Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Variabilities driven by satellite black hole migration in AGN disks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Migrating satellite black holes can trigger magnetic reconnection in AGN disks and coronae, producing X-ray flares lasting 10^3–10^6 seconds with luminosities around 10^38–10^42 erg/s.

desk verdict A transparent order-of-magnitude mechanism paper for AGN variability from sBH migration; the X-ray claim rests on a plasma-escape step that is asserted, not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10095 v2 pith:KPPOGZMJ submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.HE

Jing-Tong Xing , Tong Liu , Bao-Quan Huang , Mouyuan Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AccretionActivegalacticnucleiBlackholesMagneticfieldsreconnectionSatelliteAGNvariabilityX-rayflares
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that a satellite black hole (sBH) of roughly $10^2$–$10^3\,M_\odot$ migrating through the inner disk of a $10^7\,M_\odot$ supermassive black hole can drive AGN variability through magnetic reconnection. The migrating sBH's co-moving plasma distorts the disk's magnetic field, causing a first reconnection inside the disk that heats gas and contributes to UV/optical variability. Some high-magnetization plasma escapes into the corona, compresses magnetic flux tubes, and triggers a second reconnection that should emit X-rays with luminosities around $10^{38}$–$10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ lasting about $10^3$–$10^6$ s. If correct, embedded black holes become a concrete, testable source of short-term AGN flares rather than unexplained stochastic noise.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-step magnetic-reconnection chain. In step one, the co-moving plasma around the migrating sBH exerts ram pressure $P_r$ that exceeds the disk's magnetic pressure $P_0$, 'stamping' the field lines and forming a current sheet of length $l_{\mathrm{sh}}=20\,r_g$ and width $\delta_{\mathrm{sh}}=g\,l_{\mathrm{sh}}$; reconnection there converts magnetic energy into relativistic plasma and heats the disk. In step two, plasma with magnetization $\sigma\gtrsim3$ escapes at the Alfv\'en speed, compresses coronal magnetic flux ropes, and drives a secondary reconnection in a current sheet of height $l_r\lesssim15\,R_g$; its luminosity is estimated as $L_r = B_0^2 V_r/(8\pi t_{r,\mathrm{out}})$. The quantitative estimates hinge on the reconnection rate $R_{\mathrm{rec}}=v_{\mathrm{in}}/v_A\sim0.1$ and on the timescale ordering $t_{\mathrm{cool}}\gtrsim t_{\mathrm{dyn}}\gtrsim t_c\gtrsim t_{r,\mathrm{in}}$ that lets plasma escape rather than cool inside the disk.

