Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 75 references

Impact of disk magnetic fields on the propagation of stellar-scale jets in the magnetically arrested accretion disks of active galactic nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that magnetic fields in magnetically arrested disks squeeze the jet cocoon, collimate the jet, and modestly speed the jet head, making low-power jets from stellar-mass binary black hole mergers more likely to break out…

desk verdict A transparent analytic parameter study of cocoon confinement by MAD magnetic pressure; the mechanism rests on an unconstrained f_c≈1, but the authors say so, and the paper deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09284 v1 pith:GLQUC3YJ submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Bao-Quan Huang , Tong Liu , Jian-Fu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleijetsmagneticallyarresteddisksjet-cocoonmodelshockbreakoutmagneticpressurebinaryblackholemergersX-rayflares
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 asks whether the strong magnetic fields of a magnetically arrested disk change how a small stellar-scale jet, such as one from a collapsing star or merging compact objects, punches through the disk. It argues that the disk's large-scale poloidal field acts mainly sideways: it compresses the hot cocoon around the jet, making the jet narrower and slightly faster. The effect is strongest for low-power jets, where magnetic pressure can turn an otherwise choked jet into one that breaks out of the disk and produces an X-ray flare. The paper also shows that breakout happens sooner and, at low jet power, can be brighter, although the brightness boost depends on which emission formula is used.

What carries the argument

The engine is the analytic jet-cocoon model, in which the jet head is a double-shock structure and the cocoon's lateral expansion is set by pressure balance. The paper's new term is a sideways magnetic pressure $P_{B,c}=f_cB_d^2/8\pi$ with $f_c\simeq1$, which caps the cocoon expansion velocity at the Alfv\'en speed $\beta_A=\sqrt{\sigma_d/(1+\sigma_d)}$ and can set it to zero if cocoon pressure is too low. It also adds a magnetic-reconnection power term to the cocoon energy. The confinement term is what produces the enhanced collimation and the modest head-velocity increase; the reconnection term mainly adds cocoon energy at low jet power.

