Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Perturbing AGN Accretion Disks with Stars and Moderately Massive Black Holes: Implications for Changing-Look AGN and Quasi-Periodic Eruptions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An orbiting companion crossing the accretion disk of a supermassive black hole can drive the rapid, extreme flares seen in changing-look AGN and quasi-periodic eruptions.

desk verdict The paper's simulation-validated q^2 scaling is a genuine step forward, but the source-specific companion masses rely on an untested factor-of-100 extrapolation to thin-disk parameters and are not as secure as the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19900 v1 pith:3L6QGAUR submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Sierra A. Dodd , Xiaoshan Huang , Shane W. Davis , Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords changing-lookAGNquasi-periodiceruptionsaccretiondiskperturbationsspiraldensitywavessupermassiveblackholebinariesintermediate-massholestidaldisruptionBondiradius
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 one mechanism for two extreme kinds of variability in galactic nuclei: changing-look AGN, which switch their accretion state on timescales of months to years, and quasi-periodic eruptions, which recur every hours to days. The mechanism is a companion—either a star or a moderately massive black hole—on a highly eccentric orbit that crosses the accretion disk of the central supermassive black hole once per orbit. The crossing excites a transient spiral density wave that carries mass inward on roughly the orbital timescale instead of the much longer viscous timescale, producing a burst of accretion whose amplitude is set by the companion's sphere of influence: its Bondi radius for a black hole, its physical radius for a star. Using analytic scalings and three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, the paper shows that changing-look AGN require black hole companions with mass ratio $q \sim 10^{-2}$ and eccentricity $e \gtrsim 0.8$, while most quasi-periodic eruptions require low-mass main-sequence or stripped stars. If correct, the model explains the otherwise puzzling speed and amplitude of these transients and turns them into probes of otherwise unseen companions around supermassive black holes.

What carries the argument

The engine is the transient one-armed spiral density wave excited by a companion plunging through the disk, together with the identity that fixes its effect: $\delta = f\,\alpha^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} + 1$, where $f$ is the fraction of the enclosed disk mass inside the companion's sphere of influence and $\alpha^{-1}(H/R)^{-2}$ is the factor by which the viscous time exceeds the orbital time at the crossing radius. For a black hole, $f = (4/9)q^2$ because the sphere of influence is the Bondi radius, the radius at which the companion's gravity dominates the relative kinetic energy of the gas. For a star, $f = (R_*/r_p)^2$ because the star's physical radius is the cross-section. The simulations confirm that the wave is transient, that the disk becomes eccentric and then returns to circular within about an orbital period, and that the flare delivers 90 percent of its excess mass in $t_{90} \approx 3\,\mathrm{t_{orb}}$, which validates using the pericenter orbital time as the flare duration.

