Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd

Amit Kumar; Antonio Cabrera-Lavers; Bin Ma; Brajesh Kumar; Chun Chen; Claudia P. Guti\'errez; David Aguado; Francesca Onori; Fr\'ed\'erick Poidevin; G. Pignata

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 127 references

Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tidal disruption event reveals an early near-infrared excess best explained by free-free emission from a reprocessing envelope, plus a disk-to-corona X-ray transition near day 178.

desk verdict Solid TDE data paper with a likely real NIR excess and clean X-ray state transition, but the break-evolution claim is contradicted by the paper's own table. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14696 v1 pith:7PQBVEFA submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.HE

Yongxin Wu , Yanan Wang , Thomas M. Reynolds , Shuyuan Wei , Shiyan Zhong , Zikun Lin , Megan Newsome , Sebastian Gomez

show 33 more authors

Iair Arcavi Panos Charalampopoulos Chun Chen Rongfeng Shen Ning-Chen Sun David Aguado Ismael Pérez-Fournon Frédérick Poidevin Zhongnan Dong Niu Li Weijian Guo Hu Zou Jingbo Sun Nieves Castro-Rodríguez Antonio Cabrera-Lavers Ning Jiang Hengxiao Guo J. P. Anderson Tomás E. Müller-Bravo Seppo Mattila Claudia P. Gutiérrez Amit Kumar G. Pignata Xiangkun Liu R. Dastidar Brajesh Kumar Xiaowei Liu Bin Ma M. Dennefeld Francesca Onori Lydia Makrygianni Mariusz Gromadzki Xuan Fang

This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords tidaldisruptioneventnear-infraredexcessfree-freeemissionreprocessingenvelopeX-raycoronaspectralstatetransitionaccretiondisksupermassiveblackhole

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper follows the tidal disruption event 2024aepd for roughly 300 days across radio, near-infrared, optical, ultraviolet, and X-ray bands. It tries to establish two things: the early near-infrared excess, with a nearly flat spectrum, is more plausibly free-free emission from a reprocessing photospheric envelope than a dust echo; and the X-ray spectrum switches from a thermal, disk-dominated state to a power-law, corona-dominated state around day 178. If right, this event joins two earlier ones as the third known TDE with an early-time NIR excess, and it gives a rare, time-resolved view of corona formation around a supermassive black hole.

What carries the argument

The central model is frequency-dependent free-free reprocessing in a homogeneous, spherical, electron-scattering-dominated envelope with a power-law density profile rho ∝ r^{-s}. Because free-free opacity rises toward low frequencies, NIR photons thermalize at larger radii than optical/UV photons, boosting the NIR flux and producing a power-law spectrum shallower than the Rayleigh-Jeans tail; the break frequency connects the blackbody and power-law branches and, with the fitted slope s, yields the thermalization radius, density normalization, and enclosed mass. The X-ray analysis uses a two-component spectral decomposition (thermal disk plus power law) to track the state transition.

What would settle it

A single NIR spectrum with emission or absorption features characteristic of free-free processes would discriminate directly; more practically, observing the NIR excess before day 40 and tracking its rise would test the claimed <17-day lag. A dust-echo model predicts a delayed, roughly 1100 K blackbody with a light-travel lag comparable to the sublimation radius, whereas free-free predicts an immediate, flat power law that tracks the UV-optical decline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For TDE 2024aepd, the near-infrared excess appears by day ~40 with a power-law slope consistent with zero, far flatter than the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the UV-optical blackbody. Because the light-travel time to the inferred dust sublimation radius (~740 days) far exceeds the observed lag (<17 days), the authors argue a conventional dust echo is disfavoured and propose instead that the excess comes from free-free emission in a dense, extended reprocessing layer. In the same source, the X-ray spectrum, initially a thermal disk plus a hard excess, becomes purely power-law by ~178 days and hardens as the disk fades, which they interpret as the rapid emergence and strengthening of a corona. They a