What would settle it

A direct simulation of a $10^2$–$10^3\,M_\odot$ sBH migrating in a geometrically thin, optically thick AGN disk, tracking plasma escape and coronal field compression, would settle the claim: if the plasmoids remain trapped or slide along coronal loop lines without forming a compressed current sheet, the predicted $\sim10^{38}$–$10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ X-ray flares should not be observed in AGN light curves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a satellite black hole of $\sim10^2$–$10^3\,M_\odot$ undergoing Type I migration in the inner regions of a thin AGN disk around a $10^7\,M_\odot$ supermassive black hole leaves a trail of distorted magnetic field and plasma, producing a first magnetic reconnection inside the disk and, after some of the highly magnetized plasma escapes into the corona, a second reconnection above the disk. The second reconnection is predicted to emit X-rays with luminosities $\sim10^{38}$–$10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and durations $\sim10^3$–$10^6$ s, while the first reconnection deposits heat that contributes to UV/optical variability. The paper argues that this two-stage reconnection chain is a new physical origin for short-term AGN variability, distinct from stochastic disk turbulence and coronal flare models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that highly magnetized plasma from the first reconnection escapes the geometrically thin, optically thick disk and pushes across coronal magnetic field lines, compressing them enough to trigger a second reconnection; if that plasma is trapped in the disk or flows along the field lines, the predicted X-ray emission does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Type I migrating sBHs in the $10$–$300\,R_g$ migration trap can heat the disk at rates exceeding local viscous heating near $\sim100\,R_g$, so embedded black holes become a candidate driver of UV/optical variability.
  • Escaping high-magnetization plasma can compress coronal magnetic rings, producing X-ray flares with luminosities $\sim10^{38}$–$10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and durations $\sim10^3$–$10^6$ s that are superposed on the AGN's baseline light curve.
  • The model connects UV/optical and X-ray variability to a single chain: the same sBH migration that heats the disk also feeds the corona, so correlated multiwavelength flares are expected.
  • Because plasma trapped in the disk heats the surrounding gas, the UV/optical heating channel operates even when coronal escape fails, making that channel more robust than the X-ray channel in this model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the escape fraction is lower in optically thick thin disks than in the optically thin simulations the paper relies on, the X-ray prediction weakens while the UV/optical heating channel survives; multiwavelength timing of individual flares could separate the two channels.
  • The model suggests a population-level test: AGNs whose disks capture more compact objects should show a higher rate of kilosecond X-ray flares, with the rate peaking near the migration trap radius.
  • Including sBH spin, which the paper omitted, would likely push the available magnetic energy higher, so the quoted luminosities are probably lower limits rather than upper limits.
  • The same two-step reconnection idea may apply to other embedded compact objects only above a mass threshold; the paper notes that low-mass white dwarfs and neutron stars are unlikely to distort the large-scale field, and this threshold could be checked by simulations.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new mechanism for short-timescale AGN variability: a satellite black hole (sBH) of roughly 10^2 to 10^3 solar masses migrating in the inner region of an AGN accretion disk distorts the disk's large-scale magnetic field through its ram pressure, triggering primary magnetic reconnection in the disk. The reconnection-accelerated, highly magnetized plasma is argued to partially escape into the corona, where it compresses coronal magnetic flux ropes and triggers a secondary reconnection that produces X-ray emission. For a 10^7 solar mass SMBH with a Sirko and Goodman disk at mdot = 0.15, the authors estimate disk heating that can locally exceed viscous heating near ~100 R_g, and X-ray flares lasting ~10^3 to 10^6 s with luminosities ~10^38 to 10^42 erg/s. The paper is an order-of-magnitude mechanism study using published migration torques, disk models, and reconnection rates.