What would settle it

Compute the required companion mass for ZTF18aahiqfi using the disk parameters actually measured in the simulations ($\alpha=0.08$, $H/R=0.12$) rather than the canonical thin values ($\alpha=10^{-2}$, $H/R=1/30$); Equation 12 then gives $q\approx0.7$ instead of $q\approx0.07$, turning the claimed minor merger into a comparable-mass binary. A direct measurement of the pre-outburst disk's thickness and viscosity in any real CL AGN would determine which regime is physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a scaling law for the accretion flare produced when an eccentric companion crosses a thin disk: the flare amplitude is $\delta = (4/9)q^2 \alpha^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} + 1$ for a black hole companion of mass ratio $q$, and $\delta = (R_*/r_p)^2 \alpha^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} + 1$ for a star of radius $R_*$ crossing at pericenter $r_p$, where $\alpha$ is the disk viscosity parameter and $H/R$ its scale height ratio. The Bondi radius sets the disturbance size for a point mass and the stellar radius for a star, and the relative amplitude is just the ratio of the viscous time to the orbital time at the crossing radius times the fraction of disk mass within that disturbance. The paper calibrates these scalings against global hydrodynamic simulations with mass ratios $q = 0.05$ to $0.5$, which reproduce the predicted amplitudes and show the flare lasts a few orbital periods. Applied to individual sources, the observed transition timescale fixes the pericenter distance and the luminosity contrast fixes the companion mass: changing-look AGN are best matched by moderately massive black hole companions with $q \sim 10^{-2}$ on orbits with $e \gtrsim 0.8$, whereas quasi-periodic eruptions are best matched by stars, often low-mass main-sequence or stripped stars, because IMBH companions would merge by gravitational-wave emission in under about forty years.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real thin AGN disks have the transport factor $\alpha^{-1}(H/R)^{-2}\approx9\times10^4$ used to convert observed luminosity contrasts into companion masses—the simulations only calibrate a thicker, more viscous disk where the factor is about 870—and that observed luminosity contrast tracks the accretion-rate contrast; the paper itself notes this sensitivity, and if the simulation-calibrated values were used instead, the inferred mass ratio for ZTF18aahiqfi would rise from $q\approx0.07$ to $q\approx0.7$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured transition timescale directly fixes the pericenter distance through $t_{\rm orb}(r_p)$, so CL AGN and QPE light curves become geometric probes of the companion's orbit.
  • Because most CL AGN have not repeated within observational baselines of about twenty years, the model requires $e \gtrsim 0.8$; sources that do repeat should show the orbital period as their recurrence timescale.
  • Stellar companions cannot account for CL AGN flares, since even red giants at the required pericenter distances yield amplitudes far below the observed values, so bright turn-on events become evidence for hidden black hole companions with $q \sim 10^{-2}$.
  • QPE sources with short eruption durations require pericenters near the tidal radius, which selects low-mass main-sequence stars and stripped-envelope stars; IMBH companions are ruled out because their merger timescales are shorter than about 40 years.
  • If the disk returns to its pre-flare state after a few orbital times, the model predicts repeat flares with the orbit, so long-term monitoring should reveal either recurrence on that timescale or a persistent change of state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling survives at lower mass ratios, the same mechanism should appear in any tilted or eccentric binary disk system, and the predicted $t_{90}\sim$ a few orbital times envelope could be searched for in existing X-ray light curves of other repeating transients.
  • A multi-epoch light curve of a repeating QPE could identify the companion type on its own: a stellar perturber's amplitude should scale as $(R_*/r_p)^2$ and vary if the pericenter precesses, while a black hole perturber's amplitude is independent of $r_p$.
  • The companion masses are sensitive to the assumed disk transport factor; a thin-disk simulation with $\alpha\approx10^{-2}$ and $H/R\approx1/30$ would test the extrapolation directly, since the present runs only calibrate $\alpha\approx0.08$ and $H/R\approx0.12$.
  • Because the paper sets 'turn-off' CL AGN aside, a symmetric mechanism that shuts off accretion rather than turning it on would be a natural complement; if turn-off events show the same fast transitions, they may be the same perturbation acting on a disk close to a stability boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that extreme AGN variability (changing-look AGN and quasi-periodic eruptions) is produced by an eccentric companion—either a star or a moderately massive black hole—crossing the accretion disk of the central SMBH. The passage excites a transient one-armed spiral wave that drives mass inflow on a few orbital timescales, and the flare amplitude is derived as δ = f α^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} + 1, with f = (4/9)q^2 for a point-mass companion (Bondi radius) and f = (R_*/r_p)^2 for a stellar companion. The scaling is tested with a suite of 3D Athena++ simulations for q = 0.05–0.5, e = 0.93, i = 90°, using a control run to measure α ≈ 0.08 and H/R ≈ 0.12; the simulations reproduce the predicted δ ∝ q^2 dependence (Figure 4). The framework is then applied to three ZTF CL AGN and to QPE sources, leading the authors to conclude that CL AGN require eccentric SMBH companions with q ∼ 10^{-2} (stars excluded) and that QPEs are best explained by main-sequence or stripped stars, with IMBH companions disfavored because of short gravitational-wave merger timescales.

