Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 274 references

A third radio flare appears when a TDE's jet catches its wind, on schedule

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:22 UTC pith:JYMHXDES

load-bearing objection Genuinely new result — a third TDE radio flare predicted from the dynamics of the first two flares and apparently seen — but the timing prediction is broad and rests on idealized density profiles, so the confirmation is suggestive rather than airtight. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15438 v1 pith:JYMHXDES submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.HE

Triple radio flares from tidal disruption events: jet-wind collisions and the discovery of a third radio flare from AT2020vwl

Andrew Mummery , Adelle Goodwin , Colin Christy , Kate Alexander , Noah Franz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventsradio transientsjets and windssynchrotron self-absorptionaccretion disk state transitionscircumnuclear mediumAT2020vwlmulti-wavelength monitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Radio flares from tidal disruption events come in two flavors: a prompt flare from a super-Eddington wind and a delayed flare from a later, faster jet. This paper argues that whenever both occur, the jet must eventually catch the wind, and the density jump at the swept-up wind shell should produce a third radio flare with a timing set by the first two. Fitting the first two flares of AT2020vwl with a forward shock model predicts a collision at tcoll=1138+275−126 days after optical peak; new monitoring observations show a third flare beginning at 1334 days, and the self-absorption frequency rises by 1.7±0.2, consistent with the model. The same machinery gives concrete radio forecasts for two other double-flare TDEs: a weak late change for ASASSN-15oi and an imminent third flare for AT2024tvd.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a TDE that launches both a super-Eddington wind and a delayed, slightly faster state-transition jet will inevitably produce a third radio flare when the jet overtakes the wind, with the collision time fixed kinematically by the first two flares. For AT2020vwl, forward modeling of the first two flares gives posterior shock-front radii that cross at tcoll=1138+275−126 d (P=0.97), and new radio monitoring reveals a third flare starting at 1334 d. The observed synchrotron self-absorption frequency ratio νa,coll/νa,jet=1.7±0.2 is in line with the simplest collision estimate (density contrast of the strongly shocked wind shell, partially suppressed by the reduced

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the jet-wind collision, defined by the kinematic crossing R_wind(tcoll)=R_jet(tcoll). Each shock radius comes from a forward model of a continuously mass-loaded, decelerating outflow whose energy balance interpolates between the standard Newtonian and relativistic blast-wave limits, expanding into a steady spherically-symmetric accretion profile for the wind and a power-law wake for the jet. The observable signature is the synchrotron self-absorption frequency νa, whose jump across the collision factorizes as νa,coll/νa,jet ≃ D^{(p+6)/2(p+4)} (βrel/βjet)^{(p+2)/(p+4)} (ΔRcoll/ΔRjet)^{2/(p+4)}, where D is the density contrast, βrel the jet speed relative to the wind,

Load-bearing premise

The predicted collision time assumes the wind decelerates in a smooth, spherically symmetric accretion profile and the jet in a smooth power-law wake; if the real circumnuclear gas is clumpy or asymmetric, the inferred crossing time can shift by hundreds of days and the 1334-day coincidence could be fortuitous.