What would settle it

Run a three-dimensional simulation of a low-power jet propagating through a MAD-like disk and compare cocoon half-opening angle and jet-head velocity with the ambient poloidal field present and artificially removed; if the cocoon expands at the same rate and the head speed is unchanged at low jet power, the proposed mechanism is not operating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the magnetically arrested disk model, the ambient disk magnetic field, not the jet's own magnetization, is the controlling agent. Because MAD fields are mostly poloidal, they do not push directly on the jet head; instead, their pressure opposes sideways cocoon expansion. That confinement narrows the jet, raises its density and ram pressure, and modestly increases the jet-head velocity. The paper reports that at jet powers around $10^{43}$--$10^{45}$ erg/s, this confined-cocoon effect raises the breakout luminosity of the jet-head shock and shortens the breakout time, so low-power jets from binary black hole mergers can break out and appear as X-ray flares.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the MAD's large-scale poloidal magnetic field presses inward on the cocoon with nearly its full magnetic pressure; if field coherence is imperfect, turbulence scrambles the field, or field-line draping turns sideways resistance into tension rather than pressure, the cocoon confinement, extra collimation, and faster jet head would all weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-power jets ($L_j\sim10^{43}$--$10^{45}$ erg/s) from stellar-mass black hole mergers are more likely to break out of an AGN disk when the disk is a MAD, because magnetic cocoon confinement raises the jet-head velocity.
  • The breakout time is shorter with disk magnetic fields, so the electromagnetic flare should follow the gravitational-wave signal with a smaller delay than in an unmagnetized disk.
  • At low jet power, the jet-head shock breakout luminosity is enhanced relative to the unmagnetized case, but the size of the enhancement depends on the adopted emission prescription.
  • Cocoon luminosity at breakout is suppressed by magnetic pressure, making the post-breakout cocoon cooling signal fainter.
  • Above jet powers near $10^{48}$ erg/s, magnetic effects on the jet head become almost negligible, so high-power jets behave as in the unmagnetized case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The low-power luminosity boost comes partly from the magnetized jet head crossing the boundary into the relativistic emission prescription; that part of the prediction is more fragile than the purely dynamical collimation effect.
  • Because the model folds any field-line draping into the geometric factors $f_h$ and $f_c$ rather than computing tension, simulations are needed to test whether real MAD fields confine the cocoon as strongly as assumed.
  • The same cocoon-confinement logic should apply in other moderately magnetized environments with $\sigma\sim10^{-3}$--$10^{-1}$, such as shock-compressed supernova remnant layers or pulsar wind nebulae, where jets may show similar collimation-driven acceleration.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper extends the analytic jet-cocoon framework of Bromberg et al. (2011) to stellar-scale jets propagating inside magnetically arrested AGN disks. The ambient magnetic field enters in two places: magnetic pressure opposing the lateral expansion of the cocoon (Eq. 5, via PB,c = fc Bd²/8π with fc ≈ 1, plus an Alfvén-speed cap βA) and turbulent magnetic-reconnection power injected into the cocoon (Eqs. 8-10). The disk field, density, and magnetization are computed from a MAD accretion model (Eqs. 1-2), giving σd ~ 10^-3 to 10^-1 for MBH = 10^6-10^8 M☉. The authors find that the magnetic pressure suppresses cocoon expansion, narrows the jet-head opening angle, and thereby modestly raises the jet-head velocity through enhanced jet collimation; the effect is strongest at low jet power. For low-power jets from stellar-mass binary black hole mergers (Lj ~ 10^43-10^45 erg/s), the breakout luminosity is enhanced and the breakout time shortened (Figs. 8-10), with the luminosity enhancement flagged as sensitive to the adopted emission prescription.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, the paper offers a concrete, falsifiable prediction: coherent MAD poloidal fields shorten the delay between the gravitational-wave signal of a stellar-mass BBH merger in an AGN disk and its electromagnetic breakout flare, and move the breakout emission to higher luminosity and earlier times. The dynamical calculation is internally consistent, reduces to the unmagnetized jet-cocoon model in the σd → 0 limit, and is presented with unusually explicit caveats: the fc ≈ 1 coherence assumption, the maximal reconnection scale zx = zh, the subdominance of the head-on factor fh, and the prescription dependence of the luminosity contrast are all acknowledged in the text. The main weakness is quantitative robustness. The stress-test concern largely lands: the cocoon-side factor fc is the only coupling through which the ambient field affects jet dynamics, it is a free parameter set to ≈ 1, and no sensitivity study is provided; the luminosity-enhancement claim is partly a boundary artifact of the emission prescriptions; and the breakout calculation rests on an unspecified vertical density profile. These issues are fixable within the scope of the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.1, Eq. (5)] The central mechanism is carried entirely by the term PB,c = fc Bd²/8π with fc ≈ 1. Section 3.2 shows that the head-on factor fh is dynamically subdominant, so fc is the only channel through which the ambient field influences the jet-cocoon system. The text concedes that imperfect field coherence, turbulence, or a nonpoloidal component would reduce the effective pressure, but no reduced value is ever computed or explored. Because the collimation, the jet-density increase, and the modest βh increase in Figures 4-7 all scale with this confinement, the qualitative conclusion is not established unless the sensitivity to fc (e.g., fc = 0.3 and 0.1) preserves the effect. I request an explicit fc robustness study; as written, the central claim is an assumption encoded in Eq. (5) rather than a derived consequence of MAD physics.
