Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 cited by

Delayed Radio Flares in Tidal Disruption Events from Star-Disk Collision Outflows

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Collisions between a spreading TDE disk and a pre-existing EMRI star eject massive outflows years later, powering delayed radio flares.

desk verdict The paper sketches a new EMRI-disk collision channel for delayed TDE radio flares but leaves the key outflow masses and speeds set by free parameters rather than impact calculations. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.28928 v1 pith:KOSWXUK5 submitted 2026-05-27 astro-ph.HE

Itai Linial , Brian D. Metzger , Andrei M. Beloborodov This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsradioflaresextrememassratioinspiralsaccretiondiskoutflowsblackholetransientsdelayedemission
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

The paper proposes that some tidal disruption events show radio emission rising only years after the initial flare because the viscously spreading accretion disk eventually reaches the orbit of a pre-existing star on an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral. Repeated collisions then drive outflows with speeds 0.02-0.1c and masses from 10^{-3} to 1 solar mass, carrying up to 10^{51} erg. These outflows interact with circumnuclear gas or earlier ejecta to produce the observed late radio re-brightening. The delay is set by the disk's viscous expansion time rather than by jet physics or viewing angle. The model also connects these events to systems that may exhibit quasi-periodic eruptions from the same collisions.

What carries the argument

Viscous spreading of the initially compact TDE disk until it intercepts the EMRI orbit, triggering repeated collisions that eject disk or stellar material as outflows.

What would settle it

A TDE with a confirmed delayed radio flare but no detectable periodicity or other signature of a stellar EMRI at the expected radius, or direct modeling showing collisions eject far less mass than needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Repeated star-disk collisions in TDE systems hosting an EMRI launch outflows with velocities comparable to the orbital speed, masses of 10^{-3} to 1 solar mass, and energies up to 10^{51} erg on timescales of years after the disruption; these outflows then produce radio emission through interaction with surrounding material.

Load-bearing premise

A pre-existing EMRI sits at an orbital radius the TDE disk can reach within years, and the collisions efficiently eject the required massive outflows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Delayed radio flares can occur independently of jet launching delays or off-axis geometry.
  • Outflow properties depend on disk viscosity, EMRI orbital period, and collision efficiency.
  • Some systems may show both delayed radio flares and quasi-periodic eruptions powered by the same collisions.
  • Late radio emission arises from interaction with circumnuclear material or earlier TDE ejecta.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Late-time radio monitoring could serve as an indirect probe for EMRIs around supermassive black holes.
  • The model implies that not all QPE-hosting TDEs will produce bright delayed radio flares, depending on outflow mass and environment.
  • If the mechanism operates, radio light curves might exhibit modulations tied to the EMRI orbital period.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that delayed radio flares in some TDEs arise from outflows produced by repeated collisions between a viscously spreading TDE accretion disk and a pre-existing stellar EMRI. The observed delay reflects the viscous time for the disk to expand and intercept the EMRI orbit; once collisions begin, they eject outflows with v_w ~0.02-0.1c, masses ~(10^{-3}-1) M_odot and energies up to 10^51 erg that produce radio emission via interaction with circumnuclear material. The model identifies disk- versus star-dominated outflow regimes and notes a possible connection to QPE-hosting systems.