Significance. If the proposed chain operates, the paper offers a novel and physically motivated connection between embedded compact-object populations and AGN variability, with concrete, falsifiable predictions for flare duration and luminosity. The authors are careful to work with published migration and reconnection formulas, and they are explicit about several limitations, including the mismatch between the optically thin, geometrically thick disks in the supporting simulations and the optically thick, geometrically thin disks relevant to many AGNs. The UV/optical heating estimate and the X-ray trigger are both potentially testable. The significance, however, is conditional: the coronal X-ray claim depends on an escape step and a coronal compression geometry that the manuscript asserts rather than demonstrates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (12)-(13), and Conclusion 4] The X-ray claim requires that high-magnetization plasmoids from the disk reconnection escape the optically thick disk and reach the corona, but the only quantitative support offered is the inequality Pkin ~ 10^8 dyn cm^-2 >> P0, where P0 is the coronal magnetic pressure. The paper never compares Pkin to the gas and radiation pressure of the disk that the plasmoid must traverse; in the Sirko and Goodman disk model used throughout, the midplane pressure at R ~ 100 R_g is comparable to or larger than the quoted Pkin. Thus the escape step, which is load-bearing for Eq. (13), is not demonstrated, and the paper's own Section 4 acknowledges that the escape-supporting simulations are for optically thin, geometrically thick disks rather than the thin disks considered here.
  2. [Section 3.2, scenario (ii)] The assumed coronal triggering geometry is internally in tension as stated. The text says that plasma "does not escape strictly perpendicular to the disk, but is likely to be trapped inside the disk" and that the described situation is more likely "when the plasma escapes the AGN disk along the magnetic field lines," yet the model's inherent assumption is situation (ii), in which escaping plasma "vertically or obliquely cuts into the magnetic field region." Plasma flowing along field lines does not in general compress them transversely; the authors need to specify the field topology and the mechanism by which escaping plasma crosses or compresses coronal flux ropes, and to justify that this geometry is compatible with the thin-disk structure they adopt.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (8)-(9) and Figure 3(b)] The UV/optical heating claim depends on several chosen quantities: N_sBH = 10^3, beta_p = 0.01, l_sh = 20 r_g, the assumption that all magnetic energy released during t_cool ~ t_dyn is thermalized in the disk, and the estimate N_sheet ~ t_dyn/t_c. The conclusion that Q_sBH/Q_vis > 1 near 100 R_g is therefore an order-of-magnitude estimate whose robustness to these choices should be quantified; as written, the claimed contribution to disk variability is set by parameters selected from a broad plausible range rather than derived from a specific model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, timescale comparison] The chain tcool /greaterorsimilortdyn /greaterorsimilar tc /greaterorsimilar tr,in appears with garbled symbols in the text; it should be typeset as t_cool >~ t_dyn >~ t_c >~ t_r,in, and each timescale should be defined at first use.
  2. [Equation (7)] The dependence of the reconnection rate R_rec on the geometric index g should be stated more explicitly, including the assumed range of g (e.g., 0 < g < 1) and the values used in Figure 3, since the formula as written is not self-explanatory.
  3. [Section 3.2, text near Eq. (11)] The statement that at R_mig ~ 20 R_g reconnection due to migration "no longer dominates" is followed later by the statement that Figure 2(a) shows Pr >> P0 still holds at less than 20 R_g; these two claims should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 3.2, final paragraph] The comparison with the L2keV-L2500 relation should be labeled explicitly as an order-of-magnitude consistency check rather than an empirical validation, because the X-ray luminosity is computed from model parameters and is not fitted to observed AGN luminosities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: X-ray luminosity is computed from assumed parameters and external reconnection/corona constraints, with only a post hoc comparison to the L2keV-L2500 relation; the cited self-paper is a parameter source, not a forced output.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the derivation chain. The central X-ray result, Eq. (13), is obtained by combining assumed disk parameters (M• = 10^7 Msun, mdot = 0.15, alpha = 0.01, h = 0.05, MsBH = 200 Msun), the assumed coronal current-sheet height lr,max ~ 15 Rg taken from Alston et al. (2020), and published reconnection scalings; no observed X-ray luminosity enters as an input. The comparison with the L2keV-L2500 relation is explicitly an after-the-fact estimate ('we can estimate the AGN X-ray luminosity ... Hence, our work presents a new mechanism'), so it is a consistency check rather than a fitted prediction. The UV/optical estimate uses NsBH = 10^3 and the sBH distribution from Zhou et al. (2024), which shares authors with this paper, but the paper states 'We assume that NsBH = 10^3', and this assumed normalization does not feed into the X-ray claim, so the self-citation is a normal parameter source rather than a load-bearing circular argument. The two limitations flagged by the paper—'The inherent assumption of our model is situation (ii)' (Section 3.2) and the statement that most referenced simulations model optically thin, geometrically thick disks (Section 4)—are physical assumptions and modeling mismatches, not equations that reduce to their own inputs.

