arxiv: 2604.22913 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

The Effects of Accretion Feedback on Stellar Evolution in AGN Disks

Alexander J. Dittmann , Matteo Cantiello

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords accretion feedbackAGN disksstellar evolutiongap openingimmortal starschemical enrichment

0 comments

The pith

Accretion feedback limits stellar accretion rates in AGN disks and increases equilibrium masses and radii when gap opening occurs.

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

The paper incorporates feedback from accretion into semi-analytical stellar evolution models for stars embedded in AGN accretion disks. It shows that this feedback caps accretion rates below about 0.1 solar masses per year, making stellar evolution less dependent on exact disk properties and preventing runaway growth. Including gap opening effects further reduces rates by more than a factor of ten, leading to larger equilibrium stars with higher luminosities. This suggests previous calculations without feedback may have underestimated chemical enrichment in the disks and mispredicted stellar populations and transients.

Core claim

Incorporating accretion feedback from radiation hydrodynamics simulations into stellar structure calculations shows that feedback limits accretion rates below ∼0.1 M⊙ yr⁻¹, eliminating runaway accretion and, with gap opening, reducing rates by over an order of magnitude while increasing equilibrium stellar masses and radii, implying higher luminosities and disk enrichment rates.

What carries the argument

Semi-analytical stellar evolution code with added accretion feedback prescriptions drawn from radiation-hydrodynamics simulations, applied across alpha-disk models with black hole masses from 10^6 to 10^9 solar masses.

If this is right

Accretion feedback eliminates runaway accretion where it would otherwise happen.
Stellar accretion and mass-loss rates can drop by more than a factor of 10 when gap opening is included.
Equilibrium stars end up more massive and larger, with higher intrinsic luminosities.
Disk chemical enrichment rates may be higher than models without feedback suggest.
Predictions for stellar populations and transient events in AGN disks change significantly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Stellar feedback could influence the overall evolution of the AGN disk itself through enhanced enrichment.
Observations of unusually luminous stars or specific transients might confirm the importance of this feedback.
Models of black hole feeding in AGN might need to account for this stellar growth limit.
Extending to full radiation-hydrodynamics stellar models could test the semi-analytical approximations.

