Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

A New Interpretation for the Hot Corona in Active Galactic Nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the hot corona of active galactic nuclei is a plasmoid chain in a magnetic reconnection layer, whose predicted height–luminosity relation matches X-ray reverberation data for IRAS 13224-3809.

desk verdict A plausible and well-presented reconnection-layer model for the AGN corona, whose main claim of validation rests on an unproven identification between a luminosity-weighted mean height and the lamp-post height. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00504 v1 pith:2PBXZRKN submitted 2025-02-01 astro-ph.HE

Yu Zhao , Yan-Rong Li , Jian-Min Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SupermassiveblackholesMagneticfieldsActivegalacticnucleiX-rayHotcoronareconnectionPlasmoidsReverberationmapping
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

This paper proposes that the hot corona that produces X-rays in active galactic nuclei is a thin, vertically extended magnetic reconnection layer, not the compact point-like source assumed in the lamp-post model. The layer runs along the boundary of a magnetic tower anchored at the inner accretion disk and reaches a few tens of gravitational radii in height. Inside it, the tearing instability creates a chain of plasmoids filled with relativistic electrons, and inverse-Compton scattering of disk soft photons by these electrons generates the observed hard X-rays. The authors build a parameterized model for the geometry and magnetization of the layer, compute the IC radiation power and a luminosity-weighted corona height, and show that the predicted height-luminosity relation tracks the X-ray reverberation measurements of the Seyfert galaxy IRAS 13224-3809. The paper's claim is that the plasmoid chain in the reconnection layer is the fundamental physical nature of the hot corona inferred from AGN reverberation mapping, with the magnetic tower supplying both the geometry and the energy source.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic tower boundary treated as a reconnection layer: a vertical, helically twisted magnetic structure whose outer boundary is a thin current sheet. Its shape is parameterized by $Z/R_g=\alpha(R_m/R_g-R_{\rm in}/R_g)^\beta$, with $R_m(Z)$ the tower radius, so different $(\alpha,\beta)$ interpolate between mildly radially extended and strongly collimated parabolic geometries. The layer thickness is tied to the largest plasmoids by $W_c\sim0.2S_c$, and the seed photon energy density is obtained by integrating the standard thin-disk flux over the disk surface. The dynamics are set by equating the magnetic push force $f_{\rm push}=\xi U_B/W$ with the inverse-Compton drag force $f_{\rm drag}=\beta\gamma^2U_s\sigma_T n_\pm$, giving a maximum velocity for each plasmoid size that is capped at $\gamma\simeq\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm mag}}$. The machinery then sums the IC power of all plasmoids along the layer (Eqs. 21–23) and defines the corona height $H_{\rm cor}$ as the luminosity-weighted mean height (Eq. 24); this $H_{\rm cor}$ is identified with the height of the point-like corona in the lamp-post model.