Significance. If the result holds, the work supplies a concrete alternative to delayed-jet or disk-state-transition explanations for the slow, massive outflows inferred from late-time radio re-brightenings in TDEs. It directly links a subset of radio-loud TDEs to EMRI systems and offers a unified picture connecting delayed radio flares to the same star-disk collisions that may power QPEs, thereby generating falsifiable multi-wavelength predictions for future observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph describing the delay mechanism and collision outcomes): the outflow masses, velocities, and energies are stated to depend on disk viscosity, orbital period, and an unspecified collision efficiency; these parameters can be adjusted to reproduce the observed delays and radio-inferred masses, rendering the quantitative predictions adjustable rather than derived.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the ejection efficiency, unbound fraction, and velocity distribution from star-disk impacts are tied directly to orbital speed and collision efficiency without derivation from first-principles hydrodynamics or citation of impact simulations; this step is load-bearing for the claimed outflow properties (v_w ~0.02-0.1c, masses 10^{-3}-1 M_odot, energies ~10^51 erg) that are required to match the radio data.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the model presupposes a pre-existing EMRI at an orbital radius reachable by the viscously spreading TDE disk on a timescale of years, yet provides no occurrence-rate estimate, dynamical capture argument, or population synthesis to support the required EMRI abundance and orbital distribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and acknowledge limitations of the model.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph describing the delay mechanism and collision outcomes): the outflow masses, velocities, and energies are stated to depend on disk viscosity, orbital period, and an unspecified collision efficiency; these parameters can be adjusted to reproduce the observed delays and radio-inferred masses, rendering the quantitative predictions adjustable rather than derived.

    Authors: We agree that the outflow properties in the model are functions of disk viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency. This parametric dependence is inherent to a semi-analytic framework that identifies physical regimes rather than providing unique numerical predictions. The manuscript explores how outcomes vary across plausible ranges of these quantities to match observed delays and radio properties. We will revise the abstract to explicitly state the parameter dependence and the explored ranges, clarifying that the model supplies a mechanism and scaling relations rather than fixed values. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the ejection efficiency, unbound fraction, and velocity distribution from star-disk impacts are tied directly to orbital speed and collision efficiency without derivation from first-principles hydrodynamics or citation of impact simulations; this step is load-bearing for the claimed outflow properties (v_w ~0.02-0.1c, masses 10^{-3}-1 M_odot, energies ~10^51 erg) that are required to match the radio data.

    Authors: The outflow velocity is taken to be comparable to the local orbital speed on energetic grounds, with the ejected mass fraction parameterized by a collision efficiency. This is a simplified treatment that does not derive the unbound fraction or velocity distribution from first-principles hydrodynamics. We will expand the methods section to discuss the physical motivation for these assumptions, cite available literature on star-disk and star-star impact simulations where relevant, and explicitly note the limitations of the approximation as a first exploration of the mechanism. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the model presupposes a pre-existing EMRI at an orbital radius reachable by the viscously spreading TDE disk on a timescale of years, yet provides no occurrence-rate estimate, dynamical capture argument, or population synthesis to support the required EMRI abundance and orbital distribution.

    Authors: The model assumes an EMRI at radii reachable within years, motivated by the existence of QPEs and theoretical expectations for stellar capture in galactic nuclei. A dedicated occurrence-rate calculation or population synthesis lies outside the scope of this work, which focuses on the time-dependent dynamics and radio signatures once collisions occur. We will add a short paragraph in the introduction referencing existing studies on EMRI formation channels and capture rates to better frame the assumption. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Outflow masses/velocities set by adjustable collision efficiency and viscosity rather than derived

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Depending on disk viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency, masses ∼(10^{-3}-1) M_⊙ can be launched with energies up to 10^{51} erg, years after the TDE. These outflows produce radio emission through interaction with circumnuclear material or earlier TDE ejecta, consistent with observed late-time radio re-brightening."

    The quoted statement shows that the model outputs (masses, energies, velocities ~ orbital speed) are produced by choosing the listed parameters to achieve consistency with the target observations; the radio-emission match is therefore achieved by construction once the efficiency and viscosity are selected to fit the delays and outflow scales.

full rationale

The paper develops a time-dependent model coupling disk spreading to EMRI-induced mass loss and states that outflow properties depend on viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency. These parameters are not derived from first-principles hydrodynamics within the paper but are instead varied to produce masses, velocities, and energies matching the observed delayed radio flares. This constitutes a moderate instance of fitted inputs presented as explanatory predictions, without reducing the central mechanism to pure self-definition or self-citation. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is evident from the provided text.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard viscous disk evolution and impact ejection physics but introduces three adjustable parameters to set the delay and ejected mass; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • disk viscosity
    Controls the viscous spreading timescale that sets the delay before collisions begin.
  • orbital period
    Determines collision frequency and the radial location of the EMRI.
  • collision efficiency
    Sets the fraction of material ejected per impact and whether disk or stellar debris dominates the outflow.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption TDE accretion disks spread viscously outward on timescales of years
    Invoked to produce the observed delay without additional jet physics.
  • domain assumption Star-disk collisions eject material at speeds comparable to the local orbital velocity
    Used to obtain v_w ~ 0.02-0.1c and the quoted mass and energy ranges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delayed Radio Flares in Tidal Disruption Events from Star-Disk Collision Outflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOSWXUK5