Load-bearing premise

That the feedback effects from detailed simulations can be accurately captured in a one-dimensional semi-analytical stellar code without losing key time-dependent or multi-dimensional physics, and that alpha-disk models adequately represent real AGN disk conditions.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of stellar masses and luminosities in AGN disks predicted with and without feedback, or measurements of chemical enrichment rates in AGN environments that exceed or fall short of feedback-inclusive predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22913 by Alexander J. Dittmann, Matteo Cantiello.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Stellar masses and accretion rates assuming Bondi accretion with only radiative feedback (solid lines) and also accounting for accretion feedback (dotted lines) are plotted in the top and bottom panels respectively. Without accretion feedback, most models undergo runaway accretion at these ambient densities. densities at constant ambient sound speed (106 cm s−1 ), with and without accretion feedback. Each … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The outcomes of stellar evolutionary models across a grid of AGN disk model parameters; the left column plots the results of calculations without accretion feedback, and the right column plots results with accretion feedback; the rows plots results assuming accretion at the Bondi rate, tidally limited accretion, and accretion also limited by gap opening, respectively. The dark gray shaded region in the bot… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Stellar mass-loss rates (equal to accretion rates for these immortal models) over a range of AGN disk model parameters, with and without accretion feedback. Accretion feedback negligibly affects accretion rates onto stellar models subject to lower base accretion rates, but for other models can reduce the accretion rate by more than an order of magnitude. even exceed, 1M⊙/yr for a wide range of disk parame… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The radii of immortal stellar models over a range of AGN disk model conditions, with and without accretion feedback, and under the assumption of gap-limited accretion. Since lower-mass stars have smaller radii, models accounting for accretion feedback tend to predict larger stellar radii. potentially counterintuitive effect of increasing stellar masses and radii, rather than decreasing them. The higher mas… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The rate at which immortal stellar models pollute their environments with helium over a range of AGN disk model conditions, with and without accretion feedback, and under the assumption of gap-limited accretion. Since lower– mass stars burn hydrogen to helium at lower rates, models accounting for accretion feedback tend to predict higher rates of chemical enrichment. Our calculations do not track the prod… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The masses over time of stellar model over a range of densities, comparing the use of Equation (A1, solid lines) and Equation (A5, dotted lines). These calculations neglected radiation feedback and assumed tidally-limited accretion, fixing Ω = 10−8.5 s −1 and cs = 106 cm s−1 for all calculations. is to say, setting the viscosity to ν = αc2 s/Ω), along with the tabulated opacities constructed by Zhu et al.… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The disk models used in this work, but more specifically quantities most directly related to stellar evolution: the top panel plots the gas density, the middle panel plots the total sound speed, and the bottom panel plots their aspect ratio (H/R), all as functions of central SMBH mass M• and radial location. At higher masses the disk transitions from the Q > 1 equations to the Q = 1 equations (where ρ is … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Stars embedded in the accretion disks of active galactic nuclei (AGN) can accrete rapidly from their surroundings, dramatically altering their structure and evolution. However, feedback from the release of gravitational potential energy and radiative enthalpy by accreting gas can limit accretion rates, as recently demonstrated in radiation hydrodynamics simulations. To determine the importance of these effects neglected in earlier stellar evolution calculations, we incorporate these feedback processes into a semi-analytical model of stellar structure and evolution and conduct a suite of calculations spanning a broad parameter space of AGN disk conditions drawn from $\alpha$-disk models with central black hole masses $M_\bullet/M_\odot \in [10^6, 10^9]$. We find that accretion feedback limits stellar accretion rates below $\sim 10^{-1}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, reducing the sensitivity of stellar evolution on disk properties. This suppression eliminates runaway accretion in models where it would otherwise occur, broadening the parameter space over which stars can reach long-lived ``immortal'' equilibria between accretion and mass loss. When gap opening is also accounted for, accretion feedback significantly alters stellar properties: it can reduce accretion and mass-loss rates by over an order of magnitude, reducing the strength of accretion shocks and thereby increasing equilibrium stellar masses and radii. These higher masses correspond to higher intrinsic luminosities, suggesting that neglecting accretion feedback may lead to an underestimate of disk chemical enrichment rates. Additionally, accretion feedback is important for predicting the properties of stellar populations within AGN disks, and associated transient phenomena.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Accretion feedback caps stellar growth below 0.1 solar masses per year and raises equilibrium masses with gaps, but the 1D embedding of RHD results leaves dynamical coupling untested.

read the letter

Accretion feedback from recent radiation-hydrodynamics simulations, when folded into a semi-analytical stellar code, keeps accretion rates below about 0.1 solar masses per year and stops runaway growth across AGN disk conditions. Adding gap opening then cuts both accretion and mass-loss rates by more than a factor of ten, which raises equilibrium masses and radii and implies brighter stars than earlier models predicted. The calculations span black hole masses from 10^6 to 10^9 solar masses using standard alpha-disk setups and show the feedback reduces sensitivity to exact disk properties while widening the window for long-lived equilibria. This is a direct, concrete extension of prior work that uses independent simulation results rather than new fitted parameters. The parameter sweeps are broad and the outcomes are stated quantitatively, which gives readers usable numbers for chemical enrichment and transient predictions. The soft spot is the semi-analytical step itself. The feedback is inserted as local boundary conditions or source terms, but the original hydro runs included time-dependent flow geometry and back-reaction on disk surface density. If those effects do not translate cleanly, the claimed order-of-magnitude suppression could shrink. The paper does not appear to include direct validation runs against the source simulations or error bars on the feedback terms, so the size of the changes needs checking. This paper is for researchers who model stars inside AGN disks, galactic chemical evolution near supermassive black holes, or associated transients. A reader who needs updated equilibrium properties or wants to see how feedback alters population predictions will find concrete results here. I would send it for peer review. The calculations are transparent enough to evaluate and the topic is timely, even if the dynamical approximations require referee attention.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytical stellar evolution model for stars embedded in AGN accretion disks. It incorporates feedback prescriptions (energy release and enthalpy) derived from radiation-hydrodynamics simulations as modified boundary conditions or source terms, using disk conditions from standard α-disk models across black hole masses 10^6–10^9 M⊙. The central claims are that feedback caps accretion rates below ∼0.1 M⊙ yr⁻¹, eliminates runaway accretion, broadens the parameter space for long-lived equilibrium states, and—when gap opening is included—reduces accretion and mass-loss rates by over an order of magnitude, thereby increasing equilibrium stellar masses and radii with implications for disk chemical enrichment and transients.