What would settle it

Continue regular radio observations of AT2024tvd: the framework predicts a prominent third flare, with the largest νa enhancement of the three modeled sources, beginning near day ~216 after optical peak with O(100)-day systematic uncertainty. If no third flare appears within roughly twice that horizon, or if an observed rebrightening shows a discontinuous drop in inferred equipartition radius (indicating a new outflow rather than a density jump), the jet-wind collision explanation for AT2020vwl would also be weakened.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any TDE that shows both a prompt and a delayed radio flare should, if this picture is right, show a third flare whose timing is set by the deceleration histories of the first two outflows.
  • The third flare for AT2020vwl was predictable in advance; the same machinery turns two other double-flare sources into scheduled events—ASASSN-15oi weak and late, AT2024tvd imminent.
  • The re-brightening is frequency-dependent: bands near or above the post-collision self-absorption frequency brighten by a common factor, while bands well below it barely change, so multi-frequency monitoring can identify the collision spectrally.
  • The third flare carries no new central-engine activity; it is a density probe of the swept-up wind shell, so its light curve and νa evolution map the circumnuclear density structure carved by the first outflow.
  • The equipartition-radius continuity criterion provides a way to distinguish a density-jump flare from a freshly launched outflow in any multiply-flaring TDE.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If third flares prove common, archived light curves of older double-flare TDEs may already contain late rebrightenings that were not recognized; a systematic re-scan of published radio monitoring at late times would be a cheap test.
  • The framework gives a radio-based clock for the disk state transition: measuring the second-flare launch time in radio pins when the accretion rate crossed the critical Eddington ratio, which can be compared with independent X-ray state changes.
  • One could invert the measured νa jump and timing to constrain the clumpiness and asphericity of the circumnuclear medium; the model's assumption of a smooth spherically-symmetric density profile is the part most likely to need revision.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same collision calculus to the other known double-flare sources with weaker second flares; for those, the framework still predicts collision windows even if the observable signatures are faint.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a forward model in which TDE radio flares are produced by two distinct outflows: an early super-Eddington wind and a later, faster state-transition jet. The model predicts that the jet will eventually overtake the wind, producing a third radio flare at a time t_coll set by the condition R_wind(t_coll)=R_jet(t_coll). Fitting the first two radio flares of AT2020vwl yields t_coll = 1138^{+275}_{-126} d (P_coll=0.97). New VLA/GMRT observations presented here show a third radio flare beginning at ~1334 d, and the self-absorption frequency rises by a factor 1.7±0.2, consistent with the simplest jet–wind collision estimate of ~2.5. The same modelling is applied to ASASSN-15oi, predicted to show at most weak late-time evolution, and AT2024tvd, predicted to undergo an imminent third flare. Alternatives such as clumpy CNM encounters, new outflows, partial TDEs and off-axis jets are discussed and disfavoured qualitatively.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this is an important and unusual result: a radio flare predicted in advance from the dynamics of earlier flares, and a testable, falsifiable consequence of the wind-plus-jet framework for TDE outflows. The paper is honest about its limitations, and it makes concrete predictions for two other sources, which is a genuine strength. The third-flare data were not used in the fit, so the timing coincidence is out-of-sample. However, the central claim currently rests on idealized, mutually decoupled density profiles for the wind and jet, with the paper itself estimating O(100) d systematic shifts in t_coll — a scale comparable to the quoted 68% interval. The observed ν_a enhancement is a lower limit, and the alternative clumpy-CNM explanation is explicitly conceded to be unexcludable from radio data. The result is therefore promising and significant but not yet a clean confirmation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, §2.1] The collision time is not a parameter-free prediction: the wind propagates through a fixed Bondi profile and the jet through a free power-law wake, and the two density profiles are not derived from a single self-consistent outflow history. Section 5.2 states that numerical experimentation with density-profile variations shifts t_coll by O(100) d. This is comparable to the quoted 68% interval (1012–1413 d) and to the placement of the observed 1334 d flare. As written, the paper does not propagate these density systematics into a combined uncertainty on t_coll, nor does it show that the observed flare remains probable under plausible clumpy or aspherical CNM profiles. This is load-bearing for the headline claim that the third flare's timing is set by the dynamics of the first two flares. Please provide either a systematic-error estimate for t_coll or a sensitivity study over a range of phy
  2. [§5.1.2] The paper concedes that a clumpy/aspherical CNM model cannot be ruled out from radio data and that any density jump can raise ν_a. Given that the observed ν_a enhancement (1.7±0.2, formally a lower limit) only requires a density increase, the main discriminator must be the timing coincidence and the continuity of the inferred shock radius (Fig. 7). These arguments are qualitative. A quantitative treatment — for example, generating clumpy/aspherical CNM realizations and testing whether they can reproduce the light curve, ν_a rise, and radius continuity as well as the collision model — would substantially strengthen the paper. Without this, a late-time density encounter remains a viable alternative explanation for the third flare.
  3. [§3.3, Eqs. (12)–(14)] The observed ν_a ratio is reported as 1.7±0.2, but this is explicitly a lower limit because ν_a was still decaying before the flare and the sampling may have missed the peak. The simple prediction ~2.5 in Eq. (14) assumes Γ≈1, β_rel≈β_jet, and comparable shell widths; the full expression Eq. (12) contains suppression factors from relative velocity and shell compression. Figure 8 shows a broad posterior for the maximum enhancement, with AT2020vwl's median 4.0^{+7.9}_{-2.7}. The current measurement therefore does not strongly discriminate the collision model from other density-jump mechanisms. Please provide a posterior predictive comparison: what fraction of fitted models predict ν_a^coll/ν_a^jet ≤ 1.7, and what does the light-curve amplitude at the observed frequencies predict?
  4. [§2.4, Appendix C] The full derivation of the forward model and numerical implementation is deferred to a companion paper, and the inference procedure fixes several microphysical/geometric parameters after an initial wide run based on weak or degenerate constraints. The collision-time posterior is conditioned on these choices. Given that t_coll is a derived quantity, the reader needs a sensitivity table (e.g., alternative injection profiles q, different fixed ε_e/ε_B, varying Ω_1) showing how t_coll and P_coll change. This is especially important for the AT2024tvd prediction, where §5.2 notes that systematics are O(1) corrections and that start-time ambiguities propagate directly into t_coll.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract/§3.1] The text says '5 new epochs' between 2024-07-13 and 2025-12-02 (1334–1718 d), but Table 2 contains additional later epochs (1841 d and 1977 d). Please clarify the count and the quoted time range.
  2. [§3.3] Typos: 'the self-absorption break is is not always well-constrained' and 'due it’s location'. Also 'it’s' should be 'its'.
  3. [§5.3] Typo: 'cahnged' should be 'change'.
  4. [Fig. 4] The left panel label 'Light curves (no-collision model)' is slightly confusing because the model was fit to the first two flares; consider labeling it 'extrapolated two-flare model' or similar.
  5. [Eq. (12) and (13)] The notation n'_wind vs n_jet is introduced with different primed conventions; make the density-contrast definition D ≡ n'_wind/n_jet explicit in the text before Eq. (12) to avoid confusion with the unshocked ambient density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the third-flare timing is a genuine out-of-sample prediction from a model fit only to the first two flares.