Load-bearing premise

The free-free conclusion rests on assuming the reprocessing material is a homogeneous, spherical, electron-scattering-dominated layer with a power-law density profile; if the outflow is clumpy or anisotropic, the inferred masses and the claim of a stable density structure could fail, and the paper itself notes a dust echo cannot be fully excluded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Early-time NIR coverage may reveal that a substantial fraction of TDEs show such excesses, and the flat NIR slope can be used as a diagnostic of the reprocessing layer's density structure.
The measured break-frequency shift with roughly constant density slope implies the reprocessing envelope's structure persists while its density declines, constraining outflow and reprocessing models.
The disk-to-corona transition at roughly 0.5% Eddington supports using TDEs as fast laboratories for accretion-state transitions, analogous to X-ray binaries.
The positive photon-index versus X-ray-luminosity correlation in the TDE sample, without the low-luminosity anti-correlation branch, points to a lack of very low-Eddington observations rather than a fundamentally different accretion flow.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the free-free interpretation is right, the NIR excess directly probes gas mass and density profile; targeted NIR spectroscopy might look for the expected frequency dependence or polarization to confirm the mechanism.
The dust-echo alternative could be tested by measuring the NIR rise before day 40 and by searching for a late-rising echo; a detection of a delayed, ~1100 K component would overturn the free-free conclusion.
The same chromatic-reprocessing framework may apply to fast blue optical transients and to the V-shaped SEDs of Little Red Dots, making early-time NIR monitoring a useful discriminant in those populations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a solid observational paper on a new TDE. The early NIR excess is real—two epochs of J and K clearly sit above the UV/optical blackbody tail, and the flat spectrum (αIR ≈ 0) is a reasonable match to free-free reprocessing. The X-ray data also convincingly show a transition from disk-dominated to power-law-dominated around day 178, with the photon index dropping from ~3 to ~1.8. That part I'd trust. The paper is worth reading for those two observational results.

The soft spots are in the interpretation. The claim in the abstract that 'the UV-optical-to-NIR break shifts to higher frequencies as the density-profile index remains nearly constant' is not supported by Table 1. The best-fit break frequencies are 2.89, 2.63, and 3.67 ×10^14 Hz across the three epochs. Between epochs 1 and 2 it goes down, not up; the third point uses the K-band measurement from epoch 2 because the source wasn't detected in K at epoch 3. So the 'systematic increase' narrative rests on borrowed data and a change that is not monotonic in the actual best-fit values. I'd also flag the circularity issue the reader noted: the density slope s is a fitted parameter in the free-free model, so saying s is 'nearly constant' is mostly restating that the two NIR bands give consistent slopes, not an independent confirmation of a stable density structure. The dust-echo argument is more convincing—the inferred sublimation radius implies a lag of ~700 days, much longer than the observed <17-day constraint—but the authors themselves leave dust echo open because of anisotropic geometries.

The Γ-LX correlation is suggestive but not a headline result. It is a positive correlation across a heterogeneous sample with ρ=0.46, p=0.0006, but the optically-selected subsample drops to ρ=0.31, p=0.05. The sample selection may bias against low-luminosity sources, so I wouldn't lean on this.

Overall: this is a careful data paper with a likely real NIR excess and a clean X-ray state transition. The free-free model is plausible but not uniquely constrained, and the temporal evolution claim is overreaching. My advice: send it to a referee, but the referee should ask the authors to rewrite the break-evolution paragraph, show the epoch-3 fit without the borrowed K point, and soften the abstract.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-wavelength (radio, NIR, optical/UV, X-ray) observations of the tidal disruption event 2024aepd over the first ~300 days after discovery. It reports an early near-infrared excess above the UV-optical blackbody, with an approximately flat NIR power-law spectrum, and argues on the basis of a free-free reprocessing model that this excess is more plausibly explained by a photospheric reprocessing envelope than by a conventional dust echo. The X-ray data show an initially thermal-dominated spectrum with a hard tail, transitioning to a power-law-dominated and progressively harder spectrum around day 178, which the authors interpret as the emergence and strengthening of a corona. The paper also compiles a sample of TDEs with X-ray hard excesses and reports a positive correlation between photon index and Eddington ratio. The authors identify 2024aepd as the third TDE with an early-time NIR excess.