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

The central claim is built from published migration torques, reconnection rates, and disk-field estimates, all standard in the literature. However, the chain from those ingredients to the quoted luminosities passes through several hand-chosen parameters (beta_p, l_sh, g, chi, N_sBH, sigma range) and four explicit physical assumptions: the 'stamping' trigger, the B0 scaling, plasmoid escape from a thin disk, and perpendicular field-line crossing in the corona. None of these are fitted to variability data, so the paper is not circular; it is a plausibility estimate whose numerical output should be read as a broad order-of-magnitude range, not a precise prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • plasma beta in current sheet beta_p = 0.01
    Chosen by hand to represent a strongly magnetized current sheet; enters L_th (Eq 9) and L_r (Eq 13), directly setting the luminosities.
  • current sheet length l_sh = 20 r_g
    Assumed from GRMHD simulation scales; enters sheet volume and timescales in Eqs (9), (12), and (13).
  • current sheet geometric index g = not fixed, varied in Fig. 3
    Controls width delta_sh = g l_sh and the reconnection rate R_rec in Eq (7); no unique value is adopted.
  • escape velocity factor chi = >0.001, normalized as chi_-3
    Ratio of the cooled escape speed to the Alfven speed; enters the secondary reconnection timescale (Eq 12) and luminosity (Eq 13) as chi^2.
  • total number of sBHs N_sBH = 10^3
    Assumed within the cited 10^3 to 10^5 range to compute the disk heating luminosity L_th in Eq (9); affects the UV/optical variability claim.
  • magnetization limits sigma_min, sigma_max = 3 and 25
    Chosen from literature on equipartition and GRMHD simulations; determine whether plasma escapes and set the electron Lorentz factor gamma ~ 10^3 sigma.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Plasma co-moving with the migrating sBH imprints its trajectory onto magnetic field lines ('stamping'), distorting them once ram pressure exceeds magnetic pressure.
    Introduced at the start of Section 2; no derivation or simulation is provided, yet it is the trigger for the first reconnection.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field strength in the disk follows B0 = (2 Mdot c / R^2)^(1/2) from accretion disk theory.
    Used in Section 2.2 to set the magnetic pressure P0; a standard equilibrium estimate, but not verified locally around a migrating sBH.
  • domain assumption High-magnetization plasmoids with sigma >= 3 escape the disk and reach the corona.
    Basis for the secondary reconnection; inferred from simulations of optically thin, geometrically thick disks, which the authors note differ from thin AGN disks (Section 4).
  • ad hoc to paper Escaping plasma cuts across coronal magnetic field lines (scenario ii) rather than flowing along them.
    Stated as 'the inherent assumption of our model' in Section 3.2; if scenario (i) holds, no secondary reconnection occurs.
  • domain assumption sBHs are uniformly distributed in the disk plane and N_sBH = 10^3 within 10-300 R_g.
    Used in Eq (8) to convert single-sheet energy to a disk heating rate; based on published capture rates but not directly measured.
  • ad hoc to paper All magnetic energy released during t_cool ~ t_dyn is converted to thermal radiation in the disk.
    Assumed in Section 3.1 to estimate L_th; maximizes the UV/optical contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variabilities driven by satellite black hole migration in AGN disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPPOGZMJ

@misc{pith2026250110095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variabilities driven by satellite black hole migration in AGN disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPPOGZMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10095}
}
abstract

The physical origin of active galactic nucleus (AGN) variability remains unclear. Here we propose that the magnetic reconnection induced by the migration of satellite black holes (sBHs) in the AGN disk can be a new plausible mechanism for AGN short-term variability. During the sBH migration, the co-moving plasmas surrounding the sBH could influence the large-scale magnetic field of the AGN disk and trigger the magnetic reconnections to contribute to AGN UV/optical variability. Meanwhile, high-magnetization plasmas are more likely to escape the disk and cause a secondary magnetic reconnection in the corona. For a $\sim 10^{2}-10^{3}~{M_\mathrm{\odot}}$ sBH in the inner regions of the disk surrounding a supermassive black hole with $\sim 10^{7}~{M_\mathrm{\odot}}$, the reconnection process occurred in the space out of the disk should produce X-ray emission, which can last $\sim 10^3-10^6~\rm s$ with the luminosity $\sim 10^{38}- 10^{42}~\rm{erg ~s^{-1}}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10095 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the migration model. As an sBH migrates with vI through the inner region of the AGN disk. The ram pressure of the surrounding plasma exceeds the magnetic field pressure, altering the topology of the magnetic field and causing the positive and negative magnetic fields to intertwine in the current sheets behind or trailing the sBH, eventually triggering the first magnetic reconnection within the d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ram pressure of the plasma and the magnetic pressure in the AGN disk model (Sirko & Goodman 2003) from 10Rg to 300Rg for M• = 107M⊙, ˙m = M /˙ M˙ Edd = 0.15, and accretion efficiency ǫ = 0.1. (a) The ram pressure of Type I migration for MsBH = 10, 102 , and 103 M⊙ (corresponding to the red, blue, and green dashed lines), and the magnetic pressure (corresponding to the black solid line); (b) The same result of Ty… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The dynamic timescale, cooling timescale, and compression timescale of the plasma from 10Rg to 300Rg, as well as the magnetic reconnection timescale triggered within the current sheet. (b) The sBH heating rate and the disk viscous heating rate correspond to the blue and black lines. Solid and dashed blue lines represent the different magnetizations and geometric indices. compare to the corona height. Based on th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Numerical modeling the mass feeding rates onto accretion-modified stars embedded within AGN disks