What would settle it

Compute the X-ray reverberation lag transfer function for the extended emissivity profile of Equations (21)–(23) and check whether the lag-derived height equals $H_{\rm cor}$; if it does not, the agreement in Figure 8 does not test the model geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the chain of plasmoids formed in a thin parabolic reconnection layer along the boundary of a magnetic tower constitutes the physical realization of the hot corona in AGN reverberation mapping. For a layer shape $Z/R_g=\alpha(R_m/R_g-R_{\rm in}/R_g)^\beta$ and a standard thin-disk soft-photon field, the model computes the inverse-Compton power of plasmoids whose sizes follow $f(W)\propto W^{-1}$ and whose speeds are limited by the balance of magnetic push and IC drag, capped at the fast-magnetosonic Lorentz factor $\gamma\simeq\sqrt{\sigma_{\rm mag}}$. Integrating the power over the layer yields luminosities in the range $10^{42}$–$10^{46}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for typical AGN parameters, and defining the effective corona height $H_{\rm cor}$ as the luminosity-weighted mean height of the layer reproduces the observed correlation between corona height and 2–10 keV luminosity for IRAS 13224-3809. The paper concludes that a corona with mild radial extension ($\beta\sim3$) fits most data points, that the geometry may vary on the viscous timescale, and that the associated magnetic field strengths of $10^3$–$10^5$ G are in line with spectropolarimetric estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on identifying the model's luminosity-weighted average height $H_{\rm cor}$ with the height of a point-like lamp-post corona inferred from X-ray reverberation lags, an identification that is assumed rather than derived from the transfer function of the extended source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The point-like lamp-post corona can be reinterpreted as the luminosity-weighted height of a vertically extended reconnection layer, so observed lag heights trace the length of the layer rather than a compact source location.
  • The height-luminosity correlation seen in IRAS 13224-3809 arises from variations in the layer size $S_c$ by roughly a factor of two, on a viscous timescale of days for that source, without invoking changes in coronal temperature or optical depth.
  • The model predicts magnetic field strengths of $10^3$–$10^5$ G near the innermost disk for typical AGN parameters, consistent with spectropolarimetric estimates and corresponding to magnetization $\sigma_{\rm mag}\sim1$–$10^3$.
  • Because X-rays come mainly from IC emission of plasmoids while radio comes from synchrotron-emitting high-energy particles near reconnection points, correlated flares should show radio leading X-ray; monitoring this sequence in AGNs would test the reconnection origin of the variability.
  • No single corona geometry fits all the observed points, implying that the layer's radial extension changes with time, possibly driven by variations in external pressure or magnetic flux threading the black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification of $H_{\rm cor}$ with the lamp-post height fails a transfer-function calculation, the agreement with IRAS 13224-3809 would test only the overall normalization, not the geometry; a full reverberation simulation of the extended layer would decide this.
  • The same machinery could be applied to stellar-mass black hole X-ray binaries, where the smaller gravitational radius and different disk temperatures shift the seed photon field; the predicted height-luminosity relation could then be checked with fast timing observations of bright accretion events.
  • A more complete radiative treatment would relax the assumption that only disk photons are upscattered; at high $\beta_{\rm mag}$ synchrotron photons from the plasmoids themselves could seed a second Compton component, altering the spectral tail above where the current one-zone estimate applies.
  • The model's requirement that $\beta_{\rm mag}\sim10^{-4}$–$10^{-3}$ makes the magnetic pressure only a small fraction of the disk radiation pressure; this predicts a specific scaling of the X-ray-to-UV luminosity ratio with accretion rate that could be tested across a sample of reverberation-mapped AGNs.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physical model in which the hot corona of an AGN is identified with a vertically extended magnetic reconnection layer along the boundary of a magnetic tower, populated by a chain of plasmoids. The authors specify the tower geometry via a two-parameter power law, compute the soft-photon energy density from a standard thin disk, model plasmoid dynamics by balancing magnetic push against inverse-Compton drag, and calculate the total IC power of the plasmoid chain. They define H_cor (Eq. 24) as the luminosity-weighted mean height of the extended layer and identify it with the point-like lamp-post height used in X-ray reverberation mapping. Applying the model to IRAS 13224-3809, they fix the magnetic pressure fraction beta_mag so that one geometry (M2) passes through the observed average luminosity and height, then compare the relative amplitude A(P_tot) versus H_cor with the observed A(L_2-10keV) versus H_cor for nine tower geometries, reporting good agreement and concluding that the model is validated.

