Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Magnetosonic Waves as a Driver of Observed Temperature Fluctuation Patterns in AGN Accretion Disks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The slow, coherent temperature fluctuations observed in AGN accretion disks are compressible acoustic or fast magnetosonic waves excited by turbulent magnetic stress, and their detection at the disk photosphere requires that the…

desk verdict A plausible, well-argued mechanism paper that honestly flags its own missing bridge between midplane waves and the photospheric observations. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11189 v1 pith:CLZZINYN submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.HE

Ish Kaul , Omer Blaes , Yan-Fei Jiang , Lizhong Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AGNaccretiondisksmagnetosonicwavesradiation-MHDsimulationsturbulentMaxwellstresstemperaturefluctuationsvariabilityreverberationmapping
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

Recent multi-band monitoring campaigns have found slow, coherent temperature patterns in AGN accretion disks moving inward and outward at about 0.01–0.1 times the speed of light, behavior that cannot be explained by light-travel reverberation. This paper argues, using global three-dimensional radiation-MHD simulations of accretion disks, that these patterns are propagating compressible waves — acoustic waves in radiation-pressure-dominated regions and fast magnetosonic waves where magnetic pressure dominates — excited by MHD turbulence. In disks with a significant turbulent Maxwell stress, the simulated gas-temperature ripples travel at exactly the local fast magnetosonic speed and have amplitudes of 2–4%, matching the observed waves; disks whose transport is dominated by mean-field Maxwell stresses show no such waves. The authors further infer that any AGN exhibiting these fluctuations must have a magnetically pressure-dominated photosphere whose gas and radiation are out of local thermodynamic equilibrium, because radiative diffusion would otherwise damp the fluctuations before they become observable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fast magnetosonic wave, the compressible mode of a magnetized fluid with speed $c_{\mathrm{ms}}=\sqrt{c_s^2+v_A^2}$, where $c_s$ is the gas-plus-radiation sound speed and $v_A$ is the Alfv\'en speed; in a radiation-pressure-dominated disk this reduces to an acoustic wave, and in a magnetically dominated region to the fast magnetohydrodynamic mode. The argument is carried by two diagnostics computed from the simulations: the ratio of turbulent (fluctuating) Maxwell stress to total Maxwell stress, which sets whether turbulence is present to excite the waves, and the ratio of the radiative-damping timescale from the Appendix's dispersion relation to the wave period, which sets whether a wave can survive to a given height. Wave slopes traced on radius–time maps are compared directly with the local $c_{\mathrm{ms}}$ to identify the modes.

What would settle it

Rerun the fiducial magnetically dominated turbulent simulation with the mesh-refinement boundary moved outside the photosphere: if waves still never reach the photosphere, the failure is physical rather than numerical, and the claim that observed photospheric waves require magnetic pressure dominance would need qualification. Observationally, measure the photosphere's plasma beta in an AGN that shows the propagating fluctuations; a radiation-pressure-dominated photosphere would contradict the paper's central inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed temperature fluctuations are waves in the disk medium rather than reprocessing or stochastic variability: specifically, compressible acoustic or fast magnetosonic modes whose propagation speed is the fast magnetosonic speed $c_{\mathrm{ms}}=\sqrt{c_s^2+v_A^2}$. The turbulence that drives the MRI also excites these modes, provided the Maxwell stress has a substantial fluctuating (turbulent) component; in radiation-pressure-dominated simulations such as AGNUVB3 and AGNIron the waves appear near the midplane with $2$\,$-$\,$4\%$ gas-temperature amplitudes and tens-of-day coherence, consistent with the observational reconstructions. In magnetically elevated regions where mean-field Maxwell stress dominates transport, no propagating temperature patterns appear. Because radiative diffusion strongly damps radiation-pressure-supported waves but weakly damps magnetically supported fast modes, the authors conclude that a detected wave at the photosphere implies magnetic pressure dominance there and a departure from local thermodynamic equilibrium between gas and radiation.