Significance. If correct, this would be a valuable step toward a predictive model connecting disk-embedded companions to both CL AGN and QPEs. The paper's strengths are that the central scaling is derived from a simple physical picture and tested against global simulations rather than fitted to the source light curves, that the predicted flare duration of a few orbital timescales is concrete and falsifiable, and that the source constraints are presented explicitly rather than hidden in a black box. The main limitation is that the α and H/R values adopted for the source inference differ by roughly two orders of magnitude in the combination α^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} from the values that calibrate the simulations, and the paper's quantitative companion-mass claims rest on that extrapolation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eqs. (10)–(11), (31)–(34)] The source-specific companion masses are computed with α = 10^{-2} and H/R = 1/30, giving K ≡ α^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} ≈ 9 × 10^4, whereas the simulations that validate Eq. (10) are calibrated at α ≈ 0.08 and H/R ≈ 0.12 (Section 4.1), giving K ≈ 868. Since q ∝ K^{-1/2}, the inferred q is a factor of about 10 larger when the simulation-calibrated K is used: for ZTF18aahiqfi, Eq. (31) gives q ≈ 0.07, but the simulation-calibrated value is q ≈ 0.7, turning a minor merger into a near-equal-mass binary; similar factor-of-ten shifts apply to iPTF 16bco, ZTF18aaidlyq, and AT2019qiz. The caveat in Section 6 that disk properties are 'highly uncertain' does not quantify this factor-of-ten shift. The authors should either justify the thin-disk extrapolation of the α^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} normalization with a concrete physical argument, or present the source inferences as explicit functions of K that include the simulation-calibrated value, and revise the abstract and summary claims about q ∼ 10^{-2} accordingly.
  2. [§4.3 vs. §5.2.2 and §5.3, Eqs. (14)–(19)] The numerical validation covers only point-mass black hole perturbers; no simulation includes an extended star. The QPE conclusions—that main-sequence or stripped stars can reproduce the observed amplitudes and that low-mass or stripped stars are required for many sources—rest on the geometric f = (R_*/r_p)^2 scaling of Eq. (16), which is not tested by the simulations. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly that Eq. (16) is an untested geometrical ansatz for the star-disk interaction; ideally, it should add a stellar-companion simulation or cite a dedicated study that validates the area-ratio prescription in a similar disk.
  3. [§5.3.1, Eq. (35)] The sentence 'For all QPE sources shown in Figure 8, t_merger ≲ 40 years. This remains true even in the conservative case where the mass of the perturber is computed using α^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} = 10^6' is quantitatively incorrect. For q ≪ 1, Eq. (35) gives t_merger ∝ q^{-1}, while Eq. (11) gives q ∝ [α(H/R)^2]^{1/2} = K^{-1/2}; therefore increasing K from 9 × 10^4 to 10^6 increases the merger time by a factor of about √11.1 ≈ 3.3, so the bound becomes roughly 130 years rather than 40 years. The conclusion that IMBHs are short-lived may still hold, but the stated bound should be corrected and the range of t_merger under the disk-parameter uncertainty should be reported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, final paragraph] The phrase 'for a point mass perturber (for a stellar perturber)' is confusing; the simulations only test the point-mass case, and the sentence should be rewritten to say so directly.
  2. [§2.2, footnote 1] The footnote notes that a prograde orbit with i = 15° can increase δ by up to a factor of about 500. Since the source applications in Section 5.2 all assume i = 90°, this inclination dependence should be mentioned in Section 5.2 as an additional systematic uncertainty on the inferred companion parameters.
  3. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Franchini et al. (2023), Linial & Metzger (2023), and Miniutti et al. (2019); these should be merged.
  4. [§5, first paragraph] The paper correctly notes that the luminosity-to-accretion-rate mapping is conditional, but Section 5.2 then uses bolometric luminosity ratios directly as δ. A brief quantitative caveat about how radiative efficiency or anisotropic emission could change the inferred δ would help the reader judge the source constraints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The derivation is self-contained: the flare-amplitude scaling is tested against Athena++ simulations, and the source applications are forward constraints; no circular step is found.