full rationale

The central claim—that AT2020vwl's third radio flare occurs at the predicted jet–wind collision time—is not circular. The collision time is defined by Eq. (10), R_wind(t_coll)=R_jet(t_coll), and the two radius histories are obtained from a forward model whose parameters are fit to the pre-existing first-two-flare data (through t=1225 d; Goodwin et al. 2025b). The paper explicitly separates the fitting data from the newly presented epochs and states the prediction before showing follow-up: "The final data point fitted (i.e., the last data point presented in Goodwin et al. 2025b) was taken at t = 1225 days from optical peak. This clearly motivates follow up observations." The new 1334–1718 d observations are then compared, not used in the fit. Likewise, the reported νa ratio (νa,coll/νa,jet = 1.7±0.2) is an ex post comparison to a model prediction (Eq. 14 gives ~2.5 in the simplest limit), not a fitted input. The paper's reliance on the authors' earlier wind-jet framework (Goodwin & Mummery 2026b) is the hypothesis being tested, not an imported uniqueness theorem; alternative explanations (Bondi-radius passage, molecular-cloud encounters, new outflows, partial TDEs, off-axis jets) are discussed and explicitly not fully ruled out (§5.1.2). The §5.2 caveat that density-profile idealizations shift t_coll by O(100) days is a real robustness concern and weakens the strength of the confirmation, but it is a sensitivity of the prediction, not a retro-fitting of the observed flare time. The deferred derivation of the numerical machinery is a completeness gap, not circularity. In short, no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

12 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the wind and jet are adopted from prior literature, and the third flare is a predicted observable consequence rather than a new component. The central claim rests on the assumed outflow identities, idealized density profiles, and standard synchrotron/shock physics, with the timing prediction depending on a chain of fitted parameters.

