Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Multi-Frequency Models of Black Hole Photon Rings from Low-Luminosity Accretion Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The apparent radius of a black hole's photon ring shifts with frequency in a way that exposes electron temperature at low frequencies and magnetic field strength at high frequencies.

desk verdict Useful fast modeling tool with a careful resolution study, but the magnetic-field inference in the abstract is stronger than the parameter study actually supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17884 v2 pith:2ADJRJ33 submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Tejahni Desire , Alejandro Cárdenas-Avendaño , Andrew Chael This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords blackholephotonringssynchrotronradiationradiativetransferaccretiondiskmodelsM87*multi-frequencyVLBIeventhorizonimagingadaptiveanalyticalraytracing
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 establishes that the radius of the bright photon ring in horizon-scale black hole images carries a frequency-dependent plasma fingerprint, not just a gravitational one. Building a fast analytic model of thermal synchrotron emission from a thin equatorial disk around M87*, the authors simulate images from 10 to 670 GHz and measure the brightness peak at each frequency. They find that in the optically thick regime the ring radius is set by the electron temperature power law, while in the optically thin regime the magnetic field power law takes over as the dominant parameter. They also define a convergence frequency $\nu_{\rm conv}$ at which the higher-order photon rings first become visible and show that it lands within about 50 GHz of the spectral peak frequency. If these results hold, multi-frequency observations can separate electron temperature from magnetic field strength in the accretion flow, a capability central to interpreting EHT and future space-based black hole imaging.

What carries the argument

The engine is an analytic solution of the relativistic radiative transfer equation in which synchrotron emission and absorption coefficients are held constant on each geodesic pass through an equatorial disk, giving each sub-image intensity $I_{\nu_0,n} = S_{\nu,n}(1-e^{-\tau_{\nu,n}})$ with the optical depth of earlier passes suppressing later ones (Eqs. 5-6). The disk is a three-power-law model for electron density, temperature, and magnetic field calibrated to M87*, with density normalized so the 230 GHz flux is 0.5 Jy. The Adaptive Analytical Ray Tracing (AART) code supplies the analytic photon geodesics and adaptive image grids, and the ring radius is defined as the peak of the radial intensity slice at each position angle, averaged through the second-moment method of Chael et al. 2021. The load-bearing metric is the convergence frequency $\nu_{\rm conv}$, defined as the frequency where the cumulative image radius comes within 2% of the $n=2$ radius (or, failing that, reaches its closest approach), which marks the onset of photon-ring visibility.