Significance. If the free-free interpretation is correct, the paper adds a valuable new data point to a very small sample of early NIR excesses in TDEs and supports the idea that frequency-dependent reprocessing can be diagnosed in the NIR. The X-ray spectral state transition is well documented and consistent with the growing population of TDEs showing disk-to-corona transitions. The paper's strengths include broad multi-wavelength coverage, careful host-galaxy subtraction, standard processing of Swift/XRT and ground-based data, explicit model-comparison tables, and an unusually candid set of caveats about the spherical, homogeneous assumptions of the free-free model and the tension between the inferred envelope mass and the MOSFiT stellar mass. However, the paper's central temporal-evolution claim—that the UV-optical-to-NIR break frequency increases while the density index stays constant—is not supported by the paper's own best-fit values in Table 1, and the free-free fits are underconstrained by the available two-band NIR data. The paper is publishable after the evolutionary narrative is either properly supported or substantially softened.

major comments (3)

The abstract and §4.1 state that νbreak 'systematically increases' with time while s remains nearly constant. Table 1 gives νbreak = 2.89(+0.24/−0.33), 2.63(+0.27/−0.37), and 3.67(+0.76/−0.44) ×10^14 Hz for the +41, +68, and +101 d epochs. The first two epochs therefore show a decrease, not an increase, and the uncertainties overlap substantially. Moreover, the epoch-3 value is not an independent measurement: the source was undetected in K at +101 d, so the epoch-2 K-band datum was adopted. With only J and K per epoch, the claim of a systematic break evolution is not established. This claim is load-bearing for the conclusion of 'evolving reprocessing conditions within a broadly unchanged density structure.' The authors should either remove the monotonic-increase claim, or re-fit epoch 3 with only the J-band constraint and show whether any break evolution is statistically required, and re
The conclusion that the density-profile index s remains nearly constant is essentially a reparameterization of the fitted NIR spectral slope: in the adopted model, α_IR = (4s−6)/(3s−2), and s is a free parameter fit to two NIR bands per epoch. The statement that 's remains consistent within the uncertainties' is therefore not an independent test of structural stability. I recommend presenting the joint posterior of (s, νbreak), or performing a model comparison between (i) a single s with freely evolving νbreak and (ii) independent s at each epoch. Without such a test, the stable-density-structure conclusion is weaker than the text implies. This also bears on the comparison with AT2019azh in Fig. 8.
The argument against a dust echo relies on taking the first NIR observation as an approximate upper limit on the IR peak and deriving τ < 17 days, compared with the sublimation-radius delay of ~743 days. Section 3.2 explicitly notes that the NIR observations 'only sample the declining phase,' so the first NIR epoch does not directly constrain the time of the NIR peak. Although an upper limit on the delay can still be derived if the source was already declining at +41 d, this should be stated as a model-dependent assumption. The later discussion of anisotropic emission and line-of-sight geometry already acknowledges the main escape route for a dust echo; the quantitative τ < 17 d statement overstates the constraint and should be softened.

minor comments (5)

Typos: 'primaly' should be 'primarily' and 'primally' should be 'primarily'; 'eﬀiciency' and 'Oﬀice' contain non-standard ligature/encoding artifacts that should be corrected in the journal production step.
'DESI is amounted on the 4-meter Mayall Telescope' should read 'mounted'.
The caveat that the K-band template image could contain a late-rising echo, which would cause the true K fluxes to be underestimated, is stated in §2.4 but is not repeated when the K-band points are used to fit the free-free model. This caveat is relevant to the light-travel-time argument and should be recalled in §4.1.
The header 'Epoch 2K' for the epoch-3 NIR observations is confusing; it should read 'Epoch-2 K-band' with an explicit note that this datum is non-contemporaneous with the epoch-3 J band.
Several arXiv identifiers appear malformed (e.g., arXiv:2604.160934, arXiv:2602.21624); please check the journal's reference formatting requirements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

NIR 'density-structure constancy' reduces to the fitted flat NIR slope; central free-free vs. dust-echo choice retains independent timescale evidence.

renaming known result [Sec. 3.3 vs Sec. 4.1, Eq. (7), Table 1]
"We also fit the NIR SEDs with a power-law model, fν ∝ ν^{αIR}. The resulting spectral indices, αIR = 0.22+0.23−0.22 and −0.27+0.33−0.31, are both consistent with zero ... Fν = K(ρ0, s, T)ν^{(4s−6)/(3s−2)}/(4πD^2) ... we find νbreak systematically increases with time, while s remains consistent within the uncertainties, suggesting that the overall density structure of the reprocessing medium remains approximately unchanged."