free parameters (12)
  • vinj,1 (wind launch speed) = ~0.1c (log10 = -1.00+0.11/−0.15, AT2020vwl)
    Sets the wind expansion history R_wind(t) that the jet must catch; fitted to the first flare light curve.
  • vinj,2 (jet launch speed) = 0.20+0.08/−0.06 c (Table 1)
    Dominant determinant of t_coll; fitted to the second flare.
  • Minj,1 (wind ejected mass) = ~7×10^-3 M_sun (log10 ≈ -2.2)
    Controls the mass the wind sweeps and the wind shell's density; fitted.
  • Minj,2 (jet ejected mass) = 2.7+3.7/−2.1 × 10^-2 M_sun (Table 1)
    Controls jet deceleration; fitted.
  • q1, q2 (injection power-law slopes) = q1=0.34±0.06, q2=0.25±0.40
    Shapes the continuous injection history and the coast-to-decelerate transition; fitted.
  • tstart,1, tstart,2 (outflow launch times) = tstart,1≈9 d, tstart,2≈741 d (AT2020vwl)
    Sets the wind head start over the jet; directly shifts t_coll; fitted.
  • tend,2 (jet shutoff time) = ≈1124 d (AT2020vwl)
    Truncates late jet energy injection, affecting late-time jet dynamics; fitted.
  • n0,2, k2 (jet ambient density power law) = log10 n0,2 ≈ -3.4 (cgs); k2≈1.5
    Sets the jet's swept mass and deceleration; fitted.
  • fEdd (Bondi density normalization for wind) = log10 fEdd ≈ -3.4
    Sets the wind's ambient density and wind-shell properties; fitted.
  • Ω2 (jet solid angle) = ≈4.2 sr (AT2020vwl)
    Msw ∝ Ω; collimation affects inferred speed and crossing; fitted but weakly constrained.
  • p1, p2 (electron power-law indices) = p1≈2.7, p2≈3.7
    Affect spectra and νa scaling; fitted, and fixed to 2.7/3.6 for epoch spectral fits.
  • fsys (systematic flux floor) = ≈0.25 (fraction)
    Nuisance parameter in the Gaussian likelihood; fitted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The first radio flare is produced by a super-Eddington disk wind and the second by a compact jet launched at a disk state transition (Goodwin & Mummery 2026b).
    This identity of the outflows is assumed from the authors' earlier framework; the collision model depends on it.
  • domain assumption The wind propagates through a steady, spherically-symmetric Bondi atmosphere; the jet propagates through a smooth power-law wake.
    Used in Eq. (2) for Msw(R); departures from a smooth CNM shift t_coll (§5.2).
  • standard math Shock dynamics follow the Pe'er (2012) energy-conserving forward+internal-shock solution (Eq. 5).
    Bridges free-coasting and Sedov-Taylor/Blandford-McKee limits; central to R(t).
  • domain assumption Synchrotron self-absorption frequency νa ∝ [n'e B'^(p+2)/2 ΔR]^(2/(p+4)) and the flux scalings of Eqs. (7),(15)-(17).
    Standard synchrotron theory (Granot & Sari 2002); used to translate the density jump into a flare.
  • domain assumption The collision's observable is a rise in νa from the density contrast D, with γad=5/3 strong-shock compression (~4).
    Eqs. (12)-(14); ignores detailed post-collision transmitted/reflected shocks, which the paper leaves to future work.
  • domain assumption The two synchrotron components can be summed when νjet,a > νwind,a.
    Stated in §2.4 and verified post-fit.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32938 in / 16866 out tokens · 157315 ms · 2026-08-01T23:22:12.002273+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Radio flares from tidal disruption events (TDEs) are observed on two distinct timescales: prompt (around the time of optical peak) and delayed (hundreds to thousands of days after optical peak). A recent framework put forward to explain this diversity suggests that super-Eddington winds produce prompt flares while jets launched during a disk state transition at low accretion rates produce delayed flares. A unique observational prediction of this framework is that individual sources showing both types of flares may be expected to show a third flare. This third flare will occur when the (faster) jet catches up with the (slower) wind. The observational appearance of the third flare depends on the system parameters. As the two shock fronts collide the (brighter) jet encounters a change in density, modifying its synchrotron-self-absorption frequency and observed flux. Here we discuss the observational appearance of such a scenario, and then show, in new long-term monitoring radio observations of the TDE AT2020vwl, the discovery of a third radio flare. This flare is coincident with the time at which forward modeling of the first two flares in a wind-jet framework predicts a collision between the two shock fronts. We make predictions for the long-term radio evolution of two other TDEs showing double radio flares: ASASSN-15oi (which may show a weak flare or flattening of the lightcurve) and AT2024tvd (which is predicted to imminently undergo a third flare).