What would settle it

Ray-trace a vertically resolved GRMHD simulation of M87* with a continuous radiative-transfer solver at 90, 230, and 350 GHz and measure the brightness-peak radius at each frequency; if the radius does not stop shrinking with the temperature index at low frequency and start following the magnetic field at high frequency in the model's predicted order, the central claim fails. An observational counterpart would be matched 86/230/345 GHz images of M87*: the model predicts a nearly constant ring radius below the transition and a shrinking radius above it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the image-domain radius of the $n=0$ direct image and the visibility of the $n=1,2$ photon rings vary with observing frequency in a parameter-dependent way that can be inverted to infer plasma properties. At low frequencies, where the disk is optically thick, the brightness peak sits where the redshifted electron temperature is highest, so the ring radius is controlled by the temperature normalization $T_{e,0}$ and index $\alpha_T$. At higher frequencies, where the disk becomes optically thin, the peak tracks the radius where the synchrotron critical frequency equals the emitted frequency, which depends on magnetic field strength, so the magnetic index $\alpha_B$ dominates. A secondary claim is that the cumulative image's brightest point can jump between the $n=0$ and $n=2$ rings depending on spin, inclination, and position angle, so any single image-domain ring radius must be defined and interpreted carefully.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the synchrotron emission and absorption coefficients are constant along each pass through a thin disk of fixed opening angle $h/r=0.5$; real accretion disks have gradients along the ray path, and if those gradients are strong, the predicted ring radii and transition frequencies will shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At frequencies where the disk is optically thick, measuring the ring radius gives a direct read on the electron temperature profile; steeper temperature falloff yields a smaller halo.
  • At optically thin frequencies, the radius becomes a probe of magnetic field strength, so pairing low- and high-frequency images breaks the degeneracy between temperature and field parameters.
  • The convergence frequency $\nu_{\rm conv}$ and the spectral peak frequency $\nu_{\rm peak}$ agree within roughly 50 GHz for most studied M87*-like models, so an SED peak can budget when higher-order photon rings start to matter.
  • The $n=1$ and $n=2$ ring radii track the critical curve and depend mainly on spin and inclination, preserving photon rings as a mostly gravitational observable even as the $n=0$ image carries the plasma information.
  • Because the brightest ring can switch between $n=0$ and $n=2$ across the image for high spin, radius measurements in the image domain need explicit definitions; visibility-domain analysis may be a cleaner route.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the analytic model could serve as a fast likelihood surrogate for GRMHD parameter estimation, since it explores a much larger parameter space at far lower cost than full simulations.
  • If the radius ordering holds, simultaneous EHT/BHEX observations at 86, 230, and 345 GHz could be interpreted as a two-band plasma thermometer and magnetometer, giving an empirical handle on $T_e$ and $B$ without polarimetric modeling.
  • A testable consequence the paper does not pursue: $\nu_{\rm conv}$ should move with accretion state, since hotter models shift both $\nu_{\rm peak}$ and $\nu_{\rm conv}$ downward; time monitoring of M87* could check whether the ring radius at a fixed frequency tracks the SED's peak.
  • The constant-coefficient-per-pass assumption could be checked by full GRMHD ray tracing; if vertical gradients shift the predicted radii by more than the quoted convergence, the clean temperature versus magnetic field separation would need revision.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an astrophysically motivated synchrotron emission model for the AART ray-tracing code, enabling fast multi-frequency (10–670 GHz) images of black hole accretion disks. The model treats emission and absorption as constant on each disk crossing, adopts power-law radial profiles for density, temperature, and magnetic field, and normalizes each model to a 230 GHz flux of 0.5 Jy, matching M87*. The authors compute flux densities, image-domain ring radii, and optical depths for a parameter grid in α_T, α_B, T_e,0, and spin. They define a convergence frequency ν_conv marking when the cumulative image radius approaches the n=2 photon ring, compare it to the SED peak, and show that higher-order rings are largely geometry-dominated while the n=0 image depends on plasma parameters. The central claim is that low-frequency ring radii are set by electron temperature, while higher-frequency radii are set by magnetic field strength, enabling inference of plasma parameters from multi-frequency observations. The paper also demonstrates time-variable and blurred images using Gaussian random fields.