Eq. (7) makes the NIR power-law index a one-to-one function of s: αIR = (4s−6)/(3s−2). Fitting s from the same J/K excess and then reporting 's remains nearly constant' is therefore the same empirical statement as the flat, time-constant αIR already fitted in Sec. 3.3; it adds no independent information about a 'density structure' beyond the spectral slope. The derived ρ0, rth and MK are algebraically propagated from these same fitted s and νbreak, so they cannot serve as independent validation of the model.

full rationale

The free-free vs. dust-echo discrimination is not circular: it uses an independent light-travel-time argument (Rsub ~ 0.62 pc → ~743 d vs observed τ < 17 d) plus the flatness of the NIR spectrum. The X-ray disk/corona transition and Γ–LX correlation are empirical fits to independent X-ray data, not reductions of the model to its inputs. The only identifiable reduction is the 'density-profile index constancy' claim, which is a reparameterization of the NIR slope already measured in Sec. 3.3. A minor non-load-bearing self-citation exists (Reynolds et al. 2026 for NOTCam reduction and the AT2019azh comparison); the theoretical model is drawn from external work (Lu & Bonnerot 2020; Roth et al. 2020; Somalwar et al. 2025). Note also that Table 1 does not strictly support the statement that νbreak 'systematically increases': 2.89, 2.63, 3.67 ×10^14 Hz, and epoch 3 borrows the epoch-2 K point; this is a support/statistical issue rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central free-free inference rests on fitted parameters s and ν_break and assumptions of spherical symmetry, electron-scattering dominance, and isothermality. The X-ray transition relies on standard spectral decomposition into thermal and power-law components.

free parameters (5)

s (density-profile index) = 1.76+0.35-0.30, 1.39+0.34-0.23, 1.58+0.45-0.23 at three epochs (Table 1)
Free parameter of the free-free SED model (Eq. 10); fitted to the NIR spectral slope.
ν_break (break frequency) = 2.89+0.24-0.33, 2.63+0.27-0.37, 3.67+0.76-0.44 ×10^14 Hz
Free parameter of the free-free SED model; fitted to the UV-optical-NIR SEDs.
TOBB (UV-optical blackbody temperature) = ~3.3×10^4 K early to ~2.4×10^4 K late
Fitted from UV-optical SED; adopted as the temperature T in the free-free model.
ROBB (UV-optical blackbody radius) = ~5.7×10^14 cm at peak to ~3.5×10^14 cm late
Fitted from UV-optical SED; sets the normalization of the blackbody and the free-free component.
X-ray spectral parameters (Tin, Γ, normalizations) = Tin ~0.043 keV, Γ from 2.8 to 1.6 (Table B.1)
Fitted in X-ray spectral decomposition; used to infer the disk-to-corona transition.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Homogeneous spherical medium with power-law density profile ρ=ρ0(r/r0)^-s and electron-scattering-dominated opacity (κ_es >> κ_ff).
Assumed for the free-free model (Sec. 4.1); if the outflow is clumpy or opt differentially, the derived density structure is invalid.
standard math Validity of the Illarionov & Sunyaev (1972) chromatic radiative diffusion formula (Eq. 4) for the emitted luminosity.
Used to derive the free-free SED; cited to Illarionov & Sunyaev 1972.
ad hoc to paper The reprocessing layer is isothermal with T = TOBB (the UV-optical blackbody temperature).
Adopted in Sec. 4.1 without a physical temperature profile; affects the normalization of the free-free component and derived mass.
domain assumption The UV-optical continuum is a single-temperature blackbody.
Standard assumption for TDE SEDs; used to define the high-frequency component and the break frequency.
domain assumption The hard X-ray excess is represented by a simple powerlaw (thermal Comptonization).
Used in X-ray spectral fits; alternative models (simpl) give consistent parameters, though the physical corona interpretation is inferred.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PQBVEFA

