pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.26663 · v1 · pith:PH4ZRJ7Lnew · submitted 2025-10-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Tidal disruption events with SPH-EXA: resolving the return of the stream

Noah Kubli , Alessia Franchini , Eric R. Coughlin , C. J. Nixon , Sebastian Keller , Pedro R. Capelo , Lucio Mayer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 12:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords tidal disruption eventsdebris streamssmoothed particle hydrodynamicscircularizationpericenter passagenumerical resolutionblack hole accretionstream self-intersection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations with up to 10^10 particles show no measurable spreading of the returning debris stream at pericenter in tidal disruption events.

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

In a tidal disruption event a star is torn apart by a supermassive black hole and the resulting stream of gas falls back toward the hole on highly eccentric orbits. Earlier lower-resolution simulations had found that the stream spreads in its orbital plane while passing pericenter, suggesting that shocks there dissipate orbital energy and help the gas circularize. This work reruns the same initial disruption with the SPH-EXA code at progressively higher particle counts. The spreading effect shrinks dramatically as resolution increases and vanishes at 10^10 particles, leaving the outgoing stream essentially the same width as the incoming one. The authors therefore conclude that the dominant circularization mechanism is the originally proposed collision between the outgoing and incoming streams at larger radii rather than any dissipation at pericenter.

Core claim

With 10^8 particles we find significant in-plane spreading of the debris as the stream returns through pericenter, but with increasing resolution this effect is dramatically diminished, and with 10^10 particles there is effectively no change between the incoming and the outgoing stream widths. Our results demonstrate that the paradigm of significant dissipation of kinetic energy during pericentre passage is incorrect, and instead it is likely that debris circularisation is mediated by the originally proposed, stream-stream collision scenario.

What carries the argument

Resolution-dependent measurement of in-plane debris-stream width in smoothed-particle hydrodynamics simulations that include relativistic apsidal precession, run from stellar disruption through the moment of stream self-intersection.

If this is right

  • The efficacy of pericenter shocks as a source of dissipation is resolution-dependent and becomes negligible at high resolution.
  • Debris circularisation is instead mediated by the stream-stream collision that occurs after the first return.
  • Accurate modeling of early TDE evolution requires particle counts of order 10^10 or equivalent resolution in other methods.
  • Earlier conclusions drawn from 10^8-particle simulations about luminous emission from pericenter shocks are not reliable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • TDE light-curve models that assume efficient early circularization may overpredict prompt emission and need revision.
  • The same resolution-convergence test could be applied to other hydrodynamical problems involving thin streams or shocks.
  • Observational diagnostics that rely on the timing or spectrum of early dissipation may have to be re-examined.

Load-bearing premise

The 10^10-particle SPH-EXA runs have reached numerical convergence on the hydrodynamical spreading, with no residual artificial viscosity or resolution-dependent effects still masking physical dissipation.