Significance. If the central dichotomy holds, this is a valuable fast, open-source tool for interpreting upcoming multi-frequency EHT and BHEX observations and for forecasting when photon rings become visible. The paper ships publicly available code, uses standard synchrotron radiative transfer, and includes a careful resolution study (Appendix B), all of which are strengths. The qualitative result that n=1 and n=2 radii are geometry-dominated while the n=0 image is astrophysics-dominated is well supported. The specific inference claim—that the low-frequency radius probes electron temperature and the high-frequency radius probes magnetic field strength—is interesting and potentially impactful, but, as detailed below, the current parameter study does not cleanly demonstrate the magnetic-field part of that claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §3.2.1, §5, Table 1] The central claim that ring radii are set by electron temperature at low frequencies and by magnetic field strength at high frequencies is not fully supported by the parameter study. In Table 1, the magnetic field normalization B0 is fixed at 8 G; only the radial power-law index αB is varied. Because B enters the synchrotron coefficients only through νc ∝ B Θe^2 (Eq. 14), varying αB changes the radial profile of emission but does not probe the field amplitude at the anchor radius. Moreover, Appendix A normalizes each model by rescaling n_th,0 to force F230 = 0.5 Jy; since n_th,0 also sets the optical-depth scale, an independent change in B0 (or T_e,0) would be partially absorbed into the density normalization and would shift νconv. The quoted temperature-vs-magnetic-field dichotomy is therefore demonstrated only for the profile index αB with B0 fixed, not for the field strength B0 that the abstract and conclusions invoke. I request that the authors either vary B0 (and show whether the effect survives the 0.5 Jy renormalization) or explicitly rephrase the claim to refer to the radial profile index αB.
  2. [§2.1, Eqs. (5)–(9), Table 1] The analytic radiative transfer solution assumes jν and κν are constant on each pass through the disk, and the vertical structure is reduced to a fixed opening angle θdisk = h/r = 0.5 (Eq. 8). These assumptions are acknowledged as simplifying, but they are load-bearing for the reported radii, optical depths, and νconv values. Realistic flows exhibit gradients along the raypath and height ratios that vary with radius and magnetization; the quantitative values in Figs. 7–9 and the relative ordering of νconv and νpeak could shift if θdisk were different or if jν and κν were integrated in sub-steps across the disk thickness. I ask for a sensitivity test—for example, recomputing a fiducial model with θdisk = 0.3 and 0.7, or splitting each disk crossing into several integration steps—to confirm that the qualitative temperature-vs-field dichotomy is not an artifact of this vertical-structure approximation.
  3. [§3.4 and Fig. 11] The definition of νconv as the image-domain transition frequency is clear, but the paper also calls it 'the transition to the optically thin regime.' Fig. 11 shows that the intensity-weighted optical depth equals unity only at frequencies above both νconv and νpeak for the models shown. This is not necessarily an error, but the terminology is misleading: νconv marks when the cumulative image radius approaches the n=2 ring, which depends on relative brightness and image structure, not on the physical criterion ⟨τ⟩ = 1. I recommend rephrasing to distinguish the image-domain convergence frequency from the physical optical-depth transition throughout the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5] In the concluding paragraph, 'the the magnetic field strength' contains a duplicated article; please correct to 'the magnetic field strength.'
  2. [Figs. 12 and 13] The captions for Figs. 12 and 13 state 'a∗ = 15/26', while the text and Table 1 use a∗ = 15/16. Please correct this typo if the intended spin is 15/16.
  3. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption lists blurring kernels θblur = [0, 1, 5, 10] μas and then associates them with 'Earth to L2, Earth to Moon, GEO, LEO' baselines, but the order is ambiguous (0 μas is the unblurred image, not a baseline). Please clarify which kernel corresponds to which baseline configuration.
  4. [Eq. (24)] The exponent 'n1/2 scale' is unclear in the printed text; please typeset it as nscale^{1/2} or otherwise define the quantity explicitly.
  5. [Appendix B and Fig. 15] Appendix B states that at 8000×8000 pixels the cumulative radius 'has not become completely independent of resolution,' while the Fig. 15 caption says the same resolution is 'well within the range of being safely independent.' Please harmonize the wording to avoid an apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: multi-frequency ring radii are forward-model outputs from stated radiative-transfer assumptions; flux normalization is calibration, not a predicted result.

full rationale

The paper builds an analytic synchrotron/thermal disk model and ray-traces it; the reported ring radii, νconv, and νpeak are all computed from the model, not fitted to the quantities they are used to infer. The low-frequency temperature control follows directly from the Planck source function (Eq. 17) in the optically thick limit, and the high-frequency magnetic-field dependence enters through νc ∝ BΘ_e^2 in the emission and absorption coefficients (Eqs. 13-14). Because these are stated model assumptions, the conclusions are self-consistent forward-model results, not circular reductions. The density normalization nth,0 is chosen to match F230 = 0.5 Jy (Appendix A), and Te,0 is chosen to put the SED peak near 230 GHz; this calibrates the absolute flux scale, but the frequency-dependent radius curves are not statistically forced by this calibration, since uniform density scaling does not change the peak radius of the n=0 image, and radius transitions are governed by the optical depth profile rather than by total flux. Self-citations to AART and earlier photon-ring work are methodological references, not load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz claims. The overstatement that 'magnetic field strength' dominates when only αB (not B0) was varied is a scope limitation, not circularity; likewise the proximity of νconv to νpeak reflects both metrics tracking the same τ≈1 transition, which the paper explicitly acknowledges. No step reduces an output to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative outputs depend on the Kerr geodesic framework, standard synchrotron emission formulas, and power-law disk prescriptions. The main non-derived choices are the density normalization to the observed 230 GHz flux, the fixed disk opening angle, and the parameter grid, all of which are calibrated rather than derived from the model.