@misc{pith2026260714696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PQBVEFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14696}
}

abstract

We present multi-wavelength observations of the tidal disruption event (TDE) 2024aepd, spanning primarily the first $\sim$300 days after discovery. The X-ray spectrum is initially dominated by a thermal disk component accompanied by a hard excess. From $\sim$178 days onward, the spectrum becomes power-law dominated and subsequently hardens, indicating the rapid emergence and strengthening of a hot corona. A prominent near-infrared (NIR) excess is detected as early as $\sim40$ days. Its nearly flat power-law spectrum strongly deviates from the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the UV-optical blackbody. Although a conventional dust-echo origin cannot be completely ruled out, free-free emission from a reprocessing photospheric envelope provides a more plausible explanation. Moreover, the UV-optical-to-NIR break shifts to higher frequencies as the density-profile index remains nearly constant, implying evolving reprocessing conditions within a broadly unchanged density structure. Together with AT2019azh and TDE 2025abcr, TDE 2024aepd is the third TDE reported to exhibit an early-time NIR excess. A larger sample with early-time NIR coverage is needed to determine whether such excesses are common among TDEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14696 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The NIR-to-X-ray SEDs constructed from nearly simultaneous observations obtained near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The temporal evolution of the blackbody temperature (top panel), radius (middle panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The temporal evolution of the disk inner temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Best-fitting results for the two UV–optical–NIR SED at 41 days and 68 days using modified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Optical spectroscopic evolution of 2024aepd. The vertical lines mark prominent observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Best-fitting models for the UV–optical–NIR SEDs at different phases. The dotted and dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison of the three TDEs with reported NIR excesses to date. The colored solid, dotted, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Photon index Γ as a function of Eddington ratio for TDEs exhibiting a hard X-ray excess. In addition to 2024aepd, the sample includes XMMSL2 J144605.0+685735 (Saxton et al. 2019), 2XMMi J184725.1–631724 (Lin et al. 2011), XMMSL1 J061927.1–655311 (Saxton et al. 2014), X…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 4410

2023
[2]

1996, A&A, 309, L353

Bade, N., Komossa, S., & Dahlem, M. 1996, A&A, 309, L353

1996
[3]

2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004, ascl:1504.0047

Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004, ascl:1504.0047

arXiv 2015
[4]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 0180024

2019
[5]

2025, ApJ, 984, L5523

Bellovary, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, L5523

2025
[6]

Berger, V., Kara, E., Chakraborty, J., Masterson, M., & Burdge, K. 2026, ApJ, 999, 2654, 24 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 31 10−9 10−8 10−7 Fν (Jy) 1017 10182×1017 5×1017 2×1018 −1 0 1 (data−model)/error Energy (Hz) Fig.B.1: Fitting result of the combined X-ray spectrum with diskbb+powerlaw model. Table C.1: Log of optical spectrosc...

2026
[7]

2019, A&A, 622, A10310

Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A10310

2019
[8]

M., Robitaille, T

Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B. M., Robitaille, T. P., et al. 2026, Photutils9

2026

Show all 127 references

[9]

J., & Fraser, M

Brennan, S. J., & Fraser, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A628

2022
[10]

N., Hill, J

Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 1658

2005
[11]

1984, The Messenger, 38, 97

Buzzoni, B., Delabre, B., Dekker, H., et al. 1984, The Messenger, 38, 97

1984
[12]

C., et al

Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 68211

2000
[13]

2009, MNRAS, 394, 20724

Cao, X. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 20724

2009
[14]

2019, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics X, ed

Cardiel, N., Pascual, S., Gallego, J., et al. 2019, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics X, ed. B. Montesinos, A. Asensio Ramos, F. Buitrago, R. Schödel, E. Villaver, S. Pérez-Hoyos, & I. Ordóñez-Etxeberria, 6059 32 Yongxin Wu et al. CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al....