Load-bearing premise

The observed coherent temperature fluctuations are real gas-temperature ripples at the disk photosphere, correctly reconstructed from multi-band light curves under the assumed thin-disk, axisymmetric, linear-perturbation mapping; if that reconstruction is biased, the match between simulated midplane waves and observed variability could be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed 0.01–0.1c inward and outward temperature patterns can be understood as the natural acoustic or fast-mode response of a turbulent disk, with no separate variability mechanism required.
  • An AGN that shows these propagating fluctuations must have a magnetically pressure-dominated photosphere; a thermal-pressure-dominated photosphere would radiatively damp the waves away.
  • In such AGNs, the gas and radiation temperature fluctuations must be out of local thermodynamic equilibrium, because radiation diffusion smooths out radiation-temperature ripples.
  • Magnetically dominated disks are not excluded from producing the pattern as long as their Maxwell stress is turbulent; the observable distinguishes the transport regime, not just the pressure support.
  • Regions or disks with mean-field Maxwell stress dominance, such as current-sheet-dominated magnetically elevated flows, should show no coherent temperature waves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By the paper's criterion, AGNs that show no propagating temperature fluctuations could be read as cases with mean-field-dominated magnetic transport or radiatively damped photospheres; the paper notes one such case among the observational samples without making this the main conclusion.
  • A direct observational probe would be to measure the pattern speed at several radii and compare with independently estimated gas temperature; the residual gives the Alfv\'en speed and thus the magnetic pressure, a magnetic-field diagnostic the paper sketches but does not develop.
  • The same turbulence-based wave mechanism may also apply to other accreting systems, such as X-ray binaries or protoplanetary disks, where comparable magnetosonic modes could modulate surface temperatures; the paper does not discuss these applications.
  • Higher-resolution photosphere simulations either confirming or refuting wave propagation there would sharpen the paper's inference, since the current nondetection at the photosphere is partly blamed on resolution.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a physical mechanism for the slow, coherent temperature fluctuations recently reconstructed from AGN continuum light curves (Neustadt & Kochanek 2022; Stone & Shen 2023). Using five global 3D radiation-MHD simulations, the authors show that disks with a significant turbulent Maxwell stress exhibit azimuthally-averaged gas-temperature perturbations near the midplane that propagate at the local fast magnetosonic speed cms = sqrt(c_s^2 + v_A^2), with 2-4% amplitudes and coherence times of tens of days, matching the observed pattern speeds and amplitudes. Waves appear in radiation-pressure-dominated MRI-turbulent disks (AGNIron, AGNUVB3, early AGNUV4) and in the turbulent, magnetically dominated region of AGNUVB0.6, where they are interpreted as fast magnetosonic modes; disks dominated by mean-field Maxwell stresses (AGNUV0.03, late AGNUV4) show no waves. Because no wave signatures are found at the photosphere in any simulation (§4.1), the paper argues via a homogeneous-medium damping analysis (Appendix A) that observationally detected waves require magnetically pressure-dominated, out-of-LTE photospheres. The central speed comparison is parameter-free and non-circular, but the link between simulated midplane waves and photospheric observations is asserted rather than demonstrated.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and genuinely open question—the origin of a newly reported class of AGN continuum variability—and, if its central identification is correct, it offers a falsifiable prediction (magnetically dominated, out-of-LTE photospheres) that can be tested with future spectropolarimetric or high-resolution simulation work. The strengths of the manuscript are real: the speed comparison is performed with no fitted constants, using the local cms computed from the same simulation state in which the waves are identified (I agree with the reader that this is not circular); the five-simulation suite spans radiation- and magnetic-pressure-dominated regimes; and the proposed criterion for wave excitation—the ratio of turbulent to total Maxwell stress—is clearly operationalized in Fig. 8. The authors are also unusually transparent about the limitations of their analysis, explicitly reporting that FFTs do not isolate the modes (§3.2) and that no wave signatures exist at the photosphere in any simulation (§4.1).