full rationale

The central relation δ ≈ f α^{-1}(H/R)^{-2} + 1 (Eq. 6, with f = (4/9)q^2 for black-hole companions and f = (R_*/r_p)^2 for stars, Eqs. 10 and 16) is constructed from the definition of the viscous time (Eq. 1), the pre-flare accretion rate (Eq. 3), the flaring accretion rate (Eq. 4), and the geometric cross-section of the perturbation (Eqs. 8-9 and 13-14). It is not fitted to the observed source data. In Section 4, the q-dependence of the flare amplitude is tested against independent Athena++ hydrodynamic simulations over q = 0.05-0.5; the measured flare accretion rates (M90/t90) are compared with the analytic curve, with α and H/R measured from the no-companion control run (Eq. 27 and the text near Fig. 1). That is a nontrivial check of the q^2 coefficient, not a tautology. The applications in Section 5.2 are forward inversions: observed t_pert sets r_p via t_orb(r_p) = t_pert, and observed flare amplitudes together with assumed canonical α and H/R constrain q via Eq. 11. The assumed α ≈ 10^-2 and H/R ≈ 1/30 are not fitted to the CL AGN or QPE sources, so the derived q values are model constraints rather than predictions forced by the data. The paper itself flags the sensitivity of these constraints to the pre-outburst disk properties (Section 6), which is a correctness or extrapolation concern about moving from the simulated thick disk (α ≈ 0.08, H/R ≈ 0.12) to canonical thin-disk values, not a circular argument. The one self-citation — Huang et al. (2025) for the linear spiral-wave pitch-angle fit in Section 4.2 — is illustrative and does not carry the load of the flare-amplitude or mass-ratio conclusions. Overall, no claimed prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The mechanism itself is cheap: one analytic scaling and one simulation suite. The expensive inputs are the assumed viscosity α and scale height H/R, which set the normalization of every source inference (and shift the inferred companion mass by an order of magnitude between the simulated and canonical values), and the mapping from observed luminosity to accretion rate. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • α (disk viscosity parameter) = 10^-2 (fiducial for sources); 0.08 (measured in control simulation)
    Equation 12: the inferred companion mass ratio q scales as α^{1/2}. The source constraints adopt α=10^-2; the simulations measure α≈0.08, which alone raises the inferred q by a factor of about 2.8.
  • H/R (disk aspect ratio) = 1/30 (fiducial for sources); 0.12 (measured in control simulation)
    Equation 12: the inferred q scales linearly with H/R. Using the simulation value 0.12 instead of 1/30 raises q by a factor of about 3.6, and together with α moves the ZTF18aahiqfi companion from 0.07 M_smbh to about 0.7 M_smbh.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed bolometric luminosity ratio equals the accretion rate ratio δ (L ∝ Mdot).
    Section 5.2 converts observed flare amplitudes for CL AGN and QPEs into δ using bolometric luminosities; if radiative efficiency or reprocessing changes during the flare, the inferred companion properties shift.
  • domain assumption The simulated thick-disk results (H/R≈0.12, α≈0.08) extend to thin AGN disks via the analytic scalings with re-specified α and H/R.
    Section 4 validates the scalings only for the simulated thick disk; Section 5.2 applies them to canonical thin-disk values without a thin-disk simulation.
  • domain assumption The observed transition timescale equals the disk orbital period at pericenter, t_pert = t_orb(rp).
    Section 2.1 sets rp from this equality, but the simulations yield t90≈3.2 t_orb, so the mapping is approximate to a factor of about 3 in timescale.
  • domain assumption The disk returns to its pre-flare state between encounters, allowing repeated flares with similar amplitudes.
    The recurring QPE picture and the non-repeating CL AGN interpretation (Figure 5) assume the disk is not permanently altered; the paper notes that some CL AGN keep brightening after turn-on.
  • standard math Gravitational-wave inspiral for the IMBH companion follows the standard Peters formula as parameterized by Zwick et al. (2020), Equation 35.
    Section 5.3.1 uses Equation 35 to conclude IMBH companions merge within tens of years and are therefore unviable for QPEs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perturbing AGN Accretion Disks with Stars and Moderately Massive Black Holes: Implications for Changing-Look AGN and Quasi-Periodic Eruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3L6QGAUR