Significance. If the identification of H_cor with the reverberation-mapped lamp-post height is correct, the model provides a physically motivated microphysical basis for the hot corona and a framework for connecting reconnection physics to the observed height-luminosity relation. The paper builds on established results on plasmoid-mediated reconnection and magnetic towers, and it produces quantitative, comparable predictions. However, the validation claim is currently weakened by three issues: the asserted equality between the luminosity-weighted mean height of an extended source and the height inferred by fitting a point-like lamp-post model; the calibration of beta_mag to the same source average luminosity and height combined with scanning over nine geometries and selective matching to different height ranges; and the neglect of the plasmoid filling factor. These issues do not invalidate the model, but they mean that Figure 8 should be interpreted as a consistency check after parameter adjustment rather than as an independent validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.5, Eq. (24)] The identification of H_cor, defined as the luminosity-weighted mean height of the extended reconnection layer, with the height of the point-like lamp-post corona recovered from X-ray reverberation lags is asserted rather than derived. X-ray reverberation lag measurements are sensitive to the full transfer function of the extended source, including the spatial emissivity distribution, the disk illumination pattern, light-travel delays, and the energy bands used in the lag-energy fit. The first moment of the source height is not in general equal to the effective height obtained by fitting a point-like lamp-post model; for an extended source the two can differ substantially. Since the central claim of the paper rests on the agreement between the theoretical H-L relation and the observed one, the authors must either compute the transfer function for their extended, radially stratified reconnection layer and demonstrate that a point-like lamp-post fit returns H_cor within the observational uncertainties, or explicitly treat H_cor as a model-specific quantity and moderate the wording of the validation claim. Without this step, Figure 8 does not test the reconnection-layer geometry.
  2. [Section 2.6] The comparison with IRAS 13224-3809 is partly circular and selective. The magnetic pressure fraction beta_mag is chosen (5.1e-4) so that the M2 curve passes through the observed time-average point (0,10.6) in Figure 8. Then nine tower geometries are scanned, and different subsets are reported as matching different height ranges: M1/M4/M7 for H below 13 Rg, M2/M5/M8 for heights near 15 Rg, and M3/M6/M9 for heights near 20 Rg. This is not a single-model prediction but a family of models with parameters adjusted to the same source. The phrase 'in good agreement' in the abstract and Section 3 is therefore misleading. The authors should provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit test (for example, chi-squared or a likelihood with the observed error bars) for a single geometry with a single beta_mag, and state how many data points can actually be reproduced by any one curve. Without such a statistic, the residual slope agreement could be a result of parameter freedom rather than a physical prediction.
  3. [Section 2.5, Eq. (22)] The filling factor of the plasmoid chain is explicitly assumed to be unity in Eq. (22), as stated in the text. The absolute normalization of P_tot is absorbed into the fitted beta_mag, so this assumption does not affect the calibration of the average point. However, the slope of the H-L relation and the value of H_cor depend on how the emitting volume and the number of radiating electrons scale with height; a filling factor that varies along the layer would change P_cir(Z) and therefore both H_cor and the shape of the curves in Figure 8. The authors should perform a sensitivity test with a height-dependent filling factor (for example, varying between 0.1 and 1) and report whether the slope or the relative offsets of the theoretical curves change by more than the observational scatter.
  4. [Section 2.6, Eq. (26)] The relation A(L_2-10keV) = A(P_tot) assumes that the spectral shape of the IC emission is constant along the reconnection layer. However, from Eqs. (16) and (21), the maximum electron Lorentz factor gamma_max depends on the local soft-photon energy density U_s(Z), which decreases with height as shown in Figure 4. The low-energy cutoff of the upscattered spectrum, set roughly by gamma_max squared times the disk seed photon energy, is therefore position-dependent, so the fraction of the total power falling in the 2-10 keV band should vary along the layer. The authors should either justify the fixed-shape approximation by estimating the magnitude of this variation or quantify the error introduced in the relative amplitude. This is relevant because the main comparison in Figure 8 is made in terms of the relative amplitude of the 2-10 keV luminosity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4] The section title contains a typographical error: 'Plamoids' should be 'Plasmoids'.
  2. [Equation (22)] The factor W in the integrand of Eq. (22) is not explained. Since f(W) is introduced as a size distribution with normalization 1/ln(W_max/W_min), the physical meaning of weighting by W is unclear; please clarify how the number of radiating electrons in plasmoids of size W is related to f(W) and why the power scales as W times f(W) rather than as f(W) alone or as W squared times f(W).
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The right panel is described as showing the energy density of the soft photon field varying with height for different (alpha, beta), but it is not clear whether U_s is evaluated along the tower boundary for each model or at a fixed radius; please specify the path along which U_s is plotted.
  4. [Section 2.6] When deriving beta_mag, the paper uses a conversion factor of 0.25 from the 0.3-100 keV total power to the 2-10 keV luminosity, based on a power law with photon index 2.4. Since the photon index is time-dependent and the lower-energy cutoff of the IC spectrum may vary, please state the assumed spectral model explicitly and check whether the conversion factor remains appropriate over the range of luminosities considered.
  5. [Section 3.1] The claim that P_tot is proportional to S_c is stated without derivation. Since P_cir depends on S_c through W_c and n_plus via Eqs. (2) and (7), the proportionality is not obvious from the text; please include the explicit functional form or refer to a figure that demonstrates this relation.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract states that the theoretical results are 'in good agreement with the observations of IRAS 13224-3809, indicating the validation of our model.' Given the calibration of beta_mag to the same source's average point and the selection among nine geometries, a more cautious wording such as 'consistent with the observed relation after accounting for the model parameters' would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The IRAS 13224-3809 validation is partially circular: beta_mag is adjusted so the model curve passes through the observed average luminosity/height point, and H_cor is defined/associated with the lamp-post height, so normalization and the x-axis identification are inputs; only the slope/shape of the relation remains a genuine model prediction.