What would settle it

A calculation at 10^11 particles or with a grid-based hydrodynamics code that still finds substantial pericenter spreading would contradict the claim of convergence to zero change in stream width.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26663 by Alessia Franchini, C. J. Nixon, Eric R. Coughlin, Lucio Mayer, Noah Kubli, Pedro R. Capelo, Sebastian Keller.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Surface density maps of stellar debris stream at different resolutions at t = 26 d. The top panels show the region from pericenter to the location of the self-crossing of the stream due to apsidal precession, viewed face-on. The middle plots are zoomed-in versions of the top panels around pericenter. The bottom panels show an edge-on view on the stream close to pericenter. The surface density is in units o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Widths of the incoming (dotted) and outgoing (solid) streams at t = 26 d, plotted over the distance from the BH in stellar tidal radii, using different resolutions. 3. RESULTS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energy dissipation at pericenter for different res￾olutions, measured at the time when the tip of the stream returns to pericenter at t ≈ 19 d. Blue, orange, green, and red dots correspond to 16 M, 128 M, 512 M, and 10 B, re￾spectively. We measure this for five parcels of matter at certain specific initial Keplerian orbital energies (annotated text, the same for all resolutions, ∆ϵ = GM•R⋆/r2 tidal). The d… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the distributions of debris energies at the times in the legend, which correspond (approximately) to the times in the legend of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In a tidal disruption event (TDE), a star is disrupted by the tidal field of a massive black hole, creating a debris stream that returns to the black hole, forms an accretion flow, and powers a luminous flare. Over the last few decades, several numerical studies have concluded that shock-induced dissipation occurs as the stream returns to pericentre (i.e., pre-self-intersection), resulting in efficient circularisation of the debris. However, the efficacy of these shocks is the subject of intense debate. We present high-resolution simulations (up to 10^10 particles) of the disruption of a solar-like star by a 10^6M_sun black hole with the new, GPU-based, smoothed-particle hydrodynamics code SPH-EXA, including the relativistic apsidal precession of the stellar debris orbits; our simulations run from initial disruption to the moment of stream self-intersection. With 10^8 particles - corresponding to the highest-resolution SPH simulations of TDEs in the pre-existing literature - we find significant, in-plane spreading of the debris as the stream returns through pericenter, in line with previous works that suggested this is a significant source of dissipation and luminous emission. However, with increasing resolution this effect is dramatically diminished, and with 10^10 particles there is effectively no change between the incoming and the outgoing stream widths. Our results demonstrate that the paradigm of significant dissipation of kinetic energy during pericentre passage is incorrect, and instead it is likely that debris circularisation is mediated by the originally proposed, stream-stream collision scenario.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents GPU-accelerated SPH simulations of a solar-type star disrupted by a 10^6 solar-mass black hole using the SPH-EXA code, evolved from initial disruption through pericenter passage to the onset of stream self-intersection. It reports that in-plane spreading of the debris stream at pericenter, which is prominent at 10^8 particles and consistent with prior lower-resolution studies, decreases markedly with increasing particle number and becomes negligible at 10^10 particles. The authors conclude that pericenter shocks do not provide significant dissipation and that circularization occurs via the originally proposed stream-stream collision mechanism.

Significance. If the resolution-dependent result holds, the work would revise the interpretation of TDE circularization by undermining the shock-dissipation paradigm favored in several recent numerical papers and restoring emphasis on self-intersection. The technical achievement of 10^10-particle SPH runs for a full TDE stream constitutes a clear advance in direct numerical capability for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (results on stream width evolution): The central claim that spreading vanishes at 10^10 particles rests on a reported monotonic trend with particle number, yet the manuscript provides neither tabulated width values (e.g., second-moment or 68-percent enclosed-mass definitions), error estimates, nor an explicit plot of width versus N_part demonstrating a plateau between 10^8 and 10^10. Without these diagnostics it remains possible that residual artificial-viscosity spreading lies below the detection threshold rather than being physically absent.
  2. [Methods] Methods section on artificial viscosity implementation: The scaling of the artificial viscosity term with particle number is not quantified, nor is a test presented showing that its effective strength at 10^10 particles is negligible compared with any physical dissipation that might occur at pericenter. This directly affects whether the reported lack of width change can be interpreted as convergence to the inviscid limit.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the particle numbers corresponding to each curve and the precise definition of stream width used for the comparison.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states 'effectively no change' at 10^10 particles; a quantitative upper limit on any residual width difference would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the potential significance of our high-resolution results. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that will strengthen the quantitative support for our conclusions without altering the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (results on stream width evolution): The central claim that spreading vanishes at 10^10 particles rests on a reported monotonic trend with particle number, yet the manuscript provides neither tabulated width values (e.g., second-moment or 68-percent enclosed-mass definitions), error estimates, nor an explicit plot of width versus N_part demonstrating a plateau between 10^8 and 10^10. Without these diagnostics it remains possible that residual artificial-viscosity spreading lies below the detection threshold rather than being physically absent.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation would be improved by explicit quantitative diagnostics. In the revised manuscript we will add a table listing the measured stream widths (using both second-moment and 68-percent enclosed-mass definitions) at 10^8, 10^9 and 10^10 particles, together with error estimates obtained from multiple snapshots around pericenter. We will also include a new figure showing stream width versus particle number that explicitly demonstrates the monotonic decline and the plateau reached at the highest resolution. These additions will make clear that the residual spreading at 10^10 particles is negligible rather than merely undetected. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section on artificial viscosity implementation: The scaling of the artificial viscosity term with particle number is not quantified, nor is a test presented showing that its effective strength at 10^10 particles is negligible compared with any physical dissipation that might occur at pericenter. This directly affects whether the reported lack of width change can be interpreted as convergence to the inviscid limit.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative discussion of artificial viscosity is required for a robust interpretation. In the revised Methods section we will explicitly state the artificial-viscosity parameters used in SPH-EXA and derive the scaling of the effective numerical viscosity with particle number, showing that it falls as N_part^{-1/3} or steeper. We will also add an order-of-magnitude estimate comparing the viscous dissipation timescale at 10^10 particles to the orbital timescale at pericenter, demonstrating that numerical dissipation is orders of magnitude too weak to produce the observed width changes at lower resolution. These additions will support the claim that the 10^10-particle run has reached the inviscid limit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct numerical convergence result