@misc{pith2026260528928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delayed Radio Flares in Tidal Disruption Events from Star-Disk Collision Outflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOSWXUK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.28928}
}
abstract

A growing fraction of tidal disruption events (TDEs) exhibit radio emission that rises only years after the optical or infrared flare, indicating delayed outflow activity. In some events the outflow is inferred to be slow ($\sim 0.02 \, c$) and massive ($\gtrsim 0.01-0.1 M_{\odot}$), challenging models such as delayed jets and disk state transitions. We propose a new mechanism for such delayed outflows: repeated collisions between a TDE accretion disk and a pre-existing stellar extreme-mass-ratio-inspiral (EMRI) orbiting the black hole. In this scenario, the delay reflects the viscous time required for the initially compact TDE disk to expand and intercept the EMRI orbit, rather than delayed jet launching or off-axis viewing effects. Once star-disk collisions commence, repeated impacts eject outflows with velocities comparable to the orbital speed, $v_{\rm w} \sim 0.02-0.1c$. We develop a time-dependent model for the coupled evolution of the spreading disk and EMRI-induced mass-loss, identifying regimes where the outflow is dominated by disk material or ablated stellar debris. Depending on disk viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency, masses $\sim (10^{-3}-1) \, \rm M_\odot$ can be launched with energies up to $10^{51} \rm \, erg$, years after the TDE. These outflows produce radio emission through interaction with circumnuclear material or earlier TDE ejecta, consistent with observed late-time radio re-brightening. This model predicts a connection between delayed radio flares and EMRI-hosting systems, potentially including those exhibiting quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) powered by star-disk collisions, though the conditions for bright radio flares may not always match those necessary for detectable QPEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Shocked mass versus launch times of 9 TDEs exhibiting delayed radio flares (8 from Cendes et al. 2024 and the remaining one from Golay et al. 2025). Shocked masses Msh = 2Ek/v2 w were derived from the equipartition analysis of Cendes et al. (2024). Blue and red markers correspond to a range of assumptions on the microphysical equipartition parameters, with ϵe = ϵB = 0.1 (blue markers), and ϵe = 10−2 , ϵB = 10−3 (mot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Key phases of the model, matched along the top by schematic lightcurves at different bands. The early optical/UV flare, decaying X-ray emission and prompt early radio flare on timescales ≲ yr are intrinsic to the TDE. Once the disk spreads to meet the orbit of a stellar EMRI, additional emission signatures may occur over longer timescales ≳ yrs from repeated disk-star collisions, including X-ray QPEs and delayed rad… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. EMRI-disk collision-induced mass outflow rate relative to the local disk accretion rate, ξw ≡ m˙ w/m˙ d, as a function of EMRI orbital period. Different colors span a plausible range of values of f ⋆ ub and f d ub (the unbound fraction of the ablated star and shocked disk material, re￾spectively). Solid lines correspond to a constant viscosity, ν = 1019 cm2 s −1 , while dashed lines assume tv/Porb = 103 (Mummery et … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spreading disk surface density evolution, includ￾ing the effects of mass-loss from star-disk collisions. A nar￾row Gaussian ring of mass centered at r0 begins to viscously spread at time t = 0 (solid black line). Solid lines show the disk evolution in the presence of a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Time evolution of the outflow ejection rate m˙ w for different values of the dimensionless mass-loss ef￾ficiency ξw (Eq. (8)) indicated in the legend. All models assume k = 1, corresponding to an outflow dominated by ejected disk material and negligible stellar ab…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Regimes of star-disk interaction outcomes, as a function of orbital period and the disk’s viscous time. Here we assume fd = 0.1, f ⋆ ub = 0.1, f d ub = 0.5, and m⋆ = mtde ⋆ = 0.5 M⊙. Below the solid black line, the ab￾lation time is shorter than the disk spreading time…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contours of peak 3 GHz radio flux (for d = 100 Mpc; solid blue), peak timescale (measured since the outflow was launched; dot-dashed magenta), and the time of peak flux (measured since the TDE; dashed black) of radio flares from EMRI-disk collisions, as a function of t…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The TDE AT2020vwl showed a third radio flare at the time a jet-wind collision was predicted from its first two flares, the first predicted-and-confirmed third flare.