  1. other [Section 2.5, Equation (24)]
    "This definition represents the effective height of the vertically extended radiative corona, which we associate with the height of the point-like hot corona in the lamp-post model."

    The observed reverberation height is a lamp-post model parameter recovered from the full X-ray lag transfer function, which depends on the extended source's emissivity profile, disk illumination, and light-travel delays. H_cor in Eq. (24) is a luminosity-weighted first moment of the model layer's height. By saying this quantity 'we associate with the height of the point-like hot corona', the paper makes H_cor identical to the observed quantity by definitional fiat rather than by derivation. Consequently, Figure 8's x-axis is not an independent test of the model geometry; if the transfer-function mapping differs from the luminosity-weighted mean height, the apparent agreement does not validate the reconnection-layer picture.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.6, Application to IRAS 13224-3809]
    "By adjusting βmag, we ensure that the curve calculated in Section 2.5 aligns with the point corresponding to the observed average luminosity and height of the hot corona, resulting in βmag = 5.1 × 10−4."

    The single free parameter that controls the radiation-power normalization is fitted to the observed average 2-10 keV luminosity and average corona height of IRAS 13224-3809. Therefore the theoretical curve in Figure 8 passes through the mean observed point (0, 10.6 Rg) by construction. The abstract's claim that 'the theoretical results are in good agreement with observations' and 'indicating the validation of our model' thus relies in part on an input that was adjusted to produce that agreement. What remains predictive is only the slope/shape of the A(L2-10keV)-Hcor relation as the reconnection-layer size is varied, and the relative ranking of the (alpha, beta) geometry grid.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (plasmoid-chain IC radiation from a prescribed reconnection-layer geometry, Eqs. 1-24) is internally self-contained and not an instance of renaming a known result. It builds on external, non-author simulation and theory results (e.g., Lynden-Bell 2003; Beloborodov 2017; Ripperda et al. 2020) rather than on self-citations, so no self-citation load-bearing circularity is present. The circularity concern is concentrated in the observational validation step. First, beta_mag is not predicted; it is fitted to the average observed luminosity and height, so the normalization of the comparison is an input. Second, H_cor is associated with the lamp-post height by assertion, so the x-axis identification is an additional unverified bridge. The model is not completely circular because the slope and geometry dependence of the height-luminosity relation are not fixed by the beta_mag fit, and the paper does examine which (alpha, beta) geometries can or cannot match the observed spread. However, the strength of the validation claim is substantially reduced by the fitted anchor and the definitional height identification. Overall circularity score: 6 (partial circularity).

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new fundamental particles or forces are introduced. The proposed structure, a parabolic reconnection layer along a magnetic tower boundary, is a configuration of known physics whose existence in AGN coronae is an unverified postulate. The ledger captures the geometric parameters, fitted magnetic fraction, and the main physical assumptions that the central comparison depends on.