full rationale

The paper reports a resolution study in SPH-EXA simulations of TDE debris streams, showing that in-plane spreading diminishes with particle number and vanishes at 10^10 particles. This is an empirical outcome of running the code at successive resolutions and measuring stream widths, not a derivation that reduces by construction to its own inputs. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional steps, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain; the central claim rests on the observed numerical behavior rather than any tautological reduction. The work is therefore self-contained as a numerical experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard numerical hydrodynamics rather than new physical postulates; no free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions of smoothed-particle hydrodynamics for modeling inviscid fluid flow in gravitational fields.
    The simulations rely on the SPH discretization of the Euler equations plus relativistic apsidal precession, which are background methods invoked without re-derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5842 in / 1355 out tokens · 52826 ms · 2026-05-22T12:05:32.782256+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On the origin of anomalous dissipation in simulations of tidal disruption events

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Anomalous pre-intersection dissipation in TDE simulations is numerical in origin, arising from pericenter kinematics combined with algorithm sensitivities to converging versus diverging flows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    R., & Stone, N

    Coughlin, E. R., & Stone, N. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3444

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3444 2021

  2. [2]

    2019, WVTICs – SPH initial conditions for everyone, https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11250

    Arth, A., Donnert, J., Steinwandel, U., et al. 2019, WVTICs – SPH initial conditions for everyone, https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11250

    work page arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 545, 772, doi: 10.1086/317835

    Ayal, S., Livio, M., & Piran, T. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 545, 772, doi: 10.1086/317835

    work page doi:10.1086/317835 2000

  4. [4]

    1986, Nature, 324, 446

    Barnes, J., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1207150 2011

  6. [6]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac146 Cabez´ on, R

    Bonnerot, C., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac146 Cabez´ on, R. M., Garc´ ıa-Senz, D., & Escart´ ın, J. A. 2012, A&A, 545, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219821 Cabez´ on, R. M., Garc´ ıa-Senz, D., & Figueira, J. 2017, A&A, 606, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630208 Cabez´ on, R. M., Garc´ ıa-Senz, D., Simsek, O. S., et al. 2025, ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac146 2022

  7. [7]

    Coughlin, E. R. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1347

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1347 2023

  8. [8]

    R., & Begelman, M

    Coughlin, E. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 781, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/82 2014

  9. [9]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. 2015, ApJL, 808, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L11

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l11 2015

  10. [10]

    R., Nixon, C., Begelman, M

    Coughlin, E. R., Nixon, C., Begelman, M. C., & Armitage, P. J. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw770

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw770 2016

  11. [11]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2022, ApJ, 926, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3fb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3fb9 2022

  12. [12]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567

    work page doi:10.1086/185567 1989

  13. [13]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Fancher, J., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2858