  2. [§2.2.1, Eq. (5)] The Alfvén-speed cap βc = min(..., βA) is asserted rather than derived. In the regime Pc >> PB,c, which covers much of the explored parameter space because σd ~ 10^-3-10^-1, a pressure-driven lateral expansion is limited by the inertia of the swept-up medium, at a speed of order sqrt(Pc/ρ̄d c²), and there is no obvious reason for it to be capped at βA; the magnetic pressure PB,c is already subtracted inside the square root. The cap therefore suppresses βc exactly in the cases where the magnetic pressure is too weak to confine the cocoon on its own, and it strengthens the confinement effect beyond what PB,c alone justifies. The cap needs a physical justification in terms of field-line advection or draping, or the no-cap case needs to be computed, to establish that the collimation-driven increase in βh survives.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 8] The enhanced breakout luminosity at low jet power is largely a consequence of the two solutions falling on different emission prescriptions: the magnetized solutions have βh,b > 0.5 throughout and are evaluated with Eq. (14), while the unmagnetized solutions drop below βh,b ≈ 0.5 at low power and are evaluated with the Newtonian and mildly relativistic formulas. The authors acknowledge this in the text, but the abstract retains the luminosity enhancement as a headline result. Since the prescription boundaries depend on the uncertain values of fc and the Alfvén cap, the direction of the luminosity contrast is not robust. Please recompute the comparison with a single prescription applied consistently to both cases, or explicitly demote the luminosity enhancement to a prescription-dependent indicative result.
  4. [§2.3] The breakout criterion τ(zh,b) = c/vh,b requires a vertical density profile for the MAD and an opacity, but neither is specified anywhere in Sections 2 or 3. All breakout quantities reported in Figures 5, 6, and 8-10 depend on the resulting zh,b, and the text only states that breakout occurs close to the disk surface. Please specify the adopted vertical profile (e.g., a uniform slab of height Hd = R/2 or a Gaussian) and opacity, and state how τ is computed, so that the quantitative predictions are reproducible.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2.2.1] The sentence 'the jet-head velocity, βh, is calculated numerically' does not describe the procedure; a sentence stating that Eq. (3) is solved for βh given Lj, Bd, and ρd would aid reproducibility.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 1] The illustrative σ = 10^1 and 10^3 curves dominate the figure visually, while the physically realized MAD interval σd ~ 10^-3-10^-1 is where the effects are weakest; consider plotting the fiducial MAD range with a distinct style or in a separate panel.
  3. [§3.3.3] The claim that jet-head breakout parameters show 'only minor variations' when zx < zh is not shown; a quantitative statement or a supplementary panel would support the assertion that the conclusions are unchanged.
  4. [§2.2.2] The symbol vh is used in v_inj = min(0.3 vh, vA) without a definition; state explicitly that vh = βh c.
  5. [§3.4, Eq. (14)] The relativistic breakout luminosity Lh,r depends on E0 and th,th, which are not defined in the text beyond a one-line gloss; since this formula drives the high-power behavior in Fig. 8, define E0 and th,th explicitly or give the relevant equation from Chen & Dai (2025).
  6. [Fig. 4 caption] The Figure 4 caption appears to contain a leftover editing repetition ('(a) with MF No MF (a) with MF No MF'); please clean it up.
  7. [§4] The discussion of supernova remnants, pulsar wind nebulae, dark matter, and magnetar binaries is speculative and only loosely connected to the model; shortening it would focus the paper on its MAD conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central effect is introduced transparently in Eq. (5), where the lateral cocoon velocity is written with the magnetic-pressure term P_B,c = f_c B_d^2/8π and the Alfvén-speed cap. The abstract's statement that disk magnetic pressure suppresses lateral cocoon expansion is therefore a direct consequence of the adopted model equation, not a hidden fit or a redefinition. The subsequent claims that this suppression enhances jet collimation and modestly raises the jet-head velocity are derived by integrating the coupled evolution equations (6)-(10), i.e., d z_h/dt = β_h c, d r_c/dt = β_c c, and d E_c/dt = η_h L_j(1-β_h) + L_B, with the head velocity following from the pressure balance in Eq. (3). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation is used: the MAD field strength and magnetization profiles are computed from standard accretion-disk scalings (Eqs. 1-2), and the relevant background citations (Bromberg et al. 2011; Narayan et al. 2003; Chen & Dai 2025, etc.) are external and independent of the present authors. The paper itself flags the sensitivity of its mechanism to the fiducial choice f_c ≈ 1, noting that imperfect field coherence, turbulence, or nonpoloidal components would weaken the cocoon confinement, and it explicitly cautions that the breakout-luminosity enhancement is model-dependent because different velocity regimes use different emission prescriptions. These are robustness caveats about an assumed physical input, not circularity in the derivation chain. The analytic model is self-contained: given its stated assumptions, the jet collimation, head-velocity increase, and breakout time/luminosity changes follow from the coupled dynamics rather than being imposed as outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the standard analytic jet-cocoon framework, a semi-empirical MAD field estimate, and several hand-set geometric and scale factors. The breakout emission step also relies on an unspecified optical-depth integration. The free parameters are standard values or sensitivity choices, not fits to data.