2019
[15]

G., et al

Cepa, J., Aguiar, M., Escalera, V. G., et al. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 6238

2000
[16]

2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

Chambers, K., & Pan-STARRS Team. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 102.017

2018
[17]

2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 9, 15

Charalampopoulos, P. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 9, 15

2025
[18]

2025, ApJ, 991, 1805

Chen, C., & Shen, R.-F. 2025, ApJ, 991, 1805

2025
[19]

2024, ApJ, 971, L26

Chen, X., Kumar, B., Er, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, L26

2024
[20]

2009, ApJ, 705, 133623

Constantin, A., Green, P., Aldcroft, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 133623

2009
[21]

C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Miller, M

Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, L204 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.000368 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 2078

2018 arXiv
[22]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 1688

2019
[23]

A., & Andersen, J

Djupvik, A. A., & Andersen, J. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 14, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics V, ed. J. M. Diego, L. J. Goicoechea, J. I. González-Serrano, & J. Gorgas, 2117

2010
[24]

2007, A&A Rev., 15, 13

Done, C., Gierliński, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rev., 15, 13

2007
[25]

2026, AJ, 171, 3718

Dong, Z.-N., Ma, B., Chen, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 3718

2026
[26]

T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 17211

2014
[27]

R., & Kochanek, C

Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJ, 346, L133

1989
[28]

A., Beardmore, A

Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 3798

2007
[29]

A., Beardmore, A

Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 11778

2009
[30]

Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 635

1999
[31]

2006, MNRAS, 366, 76711 Garzón, F., Balcells, M., Gallego, J., et al

Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 76711 Garzón, F., Balcells, M., Gallego, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A1078

2006
[32]

2004, ApJ, 611, 10057

Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 10057

2004
[33]

2021, ARA&A, 59, 213

Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 213

2021
[34]

2020, MNRAS, 497, 192525

Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Short, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 192525

2020
[35]

J., Kulkarni, S

Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 0780014

2019
[36]

Grupe, D., Beuermann, K., Mannheim, K., & Thomas, H. C. 1999, A&A, 350, 8053

1999
[37]

2009, MNRAS, 399, 34923

Gu, M., & Cao, X. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 34923

2009
[38]

A., et al

Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 610

2018
[39]

2025, ApJ, 979, 2354

Guo, H., Sun, J., Li, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 2354

2025
[40]

2024, ApJ, 966, 1603, 4, 23, 24

Guolo, M., Gezari, S., Yao, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 1603, 4, 23, 24

2024
[41]

2023, AJ, 165, 1448 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 33

Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 1448 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 33

2023
[42]

1991, ApJ, 380, L513

Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJ, 380, L513

1991
[43]

J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 2538

2023
[44]

D., Margutti, R., et al

Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 294, 23

2025
[45]

C., Collins, R

Hambly, N. C., Collins, R. S., Cross, N. J. G., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 6379

2008
[46]

2023, ApJ, 942, 94 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 94 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A1168, 14

2023
[47]

Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 2953

1975
[48]

2024, ApJ, 964, L2224

Huang, S., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, L2224

2024
[49]

F., & Sunyaev, R

Illarionov, A. F., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1972, Ap&SS, 19, 6119

1972
[50]

2025, ApJ, 980, L2722

Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L2722

2025
[51]

2025, MNRAS, 544, 390022

Ji, X., Maiolino, R., Übler, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 390022

2025
[52]

Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJ, 980, L174

2025
[53]

2025, ARA&A, 63, 3793

Kara, E., & García, J. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 3793

2025
[54]

1999, A&A, 343, 7753

Komossa, S., & Bade, N. 1999, A&A, 343, 7753

1999
[55]

1999, A&A, 349, L453

Komossa, S., & Greiner, J. 1999, A&A, 349, L453

1999
[56]

Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 51110

2013
[57]

2026, ApJ, 997, L105

LeBaron, N., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, L105

2026
[58]

2023, Chinese Physics B, 32, 03980110

Li, N., & Li, C. 2023, Chinese Physics B, 32, 03980110

2023
[59]

R., Grupe, D., et al

Lin, D., Carrasco, E. R., Grupe, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 5224

2011
[60]

F., Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E

Liu, B. F., Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 2006, A&A, 454, L924

2006
[61]

E., & Ma, Y

Liu, H., Jiang, Y.-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y. 2025, ApJ, 994, 11322