free parameters (8)
  • nth,0 (electron density normalization at Rb) = 2.8e3 to 4e6 cm^-3 depending on model, mean 4e5
    Fit in Appendix A so each model has a total flux of 0.5 Jy at 230 GHz, matching M87*. This scales optical depth and therefore affects the ring transition frequency.
  • Te,0 (electron temperature at Rb) = [3, 5, 7] x 10^10 K; fiducial 3 x 10^10 K
    Chosen so the fiducial model's SED peaks near 230 GHz as observed for M87*. This choice directly sets the optically thick ring radius.
  • B0 (magnetic field strength at Rb) = 8 Gauss
    Fixed to a fiducial one-zone M87* value from EHT literature. It controls the optically thin ring radius.
  • alpha_n (density power-law index) = 0.7
    Taken from Broderick and Loeb (2009) fitting of the M87* radio spectral index. It sets the density falloff with radius.
  • alpha_T (temperature power-law index) = [1.5, 1, 0.5]
    Varied by hand. It controls the radial temperature profile and thus the low-frequency ring radius.
  • alpha_B (magnetic field power-law index) = [2, 1.5, 1]
    Varied by hand. It interpolates between toroidal and poloidal field profiles and controls the high-frequency ring radius.
  • theta_disk (disk opening angle h/r) = 0.5
    Fixed by hand. It enters the optical depth through the path length in Eq. 8.
  • Rb (power-law normalization radius) = 5 rg
    Fixed from EHT one-zone models. It anchors the density, temperature, and magnetic field power laws.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kerr metric and null geodesic equations are exact, and AART traces photon paths analytically.
    Used throughout Section 2.1 and Section 3 to compute geodesic intersections and redshifts.
  • domain assumption Thermal synchrotron emissivity and absorption from Dexter (2016), with a Planck source function, describe the disk radiation.
    Invoked in Section 2.2, Eqs. 13-17. It neglects non-thermal electrons and inverse Compton scattering.
  • ad hoc to paper Emission and absorption coefficients are constant on each geodesic pass through the disk.
    Stated before Eq. 5 in Section 2.1. This enables the analytic solution but ignores gradients along the ray.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk density, temperature, and magnetic field follow power laws anchored at Rb = 5 rg.
    Eqs. 20-22. These profiles are calibrated to GRMHD and EHT expectations but are not derived from MHD.
  • domain assumption The flow follows the Cunningham Keplerian model with four-velocity parameters set to unity.
    Eq. 18 and Section 2.3. This ignores radial pressure support and magnetic stresses in the disk.
  • domain assumption No jet, no non-thermal electrons, no scattering, and no emission outside the equatorial disk.
    Stated in Section 2.3 and Section 5. It is appropriate for near-horizon M87* disk emission but restricts generality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Frequency Models of Black Hole Photon Rings from Low-Luminosity Accretion Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ADJRJ33

@misc{pith2026241117884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Frequency Models of Black Hole Photon Rings from Low-Luminosity Accretion Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ADJRJ33}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17884}
}
read the original abstract