free parameters (11)
  • mdot (dimensionless accretion rate) = 1
    Sets the disk density through Eq. (2); a standard but chosen value, and the magnetic field strength and all results scale with it.
  • epsilon (radial inflow velocity fraction) = 0.01
    Radial inflow velocity fraction entering the density via Eq. (2); adopted from Narayan et al. 2003.
  • eta_e (radiative efficiency) = 0.1
    Defines the Eddington accretion rate; a standard assumed efficiency.
  • f_h (head-on magnetic pressure geometric factor) = 0.1
    Fraction of the field pressure acting head-on at the jet head; a survey shows the effect is weak, and it is fixed at 0.1 for the remaining calculations.
  • f_c (cocoon lateral magnetic pressure factor) = 1.0
    Fraction of magnetic pressure opposing cocoon lateral expansion; fixed near unity, which the paper admits is a coherent-poloidal-field limit.
  • Gamma_j (jet Lorentz factor) = 100
    Assumed Lorentz factor of the jet at launch.
  • theta_j (jet initial half-opening angle) = 5 degrees
    Assumed initial opening angle of the jet.
  • v_inj factor (turbulent injection velocity fraction) = 0.3
    Sets the injected turbulent velocity to 0.3 times the jet-head speed, capped at the Alfven speed, following shear-layer estimates.
  • z_x / z_h (reconnection scale relative to jet height) = 1
    Reconnection region scale is set to the full jet height; the authors call this an idealized maximal scale and an optimistic upper bound.
  • eta_j (BHL jet power efficiency) = 0.1
    Efficiency converting Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion power into jet power in the discussion of merger remnant jets.
  • t_j (engine duration for Fig. 1) = 10 s
    Central engine duration used only for the illustrative parameter survey in Figure 1.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Bromberg et al. 2011 jet-cocoon pressure balance and evolution equations
    The head pressure balance (Eq. 3), cocoon lateral expansion (Eq. 5), and energy evolution (Eq. 8) are taken from the cited analytic framework.
  • domain assumption MAD field strength given by Eq. (1) with Hd = R/2
    Assumes magnetic force balances gravity radially and a geometrically thick disk; this sets the ambient field strength.
  • domain assumption The jet is nonmagnetized at the head
    Assumes Poynting flux has been converted to kinetic energy before the head balance applies; magnetic fields enter only through the ambient disk.
  • domain assumption Thermal pressures Pj and Pth,d are negligible versus ram pressures
    Standard strong reverse shock assumption from Bromberg et al. 2011.
  • ad hoc to paper Lateral magnetic pressure factor f_c approaching 1 and head-on factor f_h = 0.1
    These geometric factors encode uncertain field coherence and draping; f_c = 1 is a coherent poloidal field limit and f_h = 0.1 is a modest transverse-component choice adopted after a parameter survey.
  • ad hoc to paper Reconnection power L_B with z_x = z_h and v_inj = 0.3 v_h
    The reconnection scale is set to the full jet height, which the authors label an optimistic upper bound; the injected turbulence factor 0.3 is a standard shear-layer estimate.
  • domain assumption Breakout occurs when tau(z_h,b) = c / v_h,b and the optical depth can be integrated with an implicit disk profile and opacity
    The text defines the breakout condition but does not state the vertical density profile or opacity used in the optical depth integral; these are required inputs.
  • domain assumption Regime-dependent emission prescriptions for breakout luminosity and temperature
    The breakout luminosity and temperature are pieced together from Newtonian, Comptonized, and relativistic analytic fits with an interpolation between beta = 0.4 and 0.5; the low-power luminosity boost partly depends on which side of the beta = 0.5 boundary the solution falls.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of disk magnetic fields on the propagation of stellar-scale jets in the magnetically arrested accretion disks of active galactic nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLQUC3YJ

