Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Warped accretion disks and quasars with episodic periodicity of long-term variations

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a freely propagating bending wave in a warped accretion disk can produce the damped quasi-periodic optical variations seen in some quasars, and demonstrates this by fitting the model to the light curve of SDSS…

desk verdict A physically motivated but poorly tested bending-wave explanation for damped quasar periodicity; the fit to one source is a demonstration, not a validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17728 v2 pith:EH5SJMOZ submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Yue-Chang Peng , Jian-Min Wang , Pu Du , Shuo Zhai , Yan-Rong Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords warpedaccretiondisksquasi-periodicvariabilityquasarsactivegalacticnucleibendingwaveslightcurvefittingsupermassiveblackholes
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 argues that a freely propagating bending wave in a warped, low-viscosity accretion disk can explain the quasi-periodic, damped optical variations observed in some quasars. The key claim is that the wave makes the inner disk tilt back and forth relative to the line of sight, producing a light curve whose period is set by the wave turn-over time and whose amplitude damps through viscosity. As a proof of concept, the model is fit to the R-band light curve of SDSS J134820.42+194831.5, reaching a reduced chi-squared of about 2.4. If correct, this provides a physical origin for these episodes that does not require a supermassive black hole binary.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the pair of linear wave-like warp equations (Equations 4 and 5 of the paper, from Papaloizou & Lin and Lubow & Ogilvie): $\Sigma R^2\Omega\,\partial\mathbf{l}/\partial t = (1/R)\,\partial\mathbf{G}/\partial R$ and $\partial\mathbf{G}/\partial t + \alpha\Omega\mathbf{G} = \Sigma H^2 R^3\Omega^3/4\,\partial\mathbf{l}/\partial R$, with the tilt vector $\mathbf{l}$ and internal torque $\mathbf{G}$. In the free-evolution limit the external torque and apsidal precession are dropped, and the system becomes a wave equation whose WKB solution is a superposition of standing modes with frequencies $n h/(2\sqrt{r^3})$. The light curve follows from projecting the evolving tilt onto the line of sight and integrating black-body emission over radius. This mechanism directly turns a propagating bending wave into a damped periodic brightness variation.

What would settle it

Monitor SDSS J134820.42+194831.5 for several more cycles and fit the light curve with a model in which the period is constant and the amplitude damps monotonically. If the data favor a period that drifts with time or an amplitude that recovers after damping, the free-bending-wave interpretation is falsified. A complementary check is to measure the source's spectral energy distribution across the damped cycle: the projection model predicts that all bands vary with the same period and phase while only the amplitude weights differ, so a wavelength-dependent phase lag would rule it out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the linear wave-like warp equations, solved as an initial-value problem with a tanh-shaped initial tilt and vanishing external torque, produce simulated R-band light curves with damped quasi-periodic oscillations. The oscillation period is the bending-wave turn-over time, roughly $GM_\bullet/c^3$, and the damping is controlled by the viscosity parameter $\alpha$. Fitting this model to SDSS J134820.42+194831.5 yields a reduced $\chi^2\simeq2.4$ for an observation angle of $45^\circ$, indicating that a freely evolving warp is a viable explanation for the observed damped periodicity.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the warp was set up once by a past close encounter with a black hole companion and then evolves freely with no external torque, so a source whose warp is continuously forced or has a different radial initial profile would not be described by the free-bending-wave solution used here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quasar periodicity episodes need not be interpreted as supermassive black hole binaries; a warped disk alone can produce damped periodic light curves.
  • The rest-frame period of a candidate source is set by the bending-wave turn-over time, which scales approximately as $GM_\bullet/c^3$, so independent mass measurements can be checked against the observed period.
  • The damping rate of the oscillation is governed by the disk viscosity parameter $\alpha$, so fitting these light curves can constrain accretion disk viscosity.
  • Selecting candidates with constant period and decreasing amplitude, as the paper does for SDSS J134820.42+194831.5, is the practical route to applying the model to larger samples.
  • The model's best fit occurs at a viewing angle of $45^\circ$, indicating that the line of sight relative to the disk affects how easily the damped periodicity is detected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not explore the multi-band consequences of the projection model; if the mechanism is correct, the same bending wave should shift the dominant emitting radius with wavelength, so R-band and g-band light curves should show slightly different damped oscillation shapes but the same underlying period.
  • The free-evolution assumption implies that the quasi-periodic episode should have a finite lifetime set by $\alpha$; a natural test across the full CRTS sample is to check whether candidate sources cluster at short duty cycles relative to the predicted damping timescale.
  • Because the fitted parameters are highly degenerate, the specific reduced $\chi^2\simeq2.4$ should be read as a demonstration of plausibility rather than a unique disk model; combining the warp model with independent disk-size constraints could break the degeneracy.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the damped quasi-periodic optical variations observed in some quasars are produced by a free-bending wave propagating in a warped accretion disk. The authors numerically solve the linear wave-like warp equations of Papaloizou and Lin (1995) and Lubow and Ogilvie (2000), compute the projected blackbody emission to derive model R-band light curves, and find that the oscillations naturally have damped amplitudes. They then compare the model with the light curve of SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5, selected from a sample of 81 periodic candidates, and report a reduced χ² ≈ 2.4. The paper includes a parameter-dependence study and a discussion of the tidal torque that could set up the warp.