free parameters (6)
  • Tower geometry parameters alpha, beta = alpha = 0.1 to 0.3, beta = 2 to 4 (Table 1)
    Control the shape of the reconnection layer in Eq. (1). Scanned over nine discrete pairs rather than fitted, but the choice of which pairs to use for comparison is guided by the observations.
  • Magnetic pressure fraction beta_mag = 5.1e-4 for M2; 3.1e-4 for M1; 7.6e-4 for M9
    Fitted so the model curve passes through the time-averaged luminosity and height of IRAS 13224-3809 in Section 2.6.
  • Thomson optical depth tau_T = 1
    Set to unity based on coronal observations; the particle density and all IC luminosities scale linearly with tau_T through Eq. (7).
  • Plasmoid size ratio coefficient = 0.2
    Assumed W_c ~ 0.2 S_c in Eq. (2), from simulations. Sets the reconnection layer thickness and electron density.
  • Push-force efficiency xi = 0.1
    Taken from Beloborodov (2017) in Eq. (14); controls plasmoid maximum velocity and therefore the IC power.
  • Spectral conversion factor for total to 2-10 keV power = 0.25
    Used in Section 2.6 to estimate the time-averaged total power from L_2-10 keV, assuming a 0.3-100 keV power-law band. This normalization enters the fitted value of beta_mag.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A large-scale magnetic field is efficiently advected into the innermost disk and accumulates there.
    Invoked in the introduction and Section 2.1 to justify the existence of a magnetic tower and reconnection layer. If flux advection is inefficient, the proposed structure does not form.
  • domain assumption The magnetic tower boundary follows the power-law shape Z/Rg = alpha (Rm/Rg - Rin/Rg)^beta with Rin = 1 Rg.
    Equation (1) parameterizes the geometry, with Rin set to 1 Rg corresponding to a = 1. The external pressure profile is not measured, so the geometry is assumed rather than derived from observations.
  • domain assumption Plasmoids in the reconnection layer follow a size distribution f(W) proportional to W^-1 with W_max ~ W_c and W_min ~ Larmor radius.
    Equations (12) and (13), adopted from prior reconnection simulations and theory. This distribution directly controls the total radiation power.
  • domain assumption The electron-positron number density is determined by tau_T and W_c alone, with tau_T fixed to 1.
    Equation (7) and the fixed tau_T = 1 in Section 2.4. Pair production and annihilation details are not modeled, yet n_plusminus sets every radiation power in the paper.
  • domain assumption The accretion disk is a standard thin disk with Shakura-Sunyaev flux, even at high accretion rate near the inner region.
    Equation (4) supplies the soft photon field. The authors acknowledge the inner disk may become advection-dominated but assert their qualitative conclusions survive because only the vertical decline of U_s matters.
  • domain assumption The luminosity-weighted mean height H_cor equals the height measured in lamp-post reverberation mapping.
    Equation (24) defines H_cor and Section 2.5 associates it with the point-like lamp-post height. This identification is load-bearing for the comparison with Alston et al. (2020).
  • domain assumption Plasmoids fill the reconnection layer, so the filling factor is unity and can be ignored in Eq. (22).
    Section 2.5 states a filling factor is expected and that it is ignored for simplicity. This affects the absolute luminosity normalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Interpretation for the Hot Corona in Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PBXZRKN

@misc{pith2026250200504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Interpretation for the Hot Corona in Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PBXZRKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00504}
}
read the original abstract