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and §4.3] The central observational inference rests on an untested bridge between simulated midplane waves and photospheric emission. The observed fluctuations from Neustadt & Kochanek (2022) and Stone & Shen (2023) are photospheric quantities reconstructed from multi-band light curves under explicit assumptions of a Shakura–Sunyaev temperature profile, axisymmetry, and linearity, whereas the waves identified in this paper are azimuthally averaged gas-temperature perturbations near the midplane (Figs. 3, 4, 7). The paper itself states that no wave signatures are present at the photosphere in any simulation, for any fluid variable (§4.1), so every quantitative agreement claimed with observations is evaluated in a different region and a different variable than the observations probe. The conclusion of §4.3—that the photospheres of the observed systems must be magnetically pressure dominated and out of LTE—therefore requires the assumption that the observed fluctuations are the photospheric manifestation of the same midplane waves, which is exactly what needs to be demonstrated. A tractable test within the paper's scope would be to generate synthetic multi-band light curves from the simulations (or from a stratified wave model), apply the Neustadt & Kochanek / Stone & Shen reconstruction, and check whether the recovered pattern speeds and amplitudes reproduce the midplane speeds and the observed 2–4% amplitudes.
  2. [Appendix A; §3.2 and Fig. 5] The radiative-damping analysis is applied outside the regime in which it is derived, and its quantitative implementation needs to be reconciled with the displayed equations. Equations A7 and A13 are obtained by setting all equilibrium gradient terms to zero in Blaes & Socrates (2003), i.e. for a homogeneous, static, LTE background, yet they are used to draw conclusions about the strongly stratified, marginally optically thick photosphere (Fig. 5; §3.4; §4.1). The paper is explicit about the LTE-equilibrium assumption but does not justify the transportability of the homogeneous damping rates to the photosphere, where the diffusion approximation itself becomes marginal. Separately, the expression in §3.2, tdamp = (1 + v_A^2/c_s^2)^3 κ_R ρ λ^2/(2π^2 c), does not follow from the k→0 limit of Eq. A7 as printed, which gives the damping rate Γ = c k^2 c_s^2/[6κ_F ρ (v_A^2 + c_s^2)] and hence tdamp = 3(1 + v_A^2/c_s^2) κρλ^2/(2π^2 c); the authors should explain the third power and the factor-of-3 discrepancy, since the ratio tdamp/twave plotted in Fig. 5 is a quantitative input to the conclusion that acoustic waves cannot survive at radiation-pressure-dominated photospheres.
  3. [§3.2; abstract] The abstract's claim that the propagation speeds 'exactly match' the local fast magnetosonic speed is stronger than what the presented analysis establishes. The evidence in Figs. 3, 4, and 7 is a visual comparison of overplotted cms slopes on r–t diagrams, and §3.2 reports that both 1D and 2D FFTs fail to isolate any dominant wave modes. Since the maps are produced by subtracting a linear fit in time over a 50 tsim window, and since footnote 1 acknowledges that static fluctuations coexist with the propagating patterns, apparent motion in these maps deserves a quantitative check. I recommend either softening the 'exactly match' wording or adding a measurement—for instance, tracking wavefronts by cross-correlation in sliding windows and fitting the implied phase speed against the local cms(r,z), or measuring the dispersion ridge in a windowed Fourier power spectrum.
  4. [§4.3 and §3.3] The parameter space in which waves are produced overlaps the observed sample only weakly. The observed AGNs are sub-Eddington, with λEdd ~ 0.01–12 and mostly below unity, whereas the suite's lowest-Eddington simulation, AGNUV0.03, lacks significant turbulent Maxwell stress and shows no wave signatures (§3.3). The expectation stated in §4.3 that 'a sub-Eddington disk with significant turbulence would still presumably excite propagating waves' is an unverified extrapolation, and it matters precisely because the paper's own criterion for wave excitation is the significance of the turbulent Maxwell stress. A sub-Eddington simulation, or a resolved local shearing-box study at sub-Eddington conditions, is needed before the mechanism can be claimed to explain the observed systems; as written, the connection rests on a presumption rather than a demonstrated overlap in parameter space.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] In the opening paragraph of §4.1, 'The former suggest physical constraints' should read 'These suggest physical constraints' (the sentence refers to the three challenges just listed, not to a two-item antecedent).
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 7] The speed cms = sqrt(c_s^2 + v_A^2) is the fast-magnetosonic speed only for propagation perpendicular to the background field; the paper should state at first use that this is the relevant limit because the waves are axisymmetric and the dominant field is toroidal.
  3. [Fig. 6 and §3.3] The color scale ranges differ between panels of Fig. 6, which makes cross-panel comparisons of fluctuation amplitude difficult; consider using a common scale or explicitly labeling the peak amplitude in each panel.
  4. [§4.3, footnote 2] The outlier Mrk 142 (λEdd = 25), which shows no propagating fluctuations despite the highest Eddington ratio in the observed sample, deserves a sentence connecting it to the turbulence criterion or to observational sensitivity, since it could otherwise be read as evidence against a simple dependence on accretion rate.
  5. [References] Several key references (Jiang et al. 2025; Secunda et al. 2025; Hopkins et al. 2025) are cited as arXiv preprints; please update to the published versions where available at the time of submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the speed and amplitude comparisons are consistency checks with no fitted parameters, and the photosphere inference rests on an independent published damping calculation plus explicit caveats.