Significance. If the model is correct, it offers a physical alternative to supermassive binary black hole interpretations for periodic AGN variations, and the theoretical result that free bending waves produce damped periodic light curves is interesting and potentially useful for interpreting time-domain survey data. The numerical demonstration itself is largely independent of the observational fit and appears to be a reasonable first step. However, the observational evidence presented here is weak: the single source is selected post hoc because it displays the very damped-periodic signature that the model produces, the fit is highly degenerate with ~9 free parameters, the physical parameters are not anchored to any detection of the proposed perturber, and there is no comparison against simpler empirical models such as a damped sinusoid. As a result, the fit does not yet establish that warped disks are a viable explanation for the observed phenomenon, though it suggests a path for future work. The authors themselves acknowledge in Section 6 that this is a first step, which is appropriate, but the current evidence does not yet support the strength of the abstract's claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The source SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5 is selected from 81 Graham et al. (2015) candidates because it 'satisfies our requirement based on its properties,' where the requirement is essentially the damped-periodic signature that the model itself is built to produce (as identified by the damped-sinusoid fit of Eq. 20). This makes the subsequent χ² ≈ 2.4 an in-sample demonstration, not an out-of-sample validation. To support the claim that the warped-disk model explains the observations, the paper must compare the fit against simpler alternatives—e.g., the 5-parameter damped sinusoid of Eq. (20) or a red-noise process—on the same data, ideally across a pre-selected sample, and report information criteria or an F-test. Without this, the reduced χ² value cannot carry the argument.
  2. [Table 3] The fit parameters in Table 3 are strongly degenerate and several hit the imposed boundaries. Across the four viewing angles, reduced χ² ranges from 2.47 to 4.08 while Rout varies by a factor of ~1.6, Tin by ~40%, and α by a factor of 10 (0.001 vs 0.01). The initial warp amplitude β0 is at the 20° upper limit in all rows, indicating that the best-fit lies at the edge of the allowed parameter space. No parameter uncertainties are given, and the text states that the parameters are highly degenerate and span a wide range with almost the same reduced χ². Consequently the fit does not constrain the physical model; it only shows that the model is flexible enough to approximate a damped periodic light curve. A proper Bayesian or bootstrap error analysis (e.g., MCMC) is needed before any physical conclusion is drawn from this fit.
  3. [Section 5.4] The initial warp profile (Eq. 11) is an ad hoc tanh function whose parameters (β0, Rwarp, Rwidth) are free. The motivation is a close encounter with a black hole companion on an eccentric/hyperbolic orbit, but no such companion is detected for SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5, and the companion mass, separation, and eccentricity are unconstrained. The paper computes a forced-warp solution for a circular companion (Figure 5) and then asserts that after the companion moves away the warp evolves freely; however, the transition is not justified, and for a different encounter geometry the relevant solution would not be the free-bending-wave used in the fit. The model must at least discuss the allowed parameter space of encounters that produce the required initial warp, or the light curve fit should be treated as an illustrative example rather than evidence for the model.
  4. [Section 4] The reported reduced χ² ≈ 2.4 is not interpretable because the paper never states the photometric uncertainties used in the fit, nor the number of data points or degrees of freedom. Without an explicit error model, the reduced χ² has no quantitative meaning and cannot be compared to other models. The paper must report the uncertainty adopted for each survey (CRTS, PS1, ZTF) and the resulting degrees of freedom.
  5. [Section 3.1 vs Section 4] There is a direct contradiction regarding the disk thickness index s and the inner aspect ratio: Section 3.1 fixes s = 1 and Hin/Rin = 0.1, while Section 4 and Table 3 treat s as a fitted parameter (values ~0.91–0.96) and report Hin/Rin = 0.11. The paper must clarify which parameters are fixed and which are free, because the number of free parameters modifies the chi-squared statistics and the physical interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The symbol σ is used in the dimensionless equations but never defined. Define it (e.g., σ = Σ/Σ_in) or remove it.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text says the free evolution is solved with a 'forward-time-central-space (FTCS) lattice,' but Section 5.4 describes a leapfrog scheme for the forced case. Clarify which scheme is used for Eqs. (14)–(15) and justify that the scheme is stable for the parameter ranges considered.
  3. [Throughout] The word 'tile' appears instead of 'tilt' in several places (e.g., caption of Fig. 2, Section 4). Correct these typos.
  4. [Abstract and Table 3] The abstract quotes reduced χ² ≃ 2.4, but the best value in Table 3 is 2.47 (for βobs = 45°). Quote a consistent value or specify the value used.
  5. [Section 4] The phrase 'satisfies our requirement based on its properties' gives no quantitative criterion. Describe the selection rule (e.g., period significance, amplitude damping threshold, number of cycles) so the reader can judge potential selection bias.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Source-level support is in-sample by selection: the target was chosen for the very damped-periodic signature the model produces, so the reduced chi-squared approximately 2.4 is not an independent validation.