  2. Star-Disk Collisions II: Debris Stream Dynamics and Implications for QPEs and Other Transients Near SMBHs

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tidal debris streams from star–disk collisions produce QPE-like flare durations and energetics with a near-constant ~10–20% duty cycle, favoring one observable flare per orbit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

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

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

  2. [2]

    D., Velzen, S

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

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

  3. [3]

    D., Wieringa, M

    Alexander, K. D., Wieringa, M. H., Berger, E., Saxton, R. D., & Komossa, S. 2017, ApJ, 837, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192 2017

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab 2026

  5. [5]

    , eprint =

    Alexander, T. 2005, PhR, 419, 65, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002 2005

  6. [6]

    Alush, Y., & Stone, N. C. 2025, ApJ, 993, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf217

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf217 2025

  7. [7]

    W., Perley, D

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 430, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  8. [8]

    and Merloni, A

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    2024a, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    Arcodia, R., Linial, I., Miniutti, G., et al. 2024a, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    doi

  2. [10]

    2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi

  3. [11]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b

    Arcodia, R., Baldini, P., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    2026, A&A, 706, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 Barniol Duran, R., & Piran, T

    Baldini, P., Rau, A., Merloni, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 Barniol Duran, R., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 770, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/146

    2026 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    Beniamini, P., Piran, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    G., et al

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

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B

    Bloom, J. S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 203, doi: 10.1126/science.1207150

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Lodato, G

    Bonnerot, C., Rossi, E. M., & Lodato, G. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 464, 2816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2547

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Levan, A

    Brown, G. C., Levan, A. J., Stanway, E. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1520

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    N., et al

    Burrows, D. N., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 421, doi: 10.1038/nature10374

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Medvedev, P. S. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 30, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf686

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Lee, H

    Cannizzo, J. K., Lee, H. M., & Goodman, J. 1990, ApJ, 351, 38, doi: 10.1086/168442

    1990 doi

  13. [21]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 —. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Krimm, H

    Cenko, S. B., Krimm, H. A., Horesh, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77 20

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2025a, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    doi

  18. [26]

    2025b, ApJ, 984, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

    Chakraborty, J., Kosec, P., Kara, E., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 984, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

    doi

  19. [27]

    A., Arcodia, R., et al

    Chakraborty, J., Rappaport, S. A., Arcodia, R., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1001, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae548b

    2026 doi

  20. [28]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´ nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2017, ApJL, 851, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Giannios, D., & Metzger, B. D. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2102, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Berger, E., Cendes, Y., et al

    Golay, W. W., Berger, E., Cendes, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16756, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.16756

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., & van Velzen, S. 2025a, PASA, 42, e130, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10083

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Mummery, A

    Goodwin, A. J., & Mummery, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.14838, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.14838

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Alexander, K

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

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Goodwin, A. J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 981, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    doi

  31. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

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

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2025a, ApJ, 985, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac —

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., Wevers, T., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 985, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac —. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac

    doi

  33. [41]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb620 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    1988 doi

  35. [43]

    B., & Arcavi, I

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

    doi

  36. [44]

    2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    Horesh, A., Sfaradi, I., Fender, R., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    doi

  37. [45]