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Numerical shearing-box simulations provide a broken power-law formula for the suppression of mass feeding onto stars in AGN disks, with a plateau at 88% of the Bondi rate at low thermal mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    " id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    N., Fabian, A

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

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

  3. [3]

    J.\ 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation, by Philip J

    Armitage, P. J.\ 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation, by Philip J. Armitage, 294 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-88745-8 (hardback). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  4. [4]

    Artymowicz, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Wampler, E. J.\ 1993, , 409, 592. doi:10.1086/172690

    doi:10.1086/172690 1993

  5. [5]

    J., McKinney, J

    Avara, M. J., McKinney, J. C., & Reynolds, C. S.\ 2016, , 462, 1, 636. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1643

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1643 2016

  6. [6]

    M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2016, , 819, L17

    Bellovary, J. M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2016, , 819, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l17 2016

  7. [7]

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. & Blinnikov, S. I.\ 1976, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 2, 191. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003275

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0003275 1976

  8. [8]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    C., Broderick, A., Dexter, J., et al.\ 2018, , 868, 101

    Bower, G. C., Broderick, A., Dexter, J., et al.\ 2018, , 868, 101. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae983

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al.\ 2021, Science, 373, 789

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

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063003

    Chen, B., Hou, Y., Li, J., et al.\ 2024, , 110, 6, 063003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063003

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Collin-Souffrin, S.\ 1991, , 249, 344

    1991

  5. [13]

    Cranmer, S. R. & van Ballegooijen, A. A.\ 2012, , 754, 92. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/92

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035741

    Czerny, B., R \'o \.z a \'n ska, A., Dov c iak, M., et al.\ 2004, , 420, 1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035741

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    G.\ 2019, , 873, L13

    Dai, Z. G.\ 2019, , 873, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0b45

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    W.\ 1961, , 6, 47

    Dungey, J. W.\ 1961, , 6, 47. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47

    1961 doi

  9. [17]

    & Kley, W.\ 2017, , 598, A80

    D \"u rmann, C. & Kley, W.\ 2017, , 598, A80. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629074

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142847

    El Mellah, I., Cerutti, B., Crinquand, B., et al.\ 2022, , 663, A169. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142847

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346781

    El Mellah, I., Cerutti, B., & Crinquand, B.\ 2023, , 677, A67. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346781

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al.\ 2019, , 875, 1, L4. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Flohic, H. M. L. G. & Eracleous, M.\ 2008, , 686, 138. doi:10.1086/590547

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Rosner, R., & Vaiana, G

    Galeev, A. A., Rosner, R., & Vaiana, G. S.\ 1979, , 229, 318. doi:10.1086/156957

    1979 doi

  15. [23]

    & Abramowicz, M

    Ghosh, P. & Abramowicz, M. A.\ 1997, , 292, 887. doi:10.1093/mnras/292.4.887

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt167

    Giannios, D.\ 2013, , 431, 355. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt167

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    & Uzdensky, D.\ 2008, , 688, 555

    Goodman, J. & Uzdensky, D.\ 2008, , 688, 555. doi:10.1086/592345

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    & Maraschi, L.\ 1991, , 380, L51

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

    1991 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Jiang, Y.-F., & Armitage, P

    Hankla, A. M., Jiang, Y.-F., & Armitage, P. J.\ 2020, , 902, 50. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb4df

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    & Cassak, P

    Hesse, M. & Cassak, P. A.\ 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e25935. doi:10.1029/2018JA025935

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    H., De Villiers, J.-P., et al.\ 2004, , 606, 1083

    Hirose, S., Krolik, J. H., De Villiers, J.-P., et al.\ 2004, , 606, 1083. doi:10.1086/383184