@misc{pith2026260809284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of disk magnetic fields on the propagation of stellar-scale jets in the magnetically arrested accretion disks of active galactic nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLQUC3YJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09284}
}
read the original abstract

It is widely recognized that active galactic nucleus (AGN) disks host numerous massive stars and compact objects. Stellar-scale jets triggered by collapses of massive stars and mergers of compact objects could propagate through the disk and produce observable electromagnetic radiation. Magnetically arrested disks (MADs), supported by both numerical simulations and observations, possess strong magnetic fields (MFs). As jets travel within such environments, the MFs should regulate jet evolution and shape radiation signatures. In this work, we explore the effects of disk MFs on jet propagation and breakout emission within the MAD framework. We employ a jet-cocoon model that accounts for potential disk-MF effects, including both magnetic pressure and magnetic energy dissipation driven by magnetic reconnection. We find that magnetic pressure effectively suppresses the lateral expansion of the cocoon, which enhances jet collimation and modestly increases the jet-head velocity. Furthermore, magnetic pressure effects are more pronounced at relatively low jet powers. In this regime, the breakout luminosity of the jet-head shock is enhanced, while its breakout time is shortened. However, the magnitude of the luminosity enhancement is sensitive to the adopted regime-dependent emission prescriptions. These findings suggest that, within the explored parameter space, disk MFs can facilitate the breakout of low-power jets arising from binary black hole mergers in AGN MADs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter evolution of a jet-cocoon system with jet power in a dense medium with a mass density of 10−11 g cm−3 , for different values of the generic ambient magnetization parameter σ. The red, yellow, green, and purple curves correspond to σ = 0, 10−1 , 101 , and 103 , respectively. σ is used only for an illustrative parameter survey. The physically realized MAD disk magnetization, denoted by σd in this work, is ca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial profiles of the MF strength, mass density, and magnetization parameter in MADs. The green dashed, yellow dot-dashed, and red solid lines correspond to supermassive BH masses MBH = 106 , 107 , and 108 M⊙, respectively. confinement. Accounting for magnetic pressure effects, the lateral expansion velocity of the cocoon is given by βc = min s Pc − PB,c ρ¯d c 2 , βA ! , (5) where Pc, ¯ρd, and βA = q σd 1+σd denote… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the jet-head velocity for different values of fh. The yellow dotted, green dashed, and red solid curves correspond to fh = 0.0, 0.1, and 1, respec￾tively. Here, zx denotes the spatial extent of the reconnection region, and MA ≡ vinj/vA is the Alfv´enic Mach number of the turbulence, where vinj is the injected turbulent ve￾locity at the injection scale zinj. For turbulence driven by shear motion… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter evolution of jet-cocoon systems in a MAD with MBH = 107 M⊙. The jet is launched from a radial location of R = 102 Rg, with Lorentz factor Γj = 100 and initial half-opening angle θj = 5◦ . Jet power is fixed at Lj = 1044 erg/s. Dashed lines denote the results …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial distributions of jet-cocoon parameters evaluated at the breakout location of jet-head shocks. The blue, red, and yellow lines denote the results obtained with MBH = 106 , 107 , and 108 M⊙, respectively. Solid and dashed lines denote the results obtained with and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dynamical parameters of jet-cocoon systems at the breakout location as functions of jet power. The purple, blue, and yellow lines denote the results obtained with MBH = 106 , 107 , and 108 M⊙, respectively. Solid and dashed lines denote the results obtained with and wi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratios of dynamical parameters between the mag￾netized and nonmagnetized cases as functions of jet power. The red, purple, yellow, and green curves show ρj,MF/ρj,NMF, Πj,MF/Πj,NMF, θh,MF/θh,NMF, and βh,MF/βh,NMF, respec￾tively. grows markedly as the radial distance inc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Luminosity and temperature of the jet-head shock breakout as functions of jet power in a MAD for MBH = 107 M⊙. The left and right panels show the breakout luminosity and breakout temperature, respectively. Solid and dashed lines represent results obtained with and with…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cocoon luminosity at the breakout location as a function of jet power in a MAD with MBH = 107 M⊙. Solid and dashed lines denote the results obtained with and without MF effects, respectively. The radial location of jet launching is fixed at R = 102 Rg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Breakout time of jet-head shocks as a function of jet power. The red, yellow, and green lines denote the results obtained with MBH = 106 , 107 , and 108 M⊙, respectively. Solid and dashed lines denote the results obtained with and without MF effects, respectively. The…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.11452

    Aktar, R., Pan, K.-C., & Okuda, T.\ 2026, arXiv:2603.11452. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.11452