    F., Goodwin, A., Price, D

    Hu, F. F., Goodwin, A., Price, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeb79

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    Huang, X., Linial, I., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    M., & Davis, S

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

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw056

    Kawamuro, T., Ueda, Y., Shidatsu, M., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw056

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Kochanek, C. S. 1994, ApJ, 422, 508, doi: 10.1086/173745

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    Krolik, J., Piran, T., Svirski, G., & Cheng, R. M. 2016, ApJ, 827, 127, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/127

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

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

    Lam, A. T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083006, doi: 10.1103/m2tv-l3z8

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba5

    Lei, X., Wu, Q., Li, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba5

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Levan, A. J., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 199, doi: 10.1126/science.1207143

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b —. 2024, ApJ, 973, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, ApJ, 991, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa0e

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67cf

    Linial, I., & Quataert, E. 2024, ApJ, 974, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67cf

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1041 —

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1041 —. 2022, ApJ, 940, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfd —. 2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

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

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603

    1974 doi

  53. [61]

    1999, MNRAS, 309, 447, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    Magorrian, J., & Tremaine, S. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 447, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    1999 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2418 —

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2418 —. 2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, Science, 361, 482, doi: 10.1126/science.aao4669

    Mattila, S., P´ erez-Torres, M., Efstathiou, A., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 482, doi: 10.1126/science.aao4669

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJL, 937, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P

    Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3528, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    D., Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x

    2008 doi

  60. [68]

    D., & Stone, N

    Metzger, B. D., & Stone, N. C. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1394 21

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    D., Williams, P

    Metzger, B. D., Williams, P. K. G., & Berger, E. 2015, ApJ, 806, 224, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/224

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    M., et al

    Middleton, M., G´ urpide, A., Kwan, T. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf052

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    D., & Aloy, M

    Mimica, P., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., & Aloy, M. A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv825

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    2024a, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 —

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    doi

  67. [75]

    2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2824

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al

    Pasham, D. R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 88, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    S., Meyer, E

    Perlman, E. S., Meyer, E. T., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bba

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Liptai, D., Mandel, I., et al

    Price, D. J., Liptai, D., Mandel, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6862

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    1981 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  77. [85]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43df

    Sari, R., & Fragione, G. 2019, ApJ, 885, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43df

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    D., Read, A

    Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Komossa, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629015

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Fender, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    Sfaradi, I., Beniamini, P., Horesh, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    2025, ApJL, 992, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a26

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

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  83. [91]

    Shen, R.-F., & Matzner, C. D. 2014, ApJ, 784, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/87

    2014 doi

  84. [92]

    Steinberg, E., & Stone, N. C. 2024, Nature, 625, 463, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Kesden, M., et al

    Stone, N. C., Vasiliev, E., Kesden, M., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00651-4

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    E., & Quataert, E

    Strubbe, L. E., & Quataert, E. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x

    2009 doi

  87. [95]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa, H., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    D., Giannios, D., & Kelley, L

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Kelley, L. Z. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2085

    2014 doi

  89. [97]

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

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    D., Jiang, Y.-F., & Antoni, A

    Tuna, S., Metzger, B. D., Jiang, Y.-F., & Antoni, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14810, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14810 van Velzen, S., Anderson, G. E., Stone, N. C., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 62, doi: 10.1126/science.aad1182

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    Vurm, I., Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, ApJ, 983, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    Wevers, T., Guolo, M., Lockwood, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adace9

    2025 doi

  93. [101]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.09017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.09017

    Winter-Granic, M., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.09017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.09017

    2025 doi

  94. [102]

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

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

    2026 doi

  95. [103]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., He, J., & Shu, X. 2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    2021 doi

  96. [104]

    Yalinewich, A., Steinberg, E., Piran, T., & Krolik, J. H. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1567

    2019 doi

  97. [105]

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

    Yao, P. Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C. J. 2025, ApJ, 978, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911

    2025 doi

  98. [106]

    A., et al

    Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 425, doi: 10.1038/nature10366

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.