2025
[62]

2023, A&A, 669, A7524

Liu, Z., Malyali, A., Krumpe, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A7524

2023
[63]

1997, ApJ, 489, 5734

Loeb, A., & Ulmer, A. 1997, ApJ, 489, 5734

1997
[64]

2020, MNRAS, 492, 6864, 5, 18

Lu, W., & Bonnerot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6864, 5, 18

2020
[65]

Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Evans, N. J. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 5754, 13

2016
[66]

M., et al

Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 304

2014
[67]

Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 937, L124

2022
[68]

W., Shiao, B., et al

Million, C., Fleming, S. W., Shiao, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 29210

2016
[69]

2019, ApJ, 872, 15110

Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 15110

2019
[70]

A., et al

Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 68210

2007
[71]

2021, MNRAS, 507, L2415

Mummery, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, L2415

2021
[72]

A., et al

Newsome, M., Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 25824

2024
[73]

R., et al

Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 48224

2020
[74]

Pascual, S., Gallego, J., Cardiel, N., & Eliche-Moral, M. C. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 434, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIX, ed. 34 Yongxin Wu et al. Y. Mizumoto, K.-I. Morita, & M. Ohishi, 3539

2010
[75]

C., Liepold, E

Patra, K. C., Liepold, E. R., Earl, N., et al. 2026, JWST and Keck observations of the off-nuclear tidal disruption event TDE 2025abcr: An evolving reprocessing layer, arXiv:2604.160934, 18, 22

2026 arXiv
[76]

S., Steele, I

Piascik, A. S., Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91478H7

2014
[77]

M., & Shiokawa, H

Piran, T., Svirski, G., Krolik, J., Cheng, R. M., & Shiokawa, H. 2015, ApJ, 806, 1644 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A65

2015
[78]

Qiao, E., & Liu, B. F. 2013, ApJ, 764, 224

2013
[79]

F., Panessa, F., & Liu, J

Qiao, E., Liu, B. F., Panessa, F., & Liu, J. Y. 2013, ApJ, 777, 10224

2013
[80]

2025, MNRAS, 539, 34734

Qiao, E., Wu, Y., Lin, Y., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 34734

2025
[81]

Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, A&A, 532, A7110

2011
[82]

Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 5233

1988
[83]

A., & McClintock, J

Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 493, 4, 23

2006
[84]

M., Thomsen, L., Mattila, S., et al

Reynolds, T. M., Thomsen, L., Mattila, S., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A1394, 9, 18, 22

2026
[85]

Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 957

2005
[86]

2016, ApJ, 827, 34

Roth, N., Kasen, D., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2016, ApJ, 827, 34

2016
[87]

M., Krolik, J., et al

Roth, N., Rossi, E. M., Krolik, J., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 1145, 18

2020
[88]

D., Read, A

Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Komossa, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A2924

2017
[89]

D., Read, A

Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Komossa, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A124

2014
[90]

D., Read, A

Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Komossa, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A9824

2019
[91]

Saxton, R., Komossa, S., Auchettl, K., & Jonker, P. G. 2021, Correction to: X-Ray Properties of

2021
[92]

F., & Finkbeiner, D

Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 1035

2011
[93]

C., Vrba, F

Schneider, A. C., Vrba, F. J., Bruursema, J., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 869

2025
[94]

J., Greene, J

Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., de Graaff, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 11822

2025
[95]

2025, ApJ, 992, L1824

Sfaradi, I., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, L1824

2025
[96]

J., Prieto, J

Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 484

2014
[97]

J., Valenti, S., Fraser, M., et al

Smartt, S. J., Valenti, S., Fraser, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A407

2015
[98]

A., Papadakis, I

Sobolewska, M. A., Papadakis, I. E., Done, C., & Malzac, J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 28024

2011
[99]

J., Ravi, V., Margutti, R., et al

Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 2285, 19

2025
[100]

A., Smith, R

Steele, I. A., Smith, R. J., Rees, P. C., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5489, Ground-based Telescopes, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., 679 7

2004
[101]

Steinberg, E., & Stone, N. C. 2024, Nature, 625, 4634

2024
[102]