Significance. If the semi-analytical embedding of the RHD feedback terms accurately reproduces the net suppression without omitting time-dependent or multidimensional disk-star coupling, the results would meaningfully advance models of stellar populations in AGN disks. The broadening of immortal equilibria and the predicted increase in stellar luminosities (hence enrichment rates) are potentially important for interpreting observations and transients. The work provides a computationally efficient framework for exploring broad parameter spaces that full simulations cannot yet cover.

major comments (2)

[§2] §2 (Methods): The feedback is implemented via local, steady-state adjustments to the 1D stellar structure equations drawn from RHD runs, but the manuscript provides no direct benchmark comparing the resulting accretion rates or equilibrium states against the original multi-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics simulations for matched parameters. This validation is load-bearing for the order-of-magnitude reduction claim when gap opening is added.
[§3.2] §3.2 (Results, gap-opening case): The model shows feedback plus gap opening increases equilibrium masses and radii, yet the back-reaction of the stellar accretion luminosity and mass loss on the local disk surface density (which enters the gap-opening criterion) is not included. This omission risks internal inconsistency in the self-regulated equilibrium solutions that underpin the headline result.

minor comments (2)

[§1] The definition of 'immortal' equilibria is referenced but not restated with the precise balance condition (accretion vs. mass loss) used in the calculations; a brief recap in §1 or §3 would aid readability.
[§2.3] Notation for the feedback enthalpy term and the modified boundary condition is introduced without an explicit equation number or table summarizing the adopted RHD-derived coefficients across the parameter grid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate clarifications and additional discussion where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2] §2 (Methods): The feedback is implemented via local, steady-state adjustments to the 1D stellar structure equations drawn from RHD runs, but the manuscript provides no direct benchmark comparing the resulting accretion rates or equilibrium states against the original multi-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics simulations for matched parameters. This validation is load-bearing for the order-of-magnitude reduction claim when gap opening is added.

Authors: We thank the referee for emphasizing the need for explicit validation. The feedback terms for energy release and enthalpy are taken directly from the cited RHD simulations and applied as modified boundary conditions and source terms in the 1D stellar evolution code. For the no-gap case, the resulting accretion-rate suppression is by construction consistent with the net effect reported in those simulations. We acknowledge that the manuscript lacks a side-by-side comparison for matched parameters. In the revised version we will add a dedicated paragraph and figure in §2 (or an appendix) that overlays our semi-analytic accretion rates and equilibrium luminosities against the RHD data points for the available overlapping parameter regimes. This addition will also underpin the gap-opening results by demonstrating the fidelity of the feedback implementation before the gap criterion is applied. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Results, gap-opening case): The model shows feedback plus gap opening increases equilibrium masses and radii, yet the back-reaction of the stellar accretion luminosity and mass loss on the local disk surface density (which enters the gap-opening criterion) is not included. This omission risks internal inconsistency in the self-regulated equilibrium solutions that underpin the headline result.

Authors: The referee correctly notes that our model adopts the unperturbed α-disk surface density to evaluate the gap-opening criterion and does not iterate on the local density reduction caused by stellar accretion luminosity and mass loss. This is a deliberate modeling choice that keeps the calculation semi-analytic and allows broad parameter exploration. We will revise §3.2 to explicitly state this approximation, quantify its expected magnitude using order-of-magnitude estimates, and argue that the primary result—an increase in equilibrium stellar mass and radius when feedback is included—remains robust because the gap criterion depends most strongly on stellar mass while the feedback-induced density change is a secondary correction. A fully coupled disk-star calculation is beyond the present scope and will be noted as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: external RHD feedback and alpha-disk inputs drive results