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15438 by Adelle Goodwin, Andrew Mummery, Colin Christy, Kate Alexander, Noah Franz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic of the framework put forward in Goodwin & Mummery 2026b and extended here. Prompt radio flares in tidal disruption events are produced by the interaction of a super-Eddington ( ˙m ≳ 1) wind with the circumnuclear material, which may then be followed at late times by a state transition jet (when the accretion rate drops through ˙m < m˙ crit ∼ 0.03). Jets generically move faster than winds (altho… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Forward models of the radio light curves of AT2020vwl (first two flares) in a disk wind plus delayed jet framework. On the left we show representative light curves from a range of frequencies (we show only a subset of the 183 data points across 59 frequencies for visible clarity), while on the right we show radio spectra at four distinct epoch, highlighting the transition in spectral dominance from the win… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The inferred jet-wind collision time, and the subsequent radio evolution of AT2020vwl. On the left we show the observed and modelled lightcurve of the second radio flare (note the time axis, the first radio flare is not plotted). On the right we show the expansion histories of the two forward shocks in the radio model used to fit the light curves ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative multi wavelength light curves and spectra (left panel; we show only a subset of the 117 data points across 52 frequencies for visible clarity) of ASASSN-15oi, as well as a dynamical model of its two respective shock fronts (right panel). Again, the second outflow is inferred to be more rapidly evolving than the first, leading to an expected collision at a (quite uncertain) late time of tcoll… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative multi wavelength light curves and spectra (left panel; we show only a subset of the 84 data points across 18 frequencies for visible clarity) of AT2024tvd, as well as a dynamical model of its two respective shock fronts (right panel). AT2024tvd showed a very rapid second flare, which is inferred to be moving quickly vinj > 0.3c. This leads to an expected collision at a (well constrained in a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The inferred equipartition radius over time for each of the three flares of AT2020vwl (normalised by the canonical Rsynch as the absolute values are not interesting, only the relative values; see Appendix B for definition). The transition from flare two (pink) to flare three (orange) is consistent with no observed fall in shock front radius. This is in stark contrast with the radius transition between flar… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of the maximum relative shift in the synchrotron self absorption frequency as a result of the collisions between the forward modeled jet and winds for ASASSN-15oi, AT2020vwl and AT2024tvd, for the MCMC samples of the light curve fits in this work. The maximum νa enhancement is controlled almost entirely by the density contrast D = n ′ wind/njet, with the relative velocity suppression facto… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A selection of spectral fits to the radio observations of AT2020vwl (top left), ASASSN-15oi (top right), and AT2024tvd (bottom). Spectra are coloured by first flare (purple), second flare (pink), and third flare (orange). We determine if νa is constrained by requiring the following criteria is satisfied: νa is constrained to be within the range of frequencies the observations cover (> 0.65 GHz) and νa is w… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The evolution of the synchrotron self absorption frequency νa for ASASSN-15oi (left panel) and AT2024tvd (right panel). When poorly constrained we display upper limits by inverted triangles. During a flare the synchrotron self absorption frequency generally decays with time, as is observed in both sources during the first flare and the initial stages of the second flare. ASASSN-15oi shows indications of a… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The posterior corner plot for the double flare fit to AT2020vwl. Parameters are in dimensionless code units, with velocities in units of c, masses in units of solar, densities in cgs units, and all times measured in days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The posterior corner plot for the double flare fit to ASASSN-15oi. Parameters are in dimensionless code units, with velocities in units of c, masses in units of solar, densities in cgs units, and all times measured in days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The posterior corner plot for the double flare fit to AT2024tvd. Parameters are in dimensionless code units, with velocities in units of c, masses in units of solar, densities in cgs units, and all times measured in days. As AT2024tvd shows evidence for a cooling break in its second flare, we leave the microphysical parameters εe and εB free for the second flare, in contrast with ASASSN-15oi and AT2020vwl… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