F., Narayan, R., McClintock, J

Steiner, J. F., Narayan, R., McClintock, J. E., & Ebisawa, K. 2009, PASP, 121, 127915 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 35

2009
[103]

L., Kwan, T

Thomsen, L. L., Kwan, T. M., Dai, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, L284

2022
[104]

1995, ApJ, 450, 8763

Titarchuk, L., & Lyubarskij, Y. 1995, ApJ, 450, 8763

1995
[105]

L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 0645054

2018
[106]

1999, ApJ, 514, 1803

Ulmer, A. 1999, ApJ, 514, 1803

1999
[107]

2014, MNRAS, 438, L1018 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T

Valenti, S., Sand, D., Pastorello, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L1018 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W. S., Onori, F., Hung, T., & Arcavi, I. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 124 4 van Velzen, S., Mendez, A. J., Krolik, J. H., & Gorjian, V. 2016, ApJ, 829, 194, 13, 14, 18 van Velzen, ...

2014
[108]

2011, MNRAS, 414, 333024

Veledina, A., Vurm, I., & Poutanen, J. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 333024

2011
[109]

v., Gezari, S., Cenko, S

Velzen, S. v., Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12263, 14

2018
[110]

A., Ferland, G

Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 48714

1996
[111]

2004, ApJ, 607, L10723

Wang, J.-M., Watarai, K.-Y., & Mineshige, S. 2004, ApJ, 607, L10723

2004
[112]

R., Altamirano, D., et al

Wang, Y., Pasham, D. R., Altamirano, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 7825

2024
[113]

R., van Velzen, S., et al

Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 1514, 23, 24

2021
[114]

2000, ApJ, 542, 91414

Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 91414

2000
[115]

L., Eisenhardt, P

Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 186810

2010
[116]

2025, ApJ, 988, L774

Wu, M., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, L774

2025
[117]

2008, ApJ, 682, 21223

Wu, Q., & Gu, M. 2008, ApJ, 682, 21223

2008
[118]

Xu, H., Cao, X., Wang, Y., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 174824

2025
[119]

2015, MNRAS, 447, 169223

Yang, Q.-X., Xie, F.-G., Yuan, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 169223

2015
[120]

2024, ApJ, 969, 1266

Yang, Y.-P., Liu, X., Pan, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 1266

2024
[121]

2022, ApJ, 937, 84, 23, 24

Yao, Y., Lu, W., Guolo, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 84, 23, 24

2022
[122]

2024, ApJ, 976, 3424

Yao, Y., Guolo, M., Tombesi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 3424

2024
[123]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.2162423

Yao, Y., Chornock, R., Mummery, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.2162423

2026 arXiv
[124]

2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Yuan, X., Li, Z., Liu, X., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11445, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VIII, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 114457M6

2020
[125]

2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 75322

Zhang, C., Wu, Q., Fan, X., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 75322

2026
[126]

2017, PASP, 129, 0641018

Zou, H., Zhou, X., Fan, X., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 0641018

2017
[127]

S., et al

Zou, X., Kumar, B., Teja, R. S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 776

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 4410

2023

[2] [2]

1996, A&A, 309, L353

Bade, N., Komossa, S., & Dahlem, M. 1996, A&A, 309, L353

1996

[3] [3]

2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004, ascl:1504.0047

Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004, ascl:1504.0047

arXiv 2015

[4] [4]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 0180024

2019

[5] [5]

2025, ApJ, 984, L5523

Bellovary, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, L5523

2025

[6] [6]

Berger, V., Kara, E., Chakraborty, J., Masterson, M., & Burdge, K. 2026, ApJ, 999, 2654, 24 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 31 10−9 10−8 10−7 Fν (Jy) 1017 10182×1017 5×1017 2×1018 −1 0 1 (data−model)/error Energy (Hz) Fig.B.1: Fitting result of the combined X-ray spectrum with diskbb+powerlaw model. Table C.1: Log of optical spectrosc...

2026

[7] [7]

2019, A&A, 622, A10310

Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A10310

2019

[8] [8]

M., Robitaille, T

Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B. M., Robitaille, T. P., et al. 2026, Photutils9

2026