@misc{pith2026250619900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perturbing AGN Accretion Disks with Stars and Moderately Massive Black Holes: Implications for Changing-Look AGN and Quasi-Periodic Eruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3L6QGAUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19900}
}
read the original abstract

We present a model that explains some extreme variability phenomena observed in active galactic nuclei (AGN). In this model, an orbiting companion interacts with the accretion disk surrounding the central supermassive black hole (SMBH). This interaction excites spiral density waves, leading to bursts of mass inflow lasting a few orbital timescales, whose mass content depends sensitively on the sphere of influence of the orbiting companion. To explain changing-look (CL) AGN, we find that lighter SMBH companions are necessary, while we generally exclude stellar companions. The moderately massive black hole perturber must be on a highly eccentric orbit in order to account for the non-repeating nature of most CL AGN. When applied to quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs), we find that stars with highly eccentric orbits and close pericenter passages can produce accretion flares with QPE-like characteristics. For many QPEs, low-mass main-sequence stars or stripped-envelope stars are required. Although moderately massive black hole perturbers could also match the observed properties of QPEs, the gravitational-wave merger timescales of such binary systems are prohibitively short.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19900 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density snapshots showing the response of an accretion disk to the passage of a massive BH on an inclined, eccentric orbit. The top (upper panel) and side (bottom panel) views are shown for each of the four time steps, which depict the disk initial conditions, the companion crossing the midplane, the formation of a spiral density wave in the top-down view, and the evolution of the wave. The mass ratio between the ce… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analytic fit to the spiral density wave (left and middle panels) together with the mass accretion rate history (right panel). The mass ratio of the system shown here is 0.3. Left and middle panels: following the frameworks of Ju et al. (2016) and Huang et al. (2025), we use measurements of the local Mach number and the rotational speed (white cross symbols in the middle panel) to calculate the expected spiral patter… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas density plots showing spiral waves in the top-down view of the accretion disk for mass ratios ranging from 0.05 (far left) to 0.5 (far right). Each snapshot takes place 0.2 orbital timescales of the disk at periapsis after the crossing of the companion at the mid-plane. We find that a one-armed spiral wave is excited in the accretion disk as a result of the interaction with the com￾panion. The spiral wave is tra… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the analytic prediction for the magnitude of the accretion flare as a function of q (purple line; Equation 10) and simulation results (black circles). For the simulations, M˙ f /M˙ is measured using the 90th percentile of total mass accreted during t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic overview of the perturbed accretion disk model to explain some extreme variability phenomena observed in AGN. In this model, a companion orbits around a central SMBH and interacts with the centrifugally supported gas. This interaction creates spiral density w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the orbital timescale at the perturbation radius induced by the passage of an eccentric companion derived for CL AGN (red diamonds; all from Frederick et al. 2019) and a QPE source (black circle; Nicholl et al. 2024). The error in the characteristic flar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predictions of accretion flares from disk disturbances caused by the passage of a moderately (10−3 < q < 10−1 ) massive black hole (left panel) or a star (right panel). The solid red and black horizontal lines show the upper limits for the flare amplitude for CL AGN ZT…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Constraints on the orbital timescale of the accretion disk at the perturbation radius induced by the passage of an eccentric stellar companion derived for QPE sources. The Schwarzschild radius of the central SMBH is shown as a solid purple line. The dashed (dash-dotted…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The birth of young radio jets in changing-look AGN: a population study

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A population study of 474 changing-look AGN finds they generally lack long-term radio variability, arguing against sustained jet births in most such events.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2017, ARA&A, 55, 17

    Alexander, T. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 17

    2017

  2. [2]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704

    2021

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 684, A64

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A64

    2024

  4. [4]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651

    1994

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 149

    Auchettl, K., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 149

    2017

  6. [6]

    2011, Galactic dynamics, Vol

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2011, Galactic dynamics, Vol. 13 (Princeton university press)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Conselice, C. J., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, L51

    2009

  8. [8]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Conselice, C. J., Buitrago, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 34

    2012

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    S., et al

    Bundy, K., Fukugita, M., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1369