  1. self definitional [Section 4 (Comparison with Observations), first paragraph]
    "Since the theoretical model requires the periods of the light curves to remain almost the same, while the amplitude of oscillation is damped, we reanalyzed the periodicity of the candidates data using the generalized Lomb–Scargle (GLS) periodogram, employing a sine-like function with varying amplitude to get their observed periods: ... We therefore selected SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5 as a preliminary example, which satisfies our requirement based on its properties."

    The model's defining output is a quasi-periodic light curve with a stable period and damped amplitude. The paper uses exactly this property as the selection criterion for the single target, so the qualitative agreement between the model and SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5 is guaranteed by sample selection rather than independently derived. The subsequent fit with about eleven free parameters (Table 3) and no comparison to a damped sinusoid (Equation 20) or a red-noise null model reports reduced chi-squared approximately 2.4 as support, but this is an in-sample demonstration: the target was chosen because it already displays the predicted signature, and the fit is not an out-of-sample test. The observational confirmation therefore reduces to the model's own selection criterion.

full rationale

The core wave-mechanics part of the paper is independent and not circular: the damped oscillatory solutions follow from solving the linear wave-like warp equations (Equations 14–15), and the damping by alpha and the turn-over timescale scaling are derived from the stated physics. The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain; citations to Graham et al., Rakshit et al., and Chen et al. supply sample and property data, not the model's validity. The circularity is concentrated in the observational validation. The authors select SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5 because it satisfies the model's requirement of near-constant period with damped amplitude, then fit the model to that same source and present the resulting reduced chi-squared as implying that the model might give insights. Because the target was selected for the very signature the model produces, the qualitative match is definitional, and the quantitative fit is an in-sample exercise with many degenerate parameters (the paper itself notes 'these parameters in our model are highly degenerated and show a wide range of parameter space with almost the same reduced chi-squared'). The absence of a null-model comparison (e.g., the five-parameter damped sinusoid of Equation 20) further weakens the evidential value, though that is a statistical correctness concern rather than circularity per se. The qualitative prediction of damped periodicity from the wave equations is real and externally grounded, so the paper is not wholly circular; however, the central observational claim of a successful application to a specific quasar is not independently validated. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity: one 'prediction' is effectively guaranteed by the selection procedure while the underlying physical derivation remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The list above shows that the light-curve explanation imports the whole linear warp theory, assumes a Keplerian torque-free disk with power-law structure, and postulates an unseen flyby companion to create the warp. The fitted parameters outnumber the independent constraints, and the initial condition and free-evolution assumptions are specific to this paper's scenario rather than established for the target source.

