartition results. AT 2022wtn is a uniquely powerful non-relativistic radio-emitting TDE, and joins a growing population that display a diverse range of outflow properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06777 by A. J. Goodwin, Coleman Rohde, Collin T. Christy, Edo Berger, Gavin Farley, Kate D. Alexander, Noah Franz, Raffaella Margutti, Ryan Chornock, Tanmoy Laskar, Tarraneh Eftekhari, Walter W. Golay, Wenbin Lu, Yvette Cendes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: radio luminosity light curves of AT 2022wtn in several frequency bands. The early triangular data point in the Ku-band is a 3σ upper limit. The flux increases on different timescales in each band, but there is a clear brightening of the source at δt ∼ 200 days. Right: radio luminosity vs. rest frame time of AT 2022wtn in Ku-band (12-18 GHz) compared to a sample population of TDEs with radio emission … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radio SEDs from our VLA and GMRT data over eight epochs. The GMRT data point is added to the eighth SED fit due to the observations being close in time (δt = 841 and δt = 866), as indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Peak frequency (νp, top) and peak flux (Fp, bot￾tom) through time . We assume νp = νa for our analysis. The values shown in these plots are obtained by setting p to the average value of p ≈ 3.26. While the peak frequency decreases through time, the peak flux initially rises, then begins to decline. suggestive of an outflow launched several months post￾disruption (for more discussion on the launch date, see… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the physical properties derived in an equipartition analysis of our SED best-fit parameters. Each subplot includes the results of the spherical geometry (pink) and conical geometry (blue). On the top row we show the emitting radius, outflow energy, and magnetic field strength as a function of time in the rest frame. The bottom row displays the number of radiating electrons, number density of e… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The outflow kinetic energy and velocity of several previously studied TDEs; AT 2022wtn is shown with circles and squares. Solutions for both the spherical and conical geometries are displayed in the same color scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Calculated values for νm and νc (for several different values of ϵB) plotted alongside the peak frequency νp. The left plot shows results for the spherical geometry, and the right plot shows results for the conical geometry. The shaded region represents the range of frequency that our data covers. To assess the self-consistency of our choice of model in Section 3 (νm < νa < νc), we calculate the location o… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the synchrotron energy index p through time, when left as a free parameter in our MCMC modeling. The dashed line represents the average value and the shaded region is the standard deviation (across all epochs) of the per-epoch medians. We also note that while the expression for γm used here is consistent with the assumed γm = 2 in Section 4 for the spherical model (i.e. the calculated γm = 2 f… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Best fit MQ24 models for the radio SEDs of AT 2022wtn. The blue points are the observations and the grey lines are the last 1,000 models in the MCMC chain. Table A2. Best fit parameters from the MQ24 model δt p log10 βΓ log10 n log10 ϵT δtoutf low 197.58 2.04+0.03 −0.02 −0.79+0.12 −0.10 3.27+0.16 −0.25 −2.33+1.10 −1.16 113.18+27.79 −27.91 233.45 2.51+0.05 −0.05 −0.79+0.17 −0.12 2.87+0.23 −0.35 −2.23+1.11 −… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The temporal evolution of the best fit parameters resulting from a fit of the MQ24 model to our data. Points are the median value of the chain and errorbars represent the 68% uncertainty. Alexander, K. D., Velzen, S. v., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12729… view at source ↗

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

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , abstract =

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  2. [2]

    D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25 18 Figure 9.The temporal evolution of the best fit parameters resulting from a fit of the MQ24 model to our data. Points are the median value of the chain and errorbars represent the 68% un...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  3. [3]

    D., Velzen, S

    Alexander, K. D., Velzen, S. v., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  4. [4]

    D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al

    Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12729, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12729

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12729 2025

  5. [5]

    M., Mooley, K

    Anderson, M. M., Mooley, K. P., Hallinan, G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b 2020

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., Keller, R., et al. 2016, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2018

  7. [7]

    G., et al

    Berger, E., Zauderer, A., Pooley, G. G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  8. [8]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1246 , journal=

    Bonnerot, C., & Lu, W. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 1374–1391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1246 Bradley Cenko, S., Krimm, H. A., Horesh, A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 19

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1246 2020

  10. [10]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Cendes, Y., Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a 2021

  11. [11]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 2022

  12. [12]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

  13. [13]

    Continued Rapid Radio Brightening of the Tidal Disruption Event AT2018hyz

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Continued Rapid Radio Brightening of the Tidal Disruption Event AT2018hyz, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08998

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08998 2025

  14. [14]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    work page doi:10.1086/305676 1998

  15. [15]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Laskar, T., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15972, 1

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b 2024

  17. [17]

    T., Alexander, K

    Christy, C. T., Alexander, K. D., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, Dichotomy in Long-Lived Radio Emission from Tidal Disruption Events AT 2020zso and AT 2021sdu: Multi-Component Outflows vs. Host Contamination, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.14317

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.14317 2025

  18. [18]

    Miller, M. C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 De Colle, F., Guillochon, J., Naiman, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/103

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

  19. [19]

    Alexander, K. D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8e0 2018

  20. [20]