274 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., Berger , E., Guillochon , J., Zauderer , B

    Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., Guillochon , J., Zauderer , B. A., & Williams , P. K. G. 2016, , 819, L25, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  2. [2]

    D., van Velzen , S., Horesh , A., & Zauderer , B

    Alexander , K. D., van Velzen , S., Horesh , A., & Zauderer , B. A. 2020, , 216, 81, 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Margutti , R., Gomez , S., et al

    Alexander , K. D., Margutti , R., Gomez , S., et al. 2026, , 1000, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab 2026

  4. [4]

    2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    Barniol Duran , R., Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/78 2013

  5. [6]

    2005, , 440, 207, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042457

    Belloni , T., Homan , J., Casella , P., et al. 2005, , 440, 207, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042457

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042457 2005

  6. [8]

    G., et al

    Berger , E., Zauderer , A., Pooley , G. G., et al. 2012, , 748, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  7. [9]

    2025, , 221, 120, 10.1007/s11214-025-01245-8

    Blaes , O., Jiang , Y.-F., Lasota , J.-P., & Lipunova , G. 2025, , 221, 120, 10.1007/s11214-025-01245-8

    doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01245-8 2025

  8. [12]

    2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 2022

  9. [13]

    D., Berger , E., et al

    Cendes , Y., Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., et al. 2021, , 919, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a 2021

  10. [14]

    D., et al

    Cendes , Y., Berger , E., Alexander , K. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.13595, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.13595

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.13595 2023

  11. [15]

    2024, , 971, 185, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    ---. 2024, , 971, 185, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

  12. [16]

    2026, , 1000, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4876

    Chakraborty , J., Masterson , M., Mummery , A., et al. 2026, , 1000, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4876

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4876 2026

  13. [19]

    T., Alexander , K

    Christy , C. T., Alexander , K. D., Margutti , R., et al. 2024, , 974, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b 2024

  14. [20]

    T., Alexander , K

    Christy , C. T., Alexander , K. D., Laskar , T., et al. 2026, , 1001, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5249

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5249 2026

  15. [21]

    2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done , C., Gierli \'n ski , M., & Kubota , A. 2007, , 15, 1, 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 2007

  16. [24]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  17. [25]

    D., Gomez , S., et al

    Franz , N., Alexander , K. D., Gomez , S., et al. 2026, , 999, 243, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e 2026

  18. [26]

    D., et al

    Generozov , A., Mimica , P., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2017, , 464, 2481, 10.1093/mnras/stw2439

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2439 2017

  19. [27]

    C., & Metzger , B

    Generozov , A., Stone , N. C., & Metzger , B. D. 2015, , 453, 775, 10.1093/mnras/stv1607

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1607 2015

  20. [32]

    J., van Velzen , S., Miller-Jones , J

    Goodwin , A. J., van Velzen , S., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2022, , 511, 5328, 10.1093/mnras/stac333

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac333 2022

  21. [33]

    J., Miller-Jones , J

    Goodwin , A. J., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., van Velzen , S., et al. 2023 a , , 518, 847, 10.1093/mnras/stac3127

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3127 2023

  22. [34]

    J., Alexander , K

    Goodwin , A. J., Alexander , K. D., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2023 b , , 522, 5084, 10.1093/mnras/stad1258

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1258 2023

  23. [35]

    J., Burn , M., Anderson , G

    Goodwin , A. J., Burn , M., Anderson , G. E., et al. 2025 a , , 278, 36, 10.3847/1538-4365/adbe80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adbe80 2025

  24. [37]

    2025 c , , 981, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    ---. 2025 c , , 981, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1 2025

  25. [38]

    2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    Granot , J., & Sari , R. 2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  26. [39]

    2024 a , , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo , M., Gezari , S., Yao , Y., et al. 2024 a , , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f 2024

  27. [40]

    R., Zaja c ek , M., et al

    Guolo , M., Pasham , D. R., Zaja c ek , M., et al. 2024 b , Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4 2024

  28. [43]

    D., Margutti , R., et al

    Hajela , A., Alexander , K. D., Margutti , R., et al. 2025, , 983, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb620

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb620 2025

  29. [44]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Kochanek , C. S., Prieto , J. L., et al. 2016, , 463, 3813, 10.1093/mnras/stw2272