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    Hoyle, F.\ 1949, Cambridge [Eng.] University Press, 1949

    1949

  23. [31]

    B., Papaloizou, J

    Ivanov, P. B., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Polnarev, A. G.\ 1999, , 307, 79. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02623.x

    1999

  24. [32]

    D., Tanaka, H., & Szuszkiewicz, E.\ 2018, , 861, 140

    Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., & Szuszkiewicz, E.\ 2018, , 861, 140. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d9

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Treu, T., Malkan, M., et al.\ 2013, , 779, 187

    Kelly, B. C., Treu, T., Malkan, M., et al.\ 2013, , 779, 187. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/187

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    H., Horne, K., Kallman, T

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

    1991 doi

  27. [36]

    K., Wijers, R

    Lee, H. K., Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Brown, G. E.\ 1999, Gamma-Ray Bursts: The First Three Minutes, 190, 173. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905373

    1999 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    & Cao, X.\ 2008, , 387, L41

    Li, S.-L. & Cao, X.\ 2008, , 387, L41. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x

    2008

  29. [38]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa745e

    Li, X., Guo, F., Li, H., et al.\ 2017, , 843, 21. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa745e

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Li, Y.-P., Chen, Y.-X., Lin, D. N. C., et al.\ 2021, , 906, 52. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc88310.1002/essoar.10504346.1

    2021

  31. [40]

    Liang, E. P. T. & Price, R. H.\ 1977, , 218, 247. doi:10.1086/155677

    1977 doi

  32. [41]

    Lin, D. N. C. & Papaloizou, J.\ 1986, , 309, 846. doi:10.1086/164653

    1986 doi

  33. [42]

    & Forbes, T

    Lin, J. & Forbes, T. G.\ 2000, , 105, A2, 2375. doi:10.1029/1999JA900477

    2000 doi

  34. [43]

    Liska, M. T. P., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 1, L1. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    F., Mineshige, S., & Shibata, K.\ 2002, , 572, L173

    Liu, B. F., Mineshige, S., & Shibata, K.\ 2002, , 572, L173. doi:10.1086/341877

    2002 doi

  36. [45]

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw123

    Liu, H., Li, S.-L., Gu, M., et al.\ 2016, , 462, L56. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw123

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

    Liu, T., Gu, W.-M., & Zhang, B.\ 2017, , 79, 1. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    F., Schekochihin, A

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

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    Low, B. C. & Zhang, M.\ 2002, , 564, 1, L53. doi:10.1086/338798

    2002 doi

  40. [49]

    & Risaliti, G.\ 2016, , 819, 154

    Lusso, E. & Risaliti, G.\ 2016, , 819, 154. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    E.\ 1997, , 292, 679

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

    1997 doi

  42. [51]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1570

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

    2009 doi

  43. [52]

    doi:10.1086/310097

    Manmoto, T., Takeuchi, M., Mineshige, S., et al.\ 1996, , 464, L135. doi:10.1086/310097

    1996 doi

  44. [53]

    Masset, F. S. & Papaloizou, J. C. B.\ 2003, , 588, 494. doi:10.1086/373892

    2003 doi

  45. [54]

    M.\ 2013, , 430, L49

    McHardy, I. M.\ 2013, , 430, L49. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sls048

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., et al.\ 2012, , 425, 460. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    2012

  47. [56]

    McLaughlin, S. A. J., Mullaney, J. R., & Littlefair, S. P.\ 2024, , 529, 2877. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae721

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913526

    Meusinger, H., Henze, M., Birkle, K., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913526

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A.\ 2003, , 55, L69. doi:10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  50. [59]

    M., Porth, O., et al.\ 2020, , 495, 1549

    Nathanail, A., Fromm, C. M., Porth, O., et al.\ 2020, , 495, 1549. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1165

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1118

    Nathanail, A., Mpisketzis, V., Porth, O., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 4267. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1118

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    S., Murphy, N

    Ni, L., Lukin, V. S., Murphy, N. A., et al.\ 2018, , 852, 2, 95. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9edb

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.09595

    Paardekooper, S., Dong, R., Duffell, P., et al.\ 2023, ASP Conference Series, 534, 685. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.09595