free parameters (11)
  • Rout (outer disk radius) = 396-626 Rg (varies with beta_obs)
    Sets the bending-wave travel time (period) and total luminosity; fitted to the observed period and mean magnitude.
  • Tin (inner disk temperature) = 9.7e3-1.37e4 K
    Normalizes the blackbody spectrum and hence the fitted magnitude; degenerate with distance and Rout.
  • alpha (viscosity parameter) = 0.001-0.01; fits prefer 0.001
    Controls damping of the amplitude; best fits push it to the lower bound, consistent with the wave-like regime.
  • beta0 (initial warp amplitude) = 19.9 deg (at the 20 deg upper limit)
    Controls modulation depth; hits the imposed ceiling, signaling a boundary-limited fit.
  • p (surface density power-law index) = 0.50-0.68
    Affects the radial mass distribution and final tilt profile after damping.
  • q (effective temperature power-law index) = 0.88-1.00
    Sets how much of the light comes from outer versus inner disk; affects light-curve shape.
  • Rwarp/Rout (warp location) = 0.63-0.85
    Position of the initial warp front; sets phase and amplitude pattern of the oscillation.
  • Rwidth/Rout (warp width) = 0.15-0.22
    Sharpness of the initial warp; smoothness of the resulting light curve.
  • Hin/Rin (inner aspect ratio) = 0.11 in Table 3; text says fixed at 0.1
    Sets the wave speed; the paper is internally inconsistent about whether this is fitted or fixed.
  • s (disk thickness radial index) = 0.91-0.96
    Radial scaling H ~ R^s; affects wave travel time; fitted despite the text approximating s = 1.
  • beta_obs (observer viewing angle) = 0-45 deg scanned; best chi2 at 45 deg
    Geometric projection angle treated as a fixed parameter per fit; improved chi2 from 3.66 to 2.47 as it increased.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Linear wave-like warp equations (Equations 4-5) from Papaloizou & Lin (1995) and Lubow & Ogilvie (2000) describe the disk evolution.
    The paper assumes small warps and low viscosity (alpha < H/R) so the linear bending-wave regime applies.
  • domain assumption The disk is Keplerian with zero apsidal precession (omega approximately 0).
    Used to drop the torque term and simplify Equation (5) to a wave equation.
  • ad hoc to paper External torque is zero after the initial perturbation; the warp evolves freely.
    The initiating black hole companion is assumed to have left; no ongoing torque is included in light-curve fits.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial tilt profile follows a tanh function (Equations 11-12) with adjustable beta0, Rwarp, Rwidth.
    A convenient mathematical form; not derived from the flyby dynamics.
  • domain assumption Surface density is a power law in radius with constant index p and is fixed in time.
    The authors state they do not evolve Sigma and call this 'not reasonable' but expect small effects.
  • domain assumption Effective temperature is a power law in radius with free index q (Equation 7).
    Generalizes the standard disk temperature profile; q is fitted.
  • domain assumption Disk thickness scales as H proportional to R (s approximately 1) with Hin/Rin approximately 0.1.
    Sets the bending-wave speed cs ~ H Omega and therefore the period; the paper uses a Shakura-Sunyaev approximation.
  • domain assumption The disk is optically thick and radiates locally as a blackbody; observed flux is just the projection n-hat dot l (Equation 6).
    Neglects self-shadowing, reprocessing, and relativistic effects; justified only for small tilts.
invented entities (1)
  • Transient black hole companion on a highly eccentric/hyperbolic orbit
    purpose: Sets up the initial warp in the circumprimary disk; after it departs, the free bending wave produces the assumed light-curve variability.
    The companion is not detected in any survey; its mass, separation, and orbit are not constrained, and the paper gives no falsifiable prediction (such as a future astrometric or timing signature) tied to it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Warped accretion disks and quasars with episodic periodicity of long-term variations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EH5SJMOZ

@misc{pith2026241217728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Warped accretion disks and quasars with episodic periodicity of long-term variations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EH5SJMOZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17728}
}
abstract

It has been found that some quasars are undergoing quasi-periodic variations (most of them with damped amplitudes) in optical bands from long-term monitoring campaigns, but how to explain the origin of such light curve variations still remains an open question. In this paper, we use the warped accretion disks model to explain the quasi-periodical variations. This model employs a free-bending wave traveling in an accretion disk which causes the orientation of the central part of the disk to oscillate from the line of sight, resulting in a quasi-periodical variation. We numerically solve the governing equation of warp propagation and calculate the simulated R-band light curves, finding that the periodical light curves generated by this model have damped amplitudes. To compare with observations, we select SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5 as a preliminary example from a sample of periodic quasar candidates by combining CRTS with other public survey data, and fitted its light curve with different observational angles. Our result gives a reduced $\chi^{2}\simeq 2.4$, implying that the model might give insights to future application of warped disk model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D disk shapes showing warp evolution on the disk with time increases from (0) to (5). The central black hole is located at the center of the mesh, and the black hole mass is set to be 108M⊙. Figures are taken every 500 days. We can see the disk’s orientation is oscillating. For the purpose of displaying the distinction, the tilts of the disk shown in the figure are exaggerated. 0 100 200 300 400 500 R/Rg 0.000 0.02… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel shows the time evolution of disk tile angle β against dimensionless radius r with time step same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The simulated light curve with different parameters in our model. In each subplot we choose different α, M8, Rout, Tin, p, q respectively, while other parameters remains to be the value in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fit of SDSSJ134820.42+194831.5 with multiple βobs. We fit the disk with different observation angles, for it’s a purely geometrical effect. The fitting results are shown in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The tilt angle evolution for accretion disk with a black hole companion. The binary separation is set to 2Rout, with black hole mass ratio qb = 1. The tilts are separated by 30 days. 6. CONCLUSION In this paper, we consider the projection effect of the low-viscosity we…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1996, ApJL, 467, L77, doi: 10.1086/310200

    doi:10.1086/310200 1996

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  3. [3]