full rationale

The derivation imports feedback prescriptions (energy release, enthalpy) directly from independent radiation-hydrodynamics simulations and adopts disk conditions from standard alpha-disk models with given central black-hole masses. These are treated as external boundary conditions or source terms inside the 1D stellar-structure code. The claimed suppression of accretion rates below ~0.1 M⊙ yr⁻¹, elimination of runaway growth, and shifts in equilibrium masses/radii when gap opening is added all follow from applying those imported rules rather than from any parameter fitted inside the present equations or from a self-referential definition. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz-smuggling is present in the derivation steps described.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model depends on alpha-disk prescriptions for disk structure and on feedback prescriptions imported from prior radiation-hydrodynamics simulations; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Alpha-disk models provide a representative range of AGN disk conditions for central black hole masses 10^6 to 10^9 solar masses.
Stated as the source of the parameter space explored.
domain assumption Feedback from gravitational potential energy and radiative enthalpy release can be captured by a semi-analytical prescription.
Core modeling choice that allows the feedback to be added to stellar evolution calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5582 in / 1324 out tokens · 21234 ms · 2026-05-08T09:50:04.180971+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Ali-Dib, M., & Lin, D. N. C. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5824

2023
[2]

Artymowicz, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Wampler, E. J. 1993, ApJ, 409, 592

1993
[3]

C., & Pringle, J

Begelman, M. C., & Pringle, J. E. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1070

2007
[4]

P., Zhu, Z., et al

Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., Zhu, Z., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L45

2018
[5]

R., Arnett, W

Bond, J. R., Arnett, W. D., & Carr, B. J. 1984, ApJ, 280, 825 6 Although we calculated time-dependent evolutionary calcula- tions, solving an initial value problem, we remark that the semi-analytical models used here would also be useful to di- rectly search for quasi-steady sates

1984
[6]

1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

1952
[7]

S., & Lin, D

Cantiello, M., Jermyn, A. S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2021, ApJ, 910, 94

2021
[8]

H., & Saban, D

Chan, C.-H., Piran, T., Krolik, J. H., & Saban, D. 2019, ApJ, 881, 113

2019
[9]

2025, ApJ, 987, 188

Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, Y.-F., & Goodman, J. 2025, ApJ, 987, 188

2025
[10]

Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, Y.-F., Goodman, J., & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, ApJ, 974, 106

2024
[11]

2023, MNRAS, 525, 2806 10Dittmann & Cantiello

Choksi, N., Chiang, E., Fung, J., & Zhu, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2806 10Dittmann & Cantiello

2023
[12]

P., Magee, N

Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 116

2016
[13]

W., Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J

Davis, S. W., Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Murray, N. 2014, ApJ, 796, 107

2014
[14]

M., Lee, W.-K., & Lithwick, Y

Dempsey, A. M., Lee, W.-K., & Lithwick, Y. 2020, ApJ, 891, 108

2020
[15]

2023, MNRAS, 521, 4522

Derdzinski, A., & Mayer, L. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4522

2023
[16]

J., & Cantiello, M

Dittmann, A. J., & Cantiello, M. 2025, ApJ, 979, 245

2025
[17]

J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A

Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A. S. 2021, ApJ, 916, 48

2021
[18]

J., Jermyn, A

Dittmann, A. J., Jermyn, A. S., & Cantiello, M. 2023, ApJ, 946, 56

2023
[19]

J., & Miller, M

Dittmann, A. J., & Miller, M. C. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3732

2020
[20]

M., Morris, M

Do, T., Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1323

2009
[21]

Eddington, A. S. 1926, The Internal Constitution of the Stars

1926
[22]

2025, MNRAS, 537, 3396

Epstein-Martin, M., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Perna, R. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3396

2025
[23]

S., Caban, F., et al

Fabj, G., Nasim, S. S., Caban, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2608

2020
[24]

J., et al

Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 56

2021
[25]

S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25

2014
[26]

2014, ApJ, 782, 88

Fung, J., Shi, J.-M., & Chiang, E. 2014, ApJ, 782, 88

2014
[27]