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2272 2016

  30. [45]

    B., & Arcavi , I

    Horesh , A., Cenko , S. B., & Arcavi , I. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8 2021

  31. [46]

    2015, , 814, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1

    Laskar , T., Berger , E., Margutti , R., et al. 2015, , 814, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/1 2015

  32. [49]

    2023, , 669, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

    Liu , Z., Malyali , A., Krumpe , M., et al. 2023, , 669, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244805 2023

  33. [50]

    J., et al

    Liu , Z., Ryu , T., Goodwin , A. J., et al. 2024, , 683, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348682

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348682 2024

  34. [51]

    Lu , W., Matsumoto , T., & Matzner , C. D. 2024, , 533, 979, 10.1093/mnras/stae1770

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1770 2024

  35. [52]

    2023, , 522, 4565, 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    Matsumoto , T., & Piran , T. 2023, , 522, 4565, 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1269 2023

  36. [53]

    2024, , 971, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    ---. 2024, , 971, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba 2024

  37. [54]

    2025, , 544, 1627, 10.1093/mnras/staf1742

    Mummery , A. 2025, , 544, 1627, 10.1093/mnras/staf1742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1742 2025

  38. [55]

    Mummery , A., & Turner , S. G. D. 2024, , 530, 4730, 10.1093/mnras/stae1014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1014 2024

  39. [57]

    Panaitescu , A., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 1998, , 503, 314, 10.1086/305995

    doi:10.1086/305995 1998

  40. [58]

    2012, , 752, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L8

    Pe'er , A. 2012, , 752, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/l8 2012

  41. [59]

    L., & Mockler , B

    Piro , A. L., & Mockler , B. 2025, , 985, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc729

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 2025

  42. [60]

    2004, , 613, 322, 10.1086/422973

    Quataert , E. 2004, , 613, 322, 10.1086/422973

    doi:10.1086/422973 2004

  43. [62]

    J., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P

    Rees , M. J., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 1998, , 496, L1, 10.1086/311244

    doi:10.1086/311244 1998

  44. [64]

    2025, , 992, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26

    Sfaradi , I., Margutti , R., Chornock , R., et al. 2025, , 992, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26 2025

  45. [65]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

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

    1973

  46. [66]

    2013, , 778, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107

    Sironi , L., & Giannios , D. 2013, , 778, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/107 2013

  47. [67]

    Teboul , O., & Metzger , B. D. 2023, , 957, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037 2023

  48. [69]

    C., Tsuna , D., Mockler , B., & Piro , A

    Wu , S. C., Tsuna , D., Mockler , B., & Piro , A. L. 2026, , 998, 199, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a3 2026

  49. [70]

    C., & Metzger , B

    Yalinewich , A., Sari , R., Generozov , A., Stone , N. C., & Metzger , B. D. 2018, , 479, 4778, 10.1093/mnras/sty1781

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1781 2018

  50. [71]

    2025, , 985, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/add7de

    Yao , Y., Chornock , R., Ward , C., et al. 2025, , 985, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/add7de

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add7de 2025

  51. [72]

    A., Berger , E., Soderberg , A

    Zauderer , B. A., Berger , E., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2011, , 476, 425, 10.1038/nature10366

    doi:10.1038/nature10366 2011

  52. [74]

    M., Mullen , P

    Zhang , L., Stone , J. M., Mullen , P. D., et al. 2025, , 995, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f91

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f91 2025

  53. [75]

    M., White , C

    Zhang , L., Stone , J. M., White , C. J., et al. 2026 b , , 1001, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5521

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5521 2026

  54. [76]

    2025, , 979, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98

    Zhuang , J., Shen , R.-F., Mou , G., & Lu , W. 2025, , 979, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b98 2025

  55. [77]

    , year = 1952, month = jan, volume =

    On spherically symmetrical accretion. , year = 1952, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  56. [78]

    , keywords =

    Late-time Evolution and Instabilities of Tidal Disruption Disks. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 , archivePrefix =. 2412.01922 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [79]

    , keywords =

    Smooth light curves from a bumpy ride: relativistic blast wave encounters a density jump. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12245.x , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0606011 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2007