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11452 2026

  2. [2]

    Artymowicz, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Wampler, E. J.\ 1993, , 409, 592. doi:10.1086/172690

    doi:10.1086/172690 1993

  3. [3]

    C., & Cioffi, D

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

    doi:10.1086/185542 1989

  4. [4]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L.\ 1977, , 179, 433. doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

  7. [7]

    & Tchekhovskoy, A.\ 2016, , 456, 1739

    Bromberg, O. & Tchekhovskoy, A.\ 2016, , 456, 1739. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2591 2016

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1103/hgj9-v4fk

    Chatterjee, K., Kaaz, N., Liska, M., et al.\ 2025, , 112, 063013. doi:10.1103/hgj9-v4fk

    doi:10.1103/hgj9-v4fk 2025

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

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

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

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Dai, Z. G. & Lu, T.\ 1998, , 333, L87. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402

    1998 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    de Gouveia dal Pino, E. M. & Lazarian, A.\ 2005, , 441, 845. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042590

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Piovezan, P

    de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Piovezan, P. P., & Kadowaki, L. H. S.\ 2010, , 518, A5

    2010

  6. [14]

    E.\ 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 409, 69

    Dimotakis, P. E.\ 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 409, 69. doi:10.1017/S0022112099007946

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    E.\ 2005, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 37, 329

    Dimotakis, P. E.\ 2005, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 37, 329. doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122015

    2005

  8. [16]

    Dittmann, A. J. & Miller, M. C.\ 2020, , 493, 3732. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa463

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    Edgar, R.\ 2004, , 48, 843. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    C., et al.\ 2021, , 910, L13

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Algaba, J. C., et al.\ 2021, , 910, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al.\ 2024, , 964, L26. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Caban, F., et al.\ 2020, , 499, 2608

    Fabj, G., Nasim, S. S., Caban, F., et al.\ 2020, , 499, 2608. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3004

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    & Wu, Q.\ 2023, , 944, 159

    Fan, X. & Wu, Q.\ 2023, , 944, 159. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb532

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Gaensler, B. M. & Slane, P. O.\ 2006, , 44, 17. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    2006 arXiv

  16. [25]

    B., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 3320

    Gottlieb, O., Bromberg, O., Singh, C. B., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 3320. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2567

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    Gottlieb, O., Lalakos, A., Bromberg, O., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 4962. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Ford, K

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

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    & K \"o nigl, A.\ 2003, , 594, L83

    Granot, J. & K \"o nigl, A.\ 2003, , 594, L83. doi:10.1086/378733

    2003 doi

  20. [29]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty760

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E.\ 2018, , 477, 2128. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty760

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    & Lyttleton, R

    Hoyle, F. & Lyttleton, R. A.\ 1939, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 405. doi:10.1017/S0305004100021150

    1939 doi

  22. [31]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abba7e

    Huang, B.-Q., Liu, T., Huang, F., et al.\ 2020, , 904, 17. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abba7e

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d54

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

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/71

    Inoue, T., Yamazaki, R., Inutsuka, S.-i., et al.\ 2012, , 744, 71. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/71

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    K., Bhake, A., Banerjee, B., et al.\ 2025, , 703, A304

    Joshi, R. K., Bhake, A., Banerjee, B., et al.\ 2025, , 703, A304. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555874

    2025 doi

  26. [35]

    Kadowaki, L. H. S., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Singh, C. B.\ 2015, , 802, 113. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/113

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

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

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

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    & Vishniac, E

    Lazarian, A. & Vishniac, E. T.\ 1999, , 517, 700. doi:10.1086/307233

    1999 doi

  29. [38]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac98ad

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

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    P., et al.\ 2023, , 950, L20

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Gompertz, B. P., et al.\ 2023, , 950, L20. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd18c

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Malesani, D

    Levan, A. J., Malesani, D. B., Gompertz, B. P., et al.\ 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 976. doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01998-8

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae346b

    Li, X.-Y., Liu, T., Huang, B.-Q., et al.\ 2026, , 998, 298. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae346b

    2026 doi

  33. [42]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083033

    Ma, Z.-P., Wang, K., Wu, Q., et al.\ 2025, , 111, 083033. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083033