    2009

  2. [10]

    M., Binney, J., et al

    Cattaneo, A., Faber, S. M., Binney, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 213

    2009

  3. [11]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40

    2021

  4. [12]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L39

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L39

    2025

  5. [13]

    J., Fuerst, S

    Dai, L. J., Fuerst, S. V., & Blandford, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1614

    2010

  6. [14]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Foley, R. J. 2021, ApJL, 907, L21

    2021

  7. [15]

    J., Yang, Q., & Runnoe, J

    Duffy, L., Eracleous, M., Ruan, J. J., Yang, Q., & Runnoe, J. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06065

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, L021302

    Ellis, J., Fairbairn, M., H¨ utsi, G., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, L021302

    2024

  9. [17]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100

    2023

  10. [18]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A100

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A100

    2023

  11. [19]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 31

    2019

  12. [20]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 144

    2017

  13. [21]

    2000, Nature, 407, 349

    Kremenek, T. 2000, Nature, 407, 349

    2000

  14. [22]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2

    2020

  15. [23]

    1979, ApJ, 233, 857

    Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1979, ApJ, 233, 857

    1979

  16. [24]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25

    2013

  17. [25]

    M., Viallet, M., & Lasota, J

    Hameury, J. M., Viallet, M., & Lasota, J. P. 2009, A&A, 496, 413

    2009

  18. [26]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, arXiv:2504.07169

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    1989, ApJS, 70, 419

    Hernquist, L., & Katz, N. 1989, ApJS, 70, 419

    1989

  20. [28]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475

    2008

  21. [29]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y., Su, K.-Y., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 18

    2024

  22. [30]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L11

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, ApJL, 982, L11

    2025

  23. [31]

    B., Igumenshchev, I

    Ivanov, P. B., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Novikov, I. D. 1998, ApJ, 507, 131

    1998

  24. [32]

    M., & Zhu, Z

    Ju, W., Stone, J. M., & Zhu, Z. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 81

    2016

  25. [33]

    L., Kelley, L

    Katz, M. L., Kelley, L. Z., Dosopoulou, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2301

    2020

  26. [34]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 1269

    2023

  27. [35]

    Kelley, L. Z. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4065

    2021

  28. [36]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3131

    2017

  29. [37]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 493, L120 —

    King, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 493, L120 —. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 4344

    2020

  30. [38]

    R., Pringle, J

    King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Livio, M. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1740

    2007

  31. [39]

    2006, Mem

    Komossa, S. 2006, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 77, 733

    2006

  32. [40]

    Krolik, J. H. 1999, Active galactic nuclei : from the central black hole to the galactic environment 18 Dodd et al

    1999

  33. [41]

    H., & Linial, I

    Krolik, J. H., & Linial, I. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 24

    2022

  34. [42]

    T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J

    Lam, A. T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17016

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M., Cales, S., Moran, E

    LaMassa, S. M., Cales, S., Moran, E. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 144

    2015

  36. [44]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102

    Lawrence, A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102

    2018

  37. [45]

    J., & Valtonen, M

    Lehto, H. J., & Valtonen, M. J. 1996, ApJ, 460, 207

    1996

  38. [46]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34

    2023

  39. [47]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 34

    2023

  40. [48]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 86

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 86

    2023

  41. [49]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 184

    Liu, C., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 184

    2023

  42. [50]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 40 L´ opez-Navas, E., Mart´ ınez-Aldama, M

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 40 L´ opez-Navas, E., Mart´ ınez-Aldama, M. L., Bernal, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L57 L´ opez-Sanjuan, C., Le F` evre, O., Ilbert, O., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A7

    2025

  43. [51]

    P., et al

    Lu, R.-S., Asada, K., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 686

    2023

  44. [52]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 6247

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 6247

    2023

  45. [53]

    H., Martin, R

    Lubow, S. H., Martin, R. G., & Nixon, C. 2015, ApJ, 800, 96

    2015

  46. [54]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603

    1974

  47. [55]

    L., Ross, N

    MacLeod, C. L., Ross, N. P., Lawrence, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 389