  58. [80]

    , keywords =

    Energy Injection in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1 , archivePrefix =. 1504.03702 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [81]

    , keywords =

    Multiwavelength Afterglows in Gamma-Ray Bursts: Refreshed Shock and Jet Effects. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/305995 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/9801258 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [82]

    , keywords =

    Refreshed Shocks and Afterglow Longevity in Gamma-Ray Bursts. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/311244 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/9712252 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [83]

    , keywords =

    Dichotomy in Long-lived Radio Emission from Tidal Disruption Events AT 2020zso and AT 2021sdu: Multicomponent Outflows versus Host Contamination. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5249 , archivePrefix =. 2509.14317 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  62. [84]

    , keywords =

    The Peculiar Radio Evolution of the Tidal Disruption Event ASASSN-19bt. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad675b , archivePrefix =. 2404.12431 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [85]

    , keywords =

    The Open mulTiwavelength Transient Event Repository (OTTER): Infrastructure Release and Tidal Disruption Event Catalog. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e , archivePrefix =. 2509.05405 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  64. [86]

    , keywords =

    Rapid evolution of the recurrence time in the repeating partial tidal disruption event eRASSt J045650.3‒203750. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348682 , archivePrefix =. 2401.14091 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [87]

    A likely repeating partial tidal disruption event

    Deciphering the extreme X-ray variability of the nuclear transient eRASSt J045650.3‒203750. A likely repeating partial tidal disruption event. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244805 , archivePrefix =. 2208.12452 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [88]

    , keywords =

    A model-independent analysis of the variability of GRS 1915+105. , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001103 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0001103 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0001103 1915

  67. [89]

    Radiation GRMHD Models of Accretion onto Stellar-mass Black Holes. I. Survey of Eddington Ratios. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f91 , archivePrefix =. 2506.02289 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [90]

    Radiation GRMHD Models of Accretion onto Stellar-mass Black Holes. II. Super-Eddington Accretion. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5521 , archivePrefix =. 2509.10638 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  69. [91]

    Near-Eddington Accretion

    Radiation GRMHD Models of Accretion onto Stellar-Mass Black Holes: III. Near-Eddington Accretion. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.05588 , archivePrefix =. 2603.05588 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05588

  70. [92]

    , keywords =

    Non-Stationary Discs and Instabilities. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01245-8 , archivePrefix =. 2505.04402 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  71. [93]

    , keywords =

    The evolution of the timing properties of the black-hole transient GX 339-4 during its 2002/2003 outburst. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042457 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0504577 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  72. [94]

    , keywords =

    The X-ray variability of tidal disruption events. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1742 , archivePrefix =. 2505.09238 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  73. [95]

    , keywords =

    X-Ray Spectral-timing Properties of Tidal Disruption Events. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4876 , archivePrefix =. 2602.16868 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  74. [96]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    UV and Optical Signatures of Late-time Disk Instabilities in Tidal Disruption Events. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.15103 , archivePrefix =. 2602.15103 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15103

  75. [97]

    , keywords =

    The Multiwavelength Context of Delayed Radio Emission in Tidal Disruption Events: Evidence for Accretion-driven Outflows. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab , archivePrefix =. 2506.12729 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  76. [99]

    , keywords =

    Delayed Radio Emission in Tidal Disruption Events from Collisions of Outflows Driven by Disk Instabilities. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a3 , archivePrefix =. 2511.14008 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  77. [100]

    , keywords =

    A Massive Black Hole 0.8 kpc from the Host Nucleus Revealed by the Offset Tidal Disruption Event AT2024tvd. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add7de , archivePrefix =. 2502.17661 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  78. [101]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Radio Emission from the Infrared Tidal Disruption Event WTP14adeqka: The First Directly Resolved Delayed Outflow from a TDE. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.16756 , archivePrefix =. 2508.16756 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16756

  79. [102]

    , keywords =

    Misaligned precessing jets are choked by the accretion disc wind. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1770 , archivePrefix =. 2310.15336 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [103]

    , keywords =

    Late-time Radio Flares in Tidal Disruption Events. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba , archivePrefix =. 2404.15966 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.