full rationale

Nothing in the claimed derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central comparison (Figs. 3, 4, 7) overplots the local magnetosonic speed cms=sqrt(cs^2+vA^2) computed from time-averaged local density, pressure, and magnetic field, onto independently identified propagating patterns in δTg/Tg; no parameter is fit to make the slopes agree, and the cms field is not derived from the fluctuation patterns. The 2-4% amplitude comparison is likewise a measured simulation property compared with externally reported observational reconstructions (Neustadt & Kochanek 2022; Stone & Shen 2023), not a fitted input. The conclusion that an observed wave-bearing photosphere must be magnetically pressure dominated rests on the analytic damping rates of Blaes & Socrates (2003), a co-authored but independently published, parameter-free derivation whose assumptions the paper states (homogeneous medium, LTE background, Eqs. A1-A13); applying it to the photosphere is an approximation, not a tautology. Self-citations to Jiang & Blaes (2020) and Jiang et al. (2025) supply simulation details and code outputs that are reproducible numerical evidence, not an unverified uniqueness theorem. The paper explicitly flags the load-bearing limitation that waves are not present at the photosphere in any simulation and that "This makes it challenging to bridge directly to observations" (§4.3); that is an acknowledged inference gap and a correctness risk, but it does not make the simulation-to-observation comparison circular. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity, and the score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on simulation fidelity and on an observational reconstruction from the literature. No free parameters are fitted to data; comparisons use simulation-derived quantities such as the local magnetosonic speed.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Athena++ radiation-MHD simulations faithfully represent turbulent AGN disk thermodynamics.
    All claims about wave excitation and damping rest on the fidelity of the simulated disk structure and turbulence, as described in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Wave frequencies are much higher than orbital and epicyclic frequencies, so the disk can be treated as a static medium for analysis.
    Stated in Section 3.2 to justify using time-averaged data for the magnetosonic speed comparisons.
  • domain assumption The linear perturbation theory of Blaes and Socrates (2003), derived for a homogeneous medium, applies to the stratified disk for damping estimates.
    The damping timescale equation A7 is applied to disk slices at varying z in Section 3.2 and the Appendix.
  • domain assumption Observed light curves used for comparison trace photospheric gas temperature fluctuations reconstructed via a standard thin-disk model with axisymmetry and linearity.
    The paper takes the observational mapping from Neustadt and Kochanek (2022) at face value when claiming amplitude and speed consistency, as discussed in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium gas and radiation temperatures are equal in the simulated disks used for wave analysis.
    Invoked in the Appendix as a valid approximation except for the AGNUV4 run at late times.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetosonic Waves as a Driver of Observed Temperature Fluctuation Patterns in AGN Accretion Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLZZINYN

@misc{pith2026250611189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetosonic Waves as a Driver of Observed Temperature Fluctuation Patterns in AGN Accretion Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLZZINYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11189}
}
abstract