This work attempts to provide a new interpretation for the hot corona in active galactic nuclei (AGNs). A thin parabolic magnetic reconnection layer, anchored at the innermost disk and extending along the boundary of the magnetic tower for a few tens of gravitational radii, serves as a hard-X-ray source above the disk. Within this reconnection layer, the tearing instability leads to the formation of a chain of plasmoids, which contain relativistic electrons that generate X-ray radiation through inverse-Compton (IC) scattering of soft photons emitted by the accretion disk. Based on previous theoretical works and numerical simulations, we develop a heuristic framework to parameterize the geometry and magnetization of the reconnection layer, as well as to compute both the power of the IC-scattering radiation and the height of the reconnection layer. Our model allows for a quantitative investigation of the relation between the height of the corona and the X-ray radiation luminosity, which can be directly compared against the observed relation from X-ray reverberation mapping of individual AGNs. The theoretical results are in good agreement with the observations of IRAS 13224-3809, indicating the validation of our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A cartoon diagram of the magnetic field configuration in a BH-disk system. The red lines represent the open magnetic field lines threading the BH, while the blue lines represent the field lines of the magnetic tower and accretion disk. The black area represents the BH, and the gray area represents the accretion disk. (a) A magnetic loop disconnects from the large-scale field and is advected to attach to the BH, with… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A cartoon diagram of the reconnection layer configuration along the boundary of the magnetic tower. The gray area represents the accretion disk, the green area represents the force-free magnetic tower, the orange area represents the reconnection layer located at Rin with the characteristic curve length Sc and thickness Wc, and the blue dots represent the relativistic plasmoids moving in the reconnection layer. The l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The shapes of the magnetic tower’s boundary (i.e., the reconnection layers) for the different pairs of α and β listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: the energy density distribution of the soft photon field generated by the standard thin disk in the R − Z plane for a BH-disk system with m = 108 , m˙ = 1, Rin = 1Rg, and Rout = 104Rg. For other m and m˙ , the corresponding energy density of the photon field scal…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relation between the magnetic field strength at Rin and the central BH mass. The parameters αvis = 0.1 and r = 1 are set. The solid, dashed, dash-dotted lines, and dotted lines correspond to the cases of βmag = 10−2 , 10−3 , 10−4 , and 10−5 , respectively. In the r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relation between the size of the reconnectin layer and the defined height of the hot corona for all pairs of α and β listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: the relation between the IC radiation power and the defined height of the hot corona for all pairs of α and β listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relation between the height of the hot corona and the relative amplitude in the 2-10 keV band for IRAS 13224-3809. The blue points represent the observations by Alston et al. 2020. The lines represent our theoretical calculations using the sets of α and β listed in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Fabian, A

    Alston, W. N., Fabian, A. C., Buisson, D. J. K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2527

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2527 2019

  2. [2]

    N., Fabian, A

    Alston, W. N., Fabian, A. C., Kara, E., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-1002-x 14

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-1002-x 2020

  3. [3]

    2012, ApJL, 745, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    Asada, K., & Nakamura, M. 2012, ApJL, 745, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l28 2012

  4. [4]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1999, ApJL, 510, L123, doi: 10.1086/311810 —. 2017, ApJ, 850, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f

    doi:10.1086/311810 1999

  5. [5]

    S., & Lovelace, R

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Lovelace, R. V . E. 2007, ApJL, 667, L167, doi: 10.1086/522206 Biˇc´ak, J., Karas, V ., & Ledvinka, T. 2007, in Black Holes from Stars to Galaxies – Across the Range of Masses, ed. V . Karas & G. Matt, V ol. 238, 139–144, doi: 10.1017/S1743921307004851

    work page doi:10.1086/522206 2007

  6. [6]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1682

    Blandford, R., & Globus, N. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1682

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1682 2022

  7. [7]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  8. [8]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/94

    Cao, X. 2011, ApJ, 737, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/94

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Cao, X., & Spruit, H. C. 2013, ApJ, 765, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/149

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Liu, Y

    Cassak, P. A., Liu, Y . H., & Shay, M. A. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 715830501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000666

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Gallo, L. C. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2087

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    Eracleous, M., Sambruna, R., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2000, ApJ, 537, 654, doi: 10.1086/309076

    2000 doi

  6. [15]

    C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1218

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  8. [17]

    2012, PhRvL, 109, 265002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.265002

    Huang, Y .-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 265002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.265002

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    Igumenshchev, I. V . 2008, ApJ, 677, 317, doi: 10.1086/529025

    2008 doi

  10. [19]

    V ., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M

    Igumenshchev, I. V ., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042, doi: 10.1086/375769

    2003 doi

  11. [20]

    R., & Matsumoto, R

    Kato, Y ., Hayashi, M. R., & Matsumoto, R. 2004a, ApJ, 600, 338, doi: 10.1086/379752

    doi

  12. [21]

    2004b, ApJ, 605, 307, doi: 10.1086/381234

    Kato, Y ., Mineshige, S., & Shibata, K. 2004b, ApJ, 605, 307, doi: 10.1086/381234

    doi

  13. [22]

    S., Vlahakis, N., K¨onigl, A., & Barkov, M

    Komissarov, S. S., Vlahakis, N., K¨onigl, A., & Barkov, M. V . 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1182, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14410.x