    M., & Petterson, J

    Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJL, 195, L65, doi: 10.1086/181711

    doi:10.1086/181711 1975

  4. [4]

    Brouwer, D., & Clemence, G. M. 1961, Methods of celestial mechanics

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    Charisi, M., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1838 2016

  6. [6]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2957

    Chen, Y .-C., Liu, X., Liao, W.-T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2957

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2957 2020

  7. [7]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3981

    Chen, Y .-J., Zhai, S., Liu, J.-R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3981

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3981 2024

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1532 11 D’Orazio, D

    Cheng, H., Yuan, W., Liu, H.-Y ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1532 11 D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2015, Nature, 525, 351, doi: 10.1038/nature15262

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1532 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Facchini, S., Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt877

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

    Franchini, A., Lodato, G., & Facchini, S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    F., Goodman, J., & Ogilvie, G

    Gammie, C. F., Goodman, J., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1005, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03669.x

    2000

  4. [12]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x

    Goodman, J. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x

    2003

  5. [13]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 453, 1562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1726 —. 2015b, Nature, 518, 74, doi: 10.1038/nature14143 —. 2015c, MNRAS, 453, 1562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1726

    doi

  6. [14]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 54, The Physics of Active Galaxies, ed. G. V . Bicknell, M. A. Dopita, & P. J. Quinn, 73

    1994

  7. [15]

    Ingram, A., Done, C., & Fragile, P. C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L101, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x

    2009

  8. [16]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11633

    Jiang, N., Yang, H., Wang, T., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11633. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11633

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —, 549 pages, including 12 Chapters, 9 Appendices, ISBN 978-4-87698-740-5, Kyoto University Press (Kyoto, Japan), 2008., -1

    2008

  10. [18]

    C., et al

    Li, Y .-R., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/4

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0ec5

    Li, Y .-R., Wang, J.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0ec5

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cb

    Liu, T., Gezari, S., Ayers, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cb

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 2157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt878

    Lodato, G., & Facchini, S. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt878

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1212, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16526.x

    2010

  15. [23]

    H., & Ogilvie, G

    Lubow, S. H., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2000, ApJ, 538, 326, doi: 10.1086/309101

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Ogilvie, G

    Lubow, S. H., Ogilvie, G. I., & Pringle, J. E. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 706, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05949.x

    2002

  17. [25]

    G., Pringle, J

    Martin, R. G., Pringle, J. E., & Tout, C. A. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1617, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12349.x

    2007

  18. [26]

    G., Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., Lubow, S. H., Pringle, J. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0bb7

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    T., & Fukue, J

    Mineshige, S., Hirano, A., Kitamoto, S., Yamada, T. T., & Fukue, J. 1994, ApJ, 426, 308, doi: 10.1086/174065

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & Nixon, C

    Nealon, R., Price, D. J., & Nixon, C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv014

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for

    2016

  22. [31]

    2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Nixon, C., & King, A. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. F. Haardt, V . Gorini, U. Moschella, A. Treves, & M. Colpi, V ol. 905, 45, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19416-5 2

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    J., & King, A

    Nixon, C. J., & King, A. R. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1201, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20377.x

    2012

  24. [34]

    I., & Latter, H

    Ogilvie, G. I., & Latter, H. N. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt917

    2013 doi

  25. [35]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Lin, D. N. C. 1995, ApJ, 438, 841, doi: 10.1086/175127

    1995 doi

  26. [36]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1181

    1983 doi

  27. [37]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Terquem, C. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.4.987

    1995 doi

  28. [38]

    Pringle, J. E. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/258.4.811 —. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/281.1.357

    1992 doi

  29. [39]

    Pringle, J. E. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 292, 136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.1.136

    1997 doi

  30. [40]

    S., & Kotilainen, J

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., & Kotilainen, J. 2020, ApJS, 249, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab99c5

    2020 doi

  31. [41]

    Scheuer, P. A. G., & Feiler, R. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.1.291

    1996 doi

  32. [42]

    B., Beckwith, K., & Armitage, P

    Simon, J. B., Beckwith, K., & Armitage, P. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20835.x

    2012

  33. [43]

    G., et al

    Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., Markowitz, A. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1412

    2016 doi

  34. [44]

    Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 207, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02720.x

    1999

Pith tools

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