Recent observations have revealed slow, coherent temperature fluctuations in AGN disks that propagate both inward and outward at velocities of $\sim 0.01 - 0.1c$, a kind of variability that is distinct from reverberation (mediated by the reprocessing of light) between different regions of the disk. We investigate the origin and nature of these fluctuations using global 3D radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations of radiation and magnetic pressure-dominated AGN accretion disks. Disks with a significant turbulent Maxwell stress component exhibit wave-like temperature perturbations, most evident close to the midplane, whose propagation speeds exactly match the local fast magnetosonic speed and are consistent with the speeds inferred in observations. These fluctuations have amplitudes of $2 - 4\%$ in gas temperature, which are also consistent with observational constraints. Disks that are dominated by mean-field Maxwell stresses do not exhibit such waves. While waves may be present in the body of the disk, we do not find them to be present in the photosphere. Although this may in part be due to low numerical resolution in the photosphere region, we discuss the physical challenges that must be overcome for the waves to manifest there. In particular, the fact that such waves are observed implies that the disk photospheres must be magnetically dominated, since radiative damping from photon diffusion smooths out radiation pressure fluctuations. Furthermore, the gas and radiation fluctuations must be out of local thermodynamic equilibrium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Azimuthally- and time-averaged quantities after the initial evolution of the AGNUVB3 simulation. (Left Top) Mean (−⟨Br⟩⟨Bϕ⟩/4π) and turbulent (⟨Br⟩⟨Bϕ⟩/4π − ⟨BrBϕ⟩/4π) Maxwell stress along with turbulent Reynolds (⟨ρvrvϕ⟩ − ⟨ρvr⟩⟨ρvϕ⟩/⟨ρ⟩) stresses and (Left Bottom) pressure profiles in z at r = 300rg averaged over 100 − 200tsim. The pressure profiles include radiation, gas and magnetic pressure in addition to the θ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of azimuthally-averaged data from the simulation AGNUVB3 at 225tsim, showing evidence of waves near the midplane. The top panel displays the density with a temporal linear fit over a window of 50tsim subtracted. The bottom panel illustrates that these waves also appear in the total pressure (magnetic, gas, and radiation) fluctu￾ations defined in the same way. Black lines in both panels show the numerical r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Timestream (r − t) plots of gas temperature fluctuations δTg over the mean Tg in simulation AGNUVB3, for the time interval shown and for selected values of θ from the vertical as labeled in each panel. The over-plotted black lines indicate the magnetosonic sound speed cms at those radii, showing that these are acoustic waves. The dashed lines in the midplane guide the eye towards ingoing fluctuations. The coherent f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ratio of the radiation damping timescale to the wave propagation timescale in AGNUVB3 at different height (z) slices. For higher z this ratio goes below unity for small radii which causes the disappearance of these waves in those regions. Additionally, for higher a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distinguishing fast magnetosonic modes and thermal sound modes in AGNUVB0.6. (Left) Time- and azimuthally￾averaged profiles of magnetosonic (solid lines) and Alfv´en velocity (dashed lines) in the midplane as a function of radius. In the inner, magnetic pressure domina…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time- and azimuthally-averaged ratio of turbu￾lent Maxwell stress to the total Maxwell stress in and around the midplane for the various different simulations. A lower ratio implies less turbulence and corresponds to regions of no waves. The exceptions in AGNUV0.03 are…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 801, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09989.x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ar´ evalo, P., & Uttley, P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 801, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09989.x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 509, doi: 10.1086/377637

    Blaes, O., & Socrates, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 509, doi: 10.1086/377637

    doi:10.1086/377637 2003

  3. [3]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1982, ApJ, 255, 419, doi: 10.1086/159843

    doi:10.1086/159843 1982

  4. [4]

    F., & Torkelsson, U

    Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., Stein, R. F., & Torkelsson, U. 1995, ApJ, 446, 741, doi: 10.1086/175831

    doi:10.1086/175831 1995

  5. [5]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789, doi: 10.1126/science.abg9933

    doi:10.1126/science.abg9933 2021

  6. [6]