    2016

  48. [56]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 9

    MacLeod, M., Goldstein, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Guillochon, J., & Samsing, J. 2014, ApJ, 794, 9

    2014

  49. [57]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 133

    MacLeod, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Grady, S., & Guillochon, J. 2013, ApJ, 777, 133

    2013

  50. [58]

    M., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al

    Miller, J. M., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L23

    2023

  51. [59]

    2019, Nature, 573, 381

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381

    2019

  52. [60]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381

    2019

  53. [61]

    M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Mockler, B., Gallegos-Garcia, M., G¨ otberg, Y., Miller, J. M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024, ApJL, 973, L9

    2024

  54. [62]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L27

    Naoz, S., & Haiman, Z. 2023, ApJL, 955, L27

    2023

  55. [63]

    M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al

    Naoz, S., Will, C. M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L8

    2020

  56. [64]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804

    2024

  57. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898

    Noda, H., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898

    2018

  58. [66]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 950

    Ogilvie, G., & Lubow, S. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 950

    2002

  59. [67]

    M., Assef, R

    Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rv, 25, 2

    2017

  60. [68]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 928, L18

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 928, L18

    2022

  61. [69]

    L., Schartel, N., Grupe, D., et al

    Parker, M. L., Schartel, N., Grupe, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L88

    2019

  62. [70]

    I., Vestergaard, M., Koay, J

    Raimundo, S. I., Vestergaard, M., Koay, J. Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 123

    2019

  63. [71]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 82

    Raj, A., & Nixon, C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 82

    2021

  64. [72]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523

    1988

  65. [73]

    M., Combi, L., Li, X., Ripperda, B., & Yang, H

    Ressler, S. M., Combi, L., Li, X., Ripperda, B., & Yang, H. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 70

    2024

  66. [74]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

    2015

  67. [75]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Dexter, J., & Agol, E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 105

    2014

  68. [76]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 76

    2019

  69. [77]

    C., Cales, S., Ruan, J

    Runnoe, J. C., Cales, S., Ruan, J. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1691

    2016

  70. [78]

    J., Papaloizou, J

    Savonije, G. J., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Lin, D. N. C. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 13 Sch¨ odel, R., Merritt, D., & Eckart, A. 2009, A&A, 502, 91

    1994

  71. [79]

    1999, MNRAS, 304, 687

    Stehle, R. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 687

    1999

  72. [80]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 4

    2020

  73. [81]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 69

    Tagawa, H., & Haiman, Z. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 69

    2023

  74. [82]

    A., Pols, O

    Tout, C. A., Pols, O. R., Eggleton, P. P., & Han, Z. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 257

    1996

  75. [83]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445 Van den Bossche, M., Lesur, G., & Dubus, G. 2023, A&A, 677, A10

    1997

  76. [84]

    2024, A&A, 683, A131

    Cignoni, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A131

    2024

  77. [85]

    Vurm, I., Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, ApJ, 983, 40

    2025

  78. [86]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 128

    Wang, S., Woo, J.-H., Gallo, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 128

    2024

  79. [87]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L32

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., He, J., & Shu, X. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L32

    2021

  80. [88]

    J., Wu, X.-B., et al

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., Wu, X.-B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 91

    2025

  81. [89]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 109

    Yang, Q., Wu, X.-B., Fan, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 109

    2018

  82. [90]

    Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C

    Yao, P. Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14578 —. 2025, ApJ, 978, 91

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

    2014

  84. [92]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 54 Perturbing AGN Accretion Disks with Stars and Moderately Massive Black Holes 19

    Zabludoff, A., Arcavi, I., LaMassa, S., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 54 Perturbing AGN Accretion Disks with Stars and Moderately Massive Black Holes 19

    2021

  85. [93]

    Zalamea, I., Menou, K., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 409, L25

    2010

  86. [94]

    Zentsova, A. S. 1983, Ap&SS, 95, 11

    1983

  87. [95]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A55

    Zhao, Z., Wang, Y., Zou, Y., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A55

    2022

  88. [96]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 2321

    Amaro-Seoane, P. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2321

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.