    2025 doi

  34. [44]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al.\ 2019, , 884, L50. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    2019 doi

  35. [46]

    & Sari, R.\ 2010, , 725, 904

    Nakar, E. & Sari, R.\ 2010, , 725, 904. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    2010 doi

  36. [47]

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

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

    2012 doi

  37. [48]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

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

    2003 doi

  38. [49]

    F., et al.\ 2012, , 426, 3241

    Narayan, R., S a dowski, A., Penna, R. F., et al.\ 2012, , 426, 3241. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    2012

  39. [50]

    S., Fabj, G., Caban, F., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 5393

    Nasim, S. S., Fabj, G., Caban, F., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 5393. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1295

    2023 doi

  40. [51]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd319

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

    2021 doi

  41. [52]

    doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    Piran, T.\ 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    2004 doi

  42. [53]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad816

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

    2023 doi

  43. [54]

    C., Nemmen, R., & Bom, C

    Rodr \' guez-Ram \' rez, J. C., Nemmen, R., & Bom, C. R.\ 2025, , 111, 083020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083020

    2025 doi

  44. [55]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/36

    Sapir, N., Katz, B., & Waxman, E.\ 2011, , 742, 36. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/36

    2011 doi

  45. [56]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/79

    Sapir, N., Katz, B., & Waxman, E.\ 2013, , 774, 79. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/79

    2013 doi

  46. [57]

    C., & Dexter, J.\ 2021, , 502, L50

    Scepi, N., Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J.\ 2021, , 502, L50. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab002

    2021 doi

  47. [58]

    & Goodman, J.\ 2003, , 341, 501

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

    2003

  48. [59]

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

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

    doi

  49. [60]

    S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023b, , 946, L3

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023b, , 946, L3. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc103

    doi

  50. [61]

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

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

    2024 doi

  51. [62]

    S., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2604.05020

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

    2026 doi arXiv

  52. [63]

    & Shaviv, N

    Teboul, O. & Shaviv, N. J.\ 2021, , 507, 5340. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2491

    2021 doi

  53. [64]

    A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N.\ 2005, , 630, 167

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N.\ 2005, , 630, 167. doi:10.1086/431923

    2005 doi

  54. [65]

    C.\ 2011, , 418, L79

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C.\ 2011, , 418, L79. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  55. [66]

    C., et al.\ 2021, , 911, L14

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., et al.\ 2021, , 911, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abee81

    2021 doi

  56. [67]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1968

    Wang, Y.-H., Lazzati, D., & Perna, R.\ 2022, , 516, 5935. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1968

    2022 doi

  57. [68]

    Wang, Y., Zhu, Z., & Lin, D. N. C.\ 2024, , 528, 4958. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae321

    2024 doi

  58. [69]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2256

    Wei, Y.-F., Liu, T., & Huang, B.-Q.\ 2025, , 995, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2256

    2025 doi

  59. [70]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adff71

    Xing, J.-T., Liu, T., Huang, B.-Q., et al.\ 2025, , 991, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adff71

    2025 doi

  60. [71]

    & Lei, W.-H.\ 2025, , 987, 167

    Yuan, H.-Y. & Lei, W.-H.\ 2025, , 987, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addbe4

    2025 doi

  61. [72]

    & Narayan, R.\ 2014, , 52, 529

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

    2014 doi

  62. [73]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ddf

    Yuan, C., Murase, K., Guetta, D., et al.\ 2022, , 932, 80. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ddf

    2022 doi

  63. [74]

    & Morris, M.\ 1987, , 322, 721

    Yusef-Zadeh, F. & Morris, M.\ 1987, , 322, 721. doi:10.1086/165767

    1987 doi

  64. [75]

    E., & MacFadyen, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & MacFadyen, A. I.\ 2003, , 586, 356. doi:10.1086/367609

    2003 doi

  65. [76]

    Zhang, B.\ 2019, The physics of gamma-ray bursts (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    2019

  66. [77]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3319

    Zhang, S.-R., Wang, Y., Yuan, Y.-F., et al.\ 2026, , 998, 171. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3319

    2026 doi

  67. [78]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd412

    Zhu, J.-P., Zhang, B., Yu, Y.-W., et al.\ 2021, , 906, L11. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd412

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.