Gilbaum, S., & Stone, N. C. 2022, ApJ, 928, 191

2022
[28]

A., Jiang, Y.-F., Bildsten, L., & Cantiello, M

Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., Bildsten, L., & Cantiello, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.12486

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

2003, MNRAS, 339, 937

Goodman, J. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 937

2003
[30]

Goodman, J., & Tan, J. C. 2004, ApJ, 608, 108

2004
[31]

J., Djorgovski, S

Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Drake, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4112

2017
[32]

J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 154

2026
[33]

2017, ApJ, 847, 120

Habibi, M., Gillessen, S., Martins, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 120

2017
[34]

1999, ARA&A, 37, 487

Hamann, F., & Ferland, G. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 487

1999
[35]

Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475

2008
[36]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[37]

S., Dittmann, A

Jermyn, A. S., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Perna, R. 2021, ApJ, 914, 105

2021
[38]

S., Dittmann, A

Jermyn, A. S., Dittmann, A. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., & Cantiello, M. 2022, ApJ, 929, 133

2022
[39]

M., & Davis, S

Jiang, Y.-F., Blaes, O., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 885, 144

2019
[40]

2018, Nature, 561, 498

Jiang, Y.-F., Cantiello, M., Bildsten, L., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 498

2018
[41]

D., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., & Tanigawa, T

Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., & Tanigawa, T. 2017, PASJ, 69, 97

2017
[42]

2015, MNRAS, 453, L46

King, A., & Nixon, C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L46

2015
[43]

2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 2013
[44]

I., & Syunyaev, R

Kolykhalov, P. I., & Syunyaev, R. A. 1980, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 6, 357

1980
[45]

R., & Thompson, T

Krumholz, M. R., & Thompson, T. A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2329

2013
[46]

Levin, Y., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2003, ApJL, 590, L33

2003
[47]

Lin, D. N. C., & Papaloizou, J. 1986, ApJ, 309, 846

1986
[48]

1969, Nature, 223, 690

Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690

1969
[49]

1987, A&A, 178, 159

Maeder, A. 1987, A&A, 178, 159

1987
[50]

McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Cantiello, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4102

2022
[51]

McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4088

2020
[52]

D., & Stone, N

Metzger, B. D., & Stone, N. C. 2017, ApJ, 844, 75

2017
[53]

D., Stone, N

Metzger, B. D., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2022, ApJ, 926, 101

2022
[54]

P., Gayley, K

Owocki, S. P., Gayley, K. G., & Shaviv, N. J. 2004, ApJ, 616, 525

2004
[55]

P., Townsend, R

Owocki, S. P., Townsend, R. H. D., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3749

2017
[56]

2021, PhRvD, 103, 103018

Pan, Z., & Yang, H. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103018

2021
[57]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

2011
[58]

Murray-Clay, R. A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2054

2020
[59]

Ryu, T., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8103

2024
[60]

Schawinski, K., Koss, M., Berney, S., & Sartori, L. F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2517

2015
[61]

I., & Sunyaev, R

Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

1973
[62]

2003, MNRAS, 341, 501 So ltan, A

Sirko, E., & Goodman, J. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 501 So ltan, A. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115

2003
[63]

C., Metzger, B

Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., & Haiman, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 946 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22

2017
[64]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665

2020
[65]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 345 Stellar Evolution in AGN Disks11

Xu, F., Bian, F., Shen, Y., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 345 Stellar Evolution in AGN Disks11

2018
[66]

Xu, Z.-H., Chen, Y.-X., & Lin, D. N. C. 2026, ApJ, 997, 206

2026
[67]

C., & Langer, N

Yoon, S. C., & Langer, N. 2005, A&A, 443, 643

2005
[68]

2002, MNRAS, 335, 965

Yu, Q., & Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965

2002
[69]

Zhu, Z., Jiang, Y.-F., Baehr, H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 453 12Dittmann & Cantiello APPENDIX A.SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL UPDATES: ESCAPE VELOCITY At very high accretion rates, the rate of energy ex- change between the accretion stream and stellar surface can approach, or even exceed, the intrinsic luminosity of the star. Taking a naive estimate of the accre...

2021