    M., Bentz, M

    Cackett, E. M., Bentz, M. C., & Kara, E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102557

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    M., Gelbord, J., Li, Y.-R., et al

    Cackett, E. M., Gelbord, J., Li, Y.-R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b5 2020

  8. [8]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab091

    Cai, Z.-Y., Wang, J.-X., Zhu, F.-F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab091

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab091 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    1967, An introduction to the study of stellar structure (New York: Dover)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1967, An introduction to the study of stellar structure (New York: Dover)

    1967

  2. [10]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Woo, J.-H., & Blaes, O

    Davis, S. W., Woo, J.-H., & Blaes, O. M. 2007, ApJ, 668, 682, doi: 10.1086/521393

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, ApJL, 727, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L24

    Dexter, J., & Agol, E. 2011, ApJL, 727, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L24

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4354

    Dexter, J., Xin, S., Shen, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4354

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Horne, K., et al

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J. M., Horne, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/129

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890 —

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890 —. 2019, ApJ, 870, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b4

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  10. [18]

    2007, A&A, 476, 1113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077942

    Fromang, S., & Papaloizou, J. 2007, A&A, 476, 1113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077942

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Geha, M., Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1, doi: 10.1086/344947

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81e

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    1991 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Heinemann, T., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2009a, MNRAS, 397, 52, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14799.x —. 2009b, MNRAS, 397, 64, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14800.x

    2009

  17. [25]

    E., & Mamatsashvili, G

    Held, L. E., & Mamatsashvili, G. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2656

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y., Su, K.-Y., et al. 2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 18, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.13115

  19. [27]

    F., Squire, J., Su, K.-Y., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Su, K.-Y., et al. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 19, doi: 10.21105/astro.2310.04506

  20. [28]

    F., Su, K.-Y., Murray, N., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Su, K.-Y., Murray, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.05268, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.05268

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 16 Kaul et al

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Blaes, O. 2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09671, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09671

    Jiang, Y.-F., Blaes, O., Kaul, I., & Zhang, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09671, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09671

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2001, ApJ, 550, 655, doi: 10.1086/319786

    Kazanas, D., & Nayakshin, S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 655, doi: 10.1086/319786

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    2008, Nature, 454, 492, doi: 10.1038/nature07114

    Kishimoto, M., Antonucci, R., Blaes, O., et al. 2008, Nature, 454, 492, doi: 10.1038/nature07114

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    H., Horne, K., Kallman, T

    Krolik, J. H., Horne, K., Kallman, T. R., et al. 1991, ApJ, 371, 541, doi: 10.1086/169918

    1991 doi

  29. [37]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.3.679

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Cameron, D

    McHardy, I. M., Cameron, D. T., Dwelly, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1636

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Kochanek, C

    Morgan, C. W., Kochanek, C. S., Morgan, N. D., & Falco, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1129

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., & Kochanek, C. S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac888

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., Kochanek, C. S., Montano, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1386

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Gammie, C

    Ryan, B. R., Gammie, C. F., Fromang, S., & Kestener, P. 2017, ApJ, 840, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a52

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Secunda, A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Greene, J. E. 2024, ApJL, 965, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad34b0 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06304

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    I., & Sergeeva, E

    Merkulova, N. I., & Sergeeva, E. A. 2005, ApJ, 622, 129, doi: 10.1086/427820

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  40. [48]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    N., Dawson, K

    Shen, Y., Brandt, W. N., Dawson, K. S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/4

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    B., Horne, K., et al

    Shen, Y., Hall, P. B., Horne, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab074f

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Squire, J., Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05467, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05467

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    M., et al

    Starkey, D., Horne, K., Fausnaugh, M. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/65

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Simon, J. B. 2008, ApJS, 178, 137, doi: 10.1086/588755

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 4521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2034

    Stone, Z., & Shen, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2034

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    J., et al

    Stone, Z., Shen, Y., Burke, C. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1259

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C

    Suberlak, K. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C. 2021, ApJ, 907, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc698

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    N., et al

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab789e van der Velden, E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, doi: 10.21105/joss.02004

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.