    2009

  14. [23]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

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

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/106

    Liu, T., Wang, J.-X., Yang, H., Zhu, F.-F., & Zhou, Y .-Y . 2014, ApJ, 783, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/106

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703, doi: 10.1063/1.2783986

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    Lovelace, R. V . E., Rothstein, D. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 2009, ApJ, 701, 885, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/885

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    1996, MNRAS, 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389 —

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389 —. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1360, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06506.x —. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1167, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10349.x

    1996

  19. [28]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1570, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1570

    Lyubarsky, Y . 2009, ApJ, 698, 1570, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1570

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    Lyubarsky, Y . E. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08767.x

    2005

  21. [30]

    M., & Poutanen, J

    Malzac, J., Beloborodov, A. M., & Poutanen, J. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 417, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04450.x

    2001

  22. [31]

    J., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al

    Mateos, S., Carrera, F. J., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv299

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    2012

  24. [33]

    P., Walker, R

    Mertens, F., Lobanov, A. P., Walker, R. C., & Hardee, P. E. 2016, A&A, 595, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628829

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt844

    Molina, M., Bassani, L., Malizia, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt844

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed

    Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed. M. A. Abramowicz, G. Bj¨ornsson, & J. E. Pringle, 148–182, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803141

    1998 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1995 doi

  28. [37]

    Neupert, W. M. 1968, ApJL, 153, L59, doi: 10.1086/180220

    1968 doi

  29. [38]

    Pal, I., & Stalin, C. S. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3254

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Parfrey, K., Giannios, D., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu162

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    L., et al

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´alez, C., G´omez, J. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3a88

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    2021, Universe, 7, 202, doi: 10.3390/universe7060202

    Piotrovich, M., Buliga, S., & Natsvlishvili, T. 2021, Universe, 7, 202, doi: 10.3390/universe7060202

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    2001, Black hole gravitohydromagnetics

    Punsly, B. 2001, Black hole gravitohydromagnetics

    2001

  35. [44]

    Ricci, C., Walter, R., Courvoisier, T. J. L., & Paltani, S. 2011, A&A, 532, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016409

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., & Philippov, A. A. 2020, ApJ, 900, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ababab

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  38. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06769

    Serafinelli, R., De Rosa, A., Tortosa, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06769

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 15

    1973

  40. [49]

    D., & Lynden-Bell, D

    Sherwin, B. D., & Lynden-Bell, D. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 409, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11791.x

    2007

  41. [50]

    Sikora, M., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJL, 764, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L24

    2013 doi

  42. [51]

    Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, ApJ, 899, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba622

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 48, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1620

    Sironi, L., Giannios, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 48, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1620

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    H., et al

    Soldi, S., Beckmann, V ., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322653

    2014 doi

  45. [54]

    Spruit, H. C. 1996, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, V ol. 477, Evolutionary Processes in Binary Stars, ed. R. A. M. J. Wijers, M. B. Davies, & C. A. Tout, 249–286

    1996

  46. [55]

    C., & Uzdensky, D

    Spruit, H. C., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2005, ApJ, 629, 960, doi: 10.1086/431454

    2005 doi

  47. [56]

    Sridhar, N., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2534 —. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2730

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    C., & Narayan, R

    Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 551, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13425.x

    2008

  49. [58]

    A., Loureiro, N

    Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2010, PhRvL, 105, 235002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002

    2010 doi

  50. [59]

    A., Nandra, K., & Strohmayer, T

    Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., Pounds, K. A., Nandra, K., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2489, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18319.x

    2011

  51. [60]

    Wald, R. M. 1984, General Relativity

    1984

  52. [61]

    Wilkins, D. R. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2936

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    R., & Gallo, L

    Wilkins, D. R., & Gallo, L. C. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2524

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    Johnson, W. N. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 449, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01831.x

    1998

  55. [64]

    L., Begelman, M

    Zakamska, N. L., Begelman, M. C., & Blandford, R. D. 2008, ApJ, 679, 990, doi: 10.1086/587870

    2008 doi

  56. [65]

    1995, ApJL, 438, L63, doi: 10.1086/187716

    McNaron-Brown, K. 1995, ApJL, 438, L63, doi: 10.1086/187716

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.