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2858 2023

  14. [14]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417 Garc´ ıa-Senz, D., Cabez´ on, R

    Franchini, A., Lodato, G., & Facchini, S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2417 Garc´ ıa-Senz, D., Cabez´ on, R. M., & Escart´ ın, J. A. 2012, A&A, 538, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117939

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2417 2016

  15. [15]

    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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 2021

  16. [16]

    G., Springel, V., Ohlmann, S

    Goicovic, F. G., Springel, V., Ohlmann, S. T., & Pakmor, R. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1368 2019

  17. [17]

    Golightly, E. C. A., Nixon, C. J., & Coughlin, E. R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 882, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab380d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab380d 2019

  18. [18]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/25 2013

  19. [19]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f 2024

  20. [20]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 2023

  21. [21]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0

    work page doi:10.1038/254295a0 1975

  22. [22]

    Hu, F., Mandel, I., Nealon, R., & Price, D. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.04790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.04790

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04790 2025

  23. [23]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adeb79 2025

  24. [24]

    W., & Jiang, Y.-f

    Huang, X., Davis, S. W., & Jiang, Y.-f. 2024, ApJ, 974, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c39 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Jankoviˇ c, T., Bonnerot, C., & Gomboc, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae580

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c39 2024

  25. [25]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

    Jiang, Y.-F., Guillochon, J., & Loeb, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/125 2016

  26. [26]

    2023, in Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference, PASC ’23 (New York,

    Keller, S., Cavelan, A., Cabezon, R., Mayer, L., & Ciorba, F. 2023, in Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference, PASC ’23 (New York,

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 1–10, doi: 10.1145/3592979.3593417

    work page doi:10.1145/3592979.3593417

  28. [28]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/173745 1994

  29. [29]

    H., Townes, C

    Lacy, J. H., Townes, C. H., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1982, ApJ, 262, 120, doi: 10.1086/160402

    work page doi:10.1086/160402 1982

  30. [30]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc489 2020

  31. [31]

    Evolution of Debris of a Tidally Disrupted Star by a Massive Black Hole: Development of a Hybrid Scheme of the SPH and TVD Methods

    Lee, H. M., & Kim, S. S. 1996, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 29, 195, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9611183

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9611183 1996

  32. [32]

    R., & Pringle, J

    Lodato, G., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 332, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14049.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14049.x 2009

  33. [33]

    2017, A&A, 600, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630092

    Mainetti, D., Lupi, A., Campana, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630092

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630092 2017

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba 2022

  35. [35]

    R., Huang, X., Davis, S

    Meza, M. R., Huang, X., Davis, S. W., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00109

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00109 2025

  36. [36]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551 1992

  37. [37]

    P., & Papaloizou, J

    Nelson, R. P., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 570, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03478.x 10

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03478.x 2000

  38. [38]

    Norman, S. M. J., Nixon, C. J., & Coughlin, E. R. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ee8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ee8 2021

  39. [39]

    R., Zajaˇ cek, M., Nixon, C

    Pasham, D. R., Zajaˇ cek, M., Nixon, C. J., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 325, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07433-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07433-w 2024

  40. [40]

    Price, D. J. 2007, PASA, 24, 159, doi: 10.1071/AS07022

    work page doi:10.1071/as07022 2007

  41. [41]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6862 2024

  42. [42]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.25 2018

  43. [43]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  44. [44]

    C., & Avara, M

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., Noble, S. C., & Avara, M. 2023, ApJ, 957, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de 2023

  45. [45]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 4250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw589

    Abarca, D. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 4250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw589 2016

  46. [46]

    Noble, S. C. 2015, ApJ, 804, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/85

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/85 2015

  47. [47]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y 2024

  48. [48]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 061302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al

    Stone, N., & Loeb, A. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 061302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.061302 2012

  49. [49]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Wu, S., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty971

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty971 2018

  50. [50]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y., Ravi, V., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf216 2023