Images of black holes encode both astrophysical and gravitational properties. Detecting highly-lensed features in images can differentiate between these two effects. We present an accretion disk emission model coupled to the Adaptive Analytical Ray Tracing (AART) code that allows a fast parameter space exploration of black hole photon ring images produced from synchrotron emission from 10 to 670 GHz. As an application, we systematically study several disk models and compute their total flux density, average radii, and optical depth. The model parameters are chosen around fiducial values calibrated to general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations and observations of M87*. For the parameter space studied, we characterize the transition between optically thin and thick regimes and the frequency at which the first photon ring is observable. Our results highlight the need for careful definitions of photon ring radius in the image domain, as in certain models, the highly lensed photon ring is dimmer than the direct emission at certain angles. We find that at low frequencies, the ring radii are set by the electron temperature, while at higher frequencies, the magnetic field strength plays a more significant role, demonstrating how multi-frequency analysis can also be used to infer plasma parameters. Lastly, we show how our implementation can qualitatively reproduce multifrequency black hole images from GRMHD simulations when adding time-variability to our disk model through Gaussian random fields. This approach provides a new method for simulating observations from the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) and the proposed Black Hole Explorer (BHEX) space mission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the lensing behavior that creates the observed photon rings around a black hole. In this model, emission is confined to an accretion disk (in red); the obser￾vation angle θo is the angle between the normal of the disk and the observer’s line of sight. The nth photon ring in￾cludes all photons that have passed through the black hole’s equatorial plane n + 1 times before reaching the observer. of lower… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dimensionless electron temperature, Θe (first), magnetic field strength B (second), particle density nth (third), and emission coefficient jν (fourth) as a function of the radial distance from the center of the black hole for three disk models. The first three quantities are given by Equation 20-Equation 22, respectively. The emission coeffi￾cient is calculated using Equation 13, and was taken from a radial slic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Images produced for different temperature power law indices αT , and observation frequencies. Columns correspond to different αT values, while rows correspond to changes in the frequency of observation (ν0). The middle row’s observation frequency is taken as the 230 GHz measured by the current EHT, while the top (90 GHz) and bottom (350 GHz) row values were chosen for similarity to the upcoming advances in EHT obser… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Images produced for different values of the black hole spin and observation frequency. From left to right, the spin increases (a∗ = 0, 0.5, 15/16), while from top to bottom, the observation frequency is increased (90, 230, 350 GHz). For all of these images, αT = 1, αB …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) The brightness temperature as a function of the radial distance (measured in rg) on the horizontal axis for a model observed at ν0 = 90, 230, 350 GHz in orange, blue, and pink, respectively. The vertical lines indicate the intensity peak, which, as demonstrated …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ring radii curves ρ(φ) measured on an image of the fiducial model (a∗ = 15/16, αT = 1, αB = 1.5, and Te,0 = 3 × 1010 K) at 670 GHz. The remaining model pa￾rameters can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean ring radii ¯ρ (measured in rg) as a function of the observation frequency, for different values of αT and αB. For all of these examples, we have set to a∗ = 15/16 and Te,0 = 3 × 1010 K, and all other parameters as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean ring radii ¯ρ (measured in units of rg) as a function of observation frequency for three different values of the black hole spin. The inset images display the respective model produced at ν0 = 230 GHz. The dash-dotted black vertical line indicates where the flux d…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Total flux density (top) and averaged mean ring radius (bottom) as a function of observation frequency ν0 for different Te,0 models, with αB = 1.5, αT = 1, and a∗ = 15/16. All other parameters are set with the fiducial values shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visibility amplitudes for two models at two baseline angles, φ = 0◦ (orange curves) and φ = 90◦ (blue curves), at ν0 = 230 GHz. Solid lines denote the case with Te,0 = 3 × 1010 K, while the dashed lines indicate a case with Te,0 = 7 × 1010 K. Variable parameters were …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The average optical depth (Equation 23) as a function of the observation frequency. The triangles indicate νconv, a measure for the frequency at which the transition to the optically thin regime occurs defined in this work. The squares indicate νpeak, i.e., the freque…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Blurring of M87* model images with different Gaussian smoothing kernels θblur, and their corresponding radial profiles (last panel). For all these cases the full RTE solution has been considered with a∗ = 15/26, αT = 1, αB = 1.5, Te,0 = 3 × 1010 K, at ν0 = 230GHz. The…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Snapshots at different frequencies (left column) and their corresponding blurred version (right column). The variability and time dependence of the model has been added using inoisy. The right column images have been blurred using a Gaussian filter with a FWHM value o…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: An example of the resolution convergence test performed for the inferred radii in this work. For this example, we have chosen a model with a∗ = 15/26, αT = 1, αB = 1.5, Te,0 = 3×1010 K, ν0 = 670 GHz, and the remaining model parameters as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The dependence of the measured photon ring radii, as a function of the polar angle φ for two different resolutions. For this example images, the model parameters were set to a∗ = 15/16, αT = 1, αB = 1.5, Te,0 = 3 × 1010 K, with the remaining parameters as listed in […

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Bardeen, J. M. 1974, Symposium - International Astronomical Union, 64, 132–144, doi: 10.1017/s0074180900236218

    doi:10.1017/s0074180900236218 1974

  3. [3]

    E., Fish, V

    Broderick, A. E., Fish, V. L., Doeleman, S. S., & Loeb, A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/110

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/110 2011

  4. [4]

    E., & Loeb, A

    Broderick, A. E., & Loeb, A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 905, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10152.x —. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1164 C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, A., & Held, A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 064052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.064052 C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, A., Keeble, L., & Lupsasca, A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 124052, doi: 10.1103/Phys...