    R., & Kochanek, C

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

    work page doi:10.1086/185567 1989

  21. [21]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , date =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067

  22. [22]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, L55, doi: 10.1086/338119

    work page doi:10.1086/338119 2001

  23. [23]

    2026a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9516, doi: 10.21105/joss.09516

    Franz, N., Alexander, K., & Gomez, S. 2026a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9516, doi: 10.21105/joss.09516

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.09516

  24. [24]

    D., Gomez, S., et al

    Franz, N., Alexander, K. D., Gomez, S., et al. 2026b, ApJ, 999, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e

  25. [25]

    W., et al

    Fulton, M., Srivastav, S., Smith, K. W., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3389, 1

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    2025, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.17.0rc1, v1.17.0rc1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17873309

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2025, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.17.0rc1, v1.17.0rc1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17873309

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17873309 2025

  27. [27]

    J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 5328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac333

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac333 2022

  28. [28]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3127

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3127 2023

  29. [29]

    J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Goodwin, A. J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1 2025

  30. [30]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2454

    Granot, J., De Colle, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2454

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2454 2018

  31. [31]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    work page doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  32. [32]

    ApJ , author =

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

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

  33. [33]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb620

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb620 2025

  34. [34]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  35. [35]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/254295a0 1975

  36. [36]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Horesh, A., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8 2021

  37. [37]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87 – 90

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Krolik, J., Piran, T., Svirski, G., & Cheng, R. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 127, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/127

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/127 2016

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02147, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02147

    Li, W., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02147, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02147

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02147 2025

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

    Lu, W., & Bonnerot, C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3405 2020

  44. [44]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97

    Margalit, B., & Quataert, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97 20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97 2021

  45. [45]

    The Peak Frequency and Luminosity of Synchrotron Emitting Shocks: from Non-Relativistic to Ultra-Relativistic Explosions

    Margalit, B., & Quataert, E. 2024, The Peak Frequency and Luminosity of Synchrotron Emitting Shocks: from Non-Relativistic to Ultra-Relativistic Explosions, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.07048

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07048 2024

  46. [46]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4565–4576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1269 2023

  47. [47]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 937, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba 2022

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x

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

  50. [50]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc955

    Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc955

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc955 2021

  51. [51]

    J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b4d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b4d 2025

  52. [52]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2206

    Nicholl, M., Lanning, D., Ramsden, P., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2206

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2206 2022

  53. [53]

    The case of AT2022wtn: a Tidal Disruption Event in an interacting galaxy

    Onori, F., Nicholl, M., Ramsden, P., et al. 2025, The case of AT2022wtn: a Tidal Disruption Event in an interacting galaxy, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21686 pandas development team, T. 2025, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v3.0.0rc0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17806077

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21686 2025

  54. [54]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  55. [55]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9 2017

  56. [56]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    work page doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  57. [57]

    S., Fender, R., et al

    Rhodes, L., Bright, J. S., Fender, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad344

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad344 2023

  58. [58]

    2026, equipartition, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19223150

    Rohde, C., Franz, N., Laskar, T., & Christy, C. 2026, equipartition, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19223150

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19223150 2026

  59. [59]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    work page 1986

  60. [60]

    The First Radio-Bright Off-Nuclear TDE 2024tvd Reveals the Fastest-Evolving Double-Peaked Radio Emission

    Sfaradi, I., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2025, The First Radio-Bright Off-Nuclear TDE 2024tvd Reveals the Fastest-Evolving Double-Peaked Radio Emission, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.03807

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.03807 2025

  61. [61]

    2009, title Clustering of luminous red galaxies - III

    Shen, R.-F., & Zhang, B. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1936–1950, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15212.x

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

  62. [62]

    2009, title Clustering of luminous red galaxies - III

    Strubbe, L. E., & Quataert, E. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace) van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W.-S., Onori, F., Hung, T., &

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x 2009

  63. [63]

    2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    Arcavi, I. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z 2020

  64. [64]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  65. [65]

    2025, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.4, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., Van-Lane, P., Wu, K., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2025, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.4, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17654855 2025

  66. [66]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    work page doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2024

  67. [67]

    C., Tsuna, D., Mockler, B., & Piro, A

    Wu, S. C., Tsuna, D., Mockler, B., & Piro, A. L. 2025, Delayed radio emission in tidal disruption events from collisions of outflows driven by disk instabilities, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.14008

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Yalinewich, A., Steinberg, E., Piran, T., & Krolik, J. H. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1567 2019

  69. [69]

    A Massive Black Hole 0.8 kpc from the Host Nucleus Revealed by the Offset Tidal Disruption Event AT2024tvd

    Yao, Y., Chornock, R., Ward, C., et al. 2025, A Massive Black Hole 0.8 kpc from the Host Nucleus Revealed by the Offset Tidal Disruption Event AT2024tvd, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17661

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    and Berger, E

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 425, doi: 10.1038/nature10366

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10366 2011

  71. [71]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 702, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02502-0

    Zhang, W., Shu, X., Sun, L., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 702, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02502-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02502-0 2025