    2023 doi arXiv

  54. [65]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al.\ 1996, , 124, 62

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al.\ 1996, , 124, 62. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  55. [66]

    F., Chernoglazov, A., et al.\ 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, Weak Alfv \'e nic turbulence in relativistic plasmas

    Ripperda, B., Mahlmann, J. F., Chernoglazov, A., et al.\ 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, Weak Alfv \'e nic turbulence in relativistic plasmas. Part 2. current sheets and dissipation, 87, 5, 905870512. doi:10.1017/S0022377821000957

    2021 doi

  56. [67]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al.\ 2022, , Black Hole Flares: Ejection of Accreted Magnetic Flux through 3D Plasmoid-mediated Reconnection, 924, 2, L32. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  57. [68]

    C., & Dexter, J.\ 2024, , 527, 1, 1424

    Scepi, N., Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J.\ 2024, , 527, 1, 1424. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3299

    2024 doi

  58. [69]

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

    1973

  59. [70]

    & Goodman, J.\ 2003, , 341, 501

    Sirko, E. & Goodman, J.\ 2003, , 341, 501. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    2003

  60. [71]

    A., & Giannios, D.\ 2025, , arXiv:2506.02101

    Sironi, L., Uzdensky, D. A., & Giannios, D.\ 2025, , arXiv:2506.02101. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.02101

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [72]

    & Spitkovsky, A.\ 2014, , 783, 1, L21

    Sironi, L. & Spitkovsky, A.\ 2014, , 783, 1, L21. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    2014 doi

  62. [73]

    Spitzer, L.\ 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, New York: Interscience (2nd edition), 1962

    1962

  63. [74]

    N., et al.\ 2020, , 891, 178

    Sun, M., Xue, Y., Brandt, W. N., et al.\ 2020, , 891, 178. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab789e

    2020 doi

  64. [75]

    & Clarke, C

    Syer, D. & Clarke, C. J.\ 1995, , 277, 758. doi:10.1093/mnras/277.3.758

    1995 doi

  65. [76]

    Tout, C. A. & Pringle, J. E.\ 1992, , 259, 604. doi:10.1093/mnras/259.4.604

    1992 doi

  66. [77]

    Uzdensky, D. A. & Goodman, J.\ 2008, , 682, 608. doi:10.1086/588812

    2008 doi

  67. [78]

    A., Loureiro, N

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

    2010 doi

  68. [79]

    S., et al.\ 2003, , 345, 1271

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., et al.\ 2003, , 345, 1271. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    2003

  69. [80]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae531

    Wang, J.-S., Peng, F.-K., Wu, K., et al.\ 2018, , 868, 19. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae531

    2018 doi

  70. [81]

    R.\ 1997, , 126, 261

    Ward, W. R.\ 1997, , 126, 261. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.5647

    1997

  71. [82]

    D., Moore, T

    Yoon, Y. D., Moore, T. E., Wendel, D. E., et al.\ 2024, , 51, 22, 2024GL112126. doi:10.1029/2024GL112126

    2024 doi

  72. [83]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14673.x

    Yuan, F., Lin, J., Wu, K., et al.\ 2009, , 395, 2183. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14673.x

    2009

  73. [84]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714

    Yuan, F., Wang, H., & Yang, H.\ 2022, , 924, 124. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714

    2022 doi

  74. [85]

    & Hoshino, M.\ 2007, , 670, 702

    Zenitani, S. & Hoshino, M.\ 2007, , 670, 702. doi:10.1086/522226

    2007 doi

  75. [86]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded

    Zhang, B.\ 2017, , 836, L32. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded

    2017 doi

  76. [87]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad54f

    Zhang, H., Li, X., Guo, F., et al.\ 2018, , 862, L25. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad54f

    2018 doi

  77. [88]

    M., Mullen, P

    Zhang, L., Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., et al.\ 2025, , arXiv:2506.02289. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.02289

    2025 doi arXiv

  78. [89]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c3f

    Zhou, S., Sun, M., Liu, T., et al.\ 2024, , 966, L9. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c3f

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.