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    W., et al

    Chael, A., Issaoun, S., Pesce, D. W., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e4 2023

  6. [6]

    D., & Lupsasca, A

    Chael, A., Johnson, M. D., & Lupsasca, A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ee 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ee 2021

  7. [7]

    Chael, A., Narayan, R., & Johnson, M. D. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz988

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz988 2019

  8. [8]

    O., Johnson, M

    Chang, D. O., Johnson, M. D., Tiede, P., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2024, Astrophys. J., 974, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b28

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b28 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Cunningham, C. T. 1975, ApJ, 202, 788, doi: 10.1086/154033

    1975 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, AstroModels: Code for Multi-frequency Models of Black Hole Photon Rings, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14629536

    Desire, T., C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, A., & Chael, A. 2024, AstroModels: Code for Multi-frequency Models of Black Hole Photon Rings, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14629536

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 115–136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1526

    Dexter, J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 115–136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1526

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    C., & Agol, E

    Dexter, J., McKinney, J. C., & Agol, E. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1517, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20409.x EHT MWL Science Working Group, et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abef71 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, et al. 2019a, The Astrophysical Journal Letter...

    2012

  5. [13]

    2000, ApJL, 528, L13, doi: 10.1086/312423

    Falcke, H., Melia, F., & Agol, E. 2000, ApJL, 528, L13, doi: 10.1086/312423

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    F., & Leung, P

    Gammie, C. F., & Leung, P. K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/752/2/123

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & T´ oth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    E., & Lupsasca, A

    Gralla, S. E., & Lupsasca, A. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 044031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044031

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Lupsasca, A., & Marrone, D

    Gralla, S. E., Lupsasca, A., & Marrone, D. P. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 124004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124004

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2010, ApJ, 718, 446, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/446

    Johannsen, T., & Psaltis, D. 2010, ApJ, 718, 446, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/446

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Lupsasca, A., Strominger, A., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Lupsasca, A., Strominger, A., et al. 2020, Science Advances, 6, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz1310

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Akiyama, K., Blackburn, L., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Blackburn, L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 61, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030061

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1...

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Lee, D., & Gammie, C. F. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc8f3

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Lupsasca, A., C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, A., Palumbo, D. C. M., et al. 2024, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., 13092, 130926Q, doi: 10.1117/12.3019437 Mo´ scibrodzka, M., Gammie, C. F., Dolence, J. C.,

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Shiokawa, H., & Leung, P. K. 2009, ApJ, 706, 497, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/497 Mo´ scibrodzka, M., & Gammie, C. F. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 43–54, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3162

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    Narayan, R., Palumbo, D. C. M., Johnson, M. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf117

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., & Younsi, Z. 2022, ApJ, 941, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9fcb

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    Palumbo, D. C. M., Baubock, M., & Gammie, C. F. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fed

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    S., Dexter, J., Moscibrodzka, M., et al

    Prather, B. S., Dexter, J., Moscibrodzka, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc586

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    Quataert, E., Narayan, R., & Reid, M. J. 1999, ApJL, 517, L101, doi: 10.1086/312035

    1999 doi

  23. [32]

    W., Doeleman, S

    Raymond, A. W., Doeleman, S. S., Asada, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5bdb

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C

    Ressler, S. M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx364

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1985, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York, NY: Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9783527618170

    1985 doi

  26. [35]

    Stone, J. M. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 975, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8650

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    N., et al

    Wong, G. N., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Supp., 259, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac582e

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    2003, ApJL, 594, L99, doi: 10.1086/378666

    Yuan, F. 2003, ApJL, 594, L99, doi: 10.1086/378666

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 529–588, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 529–588, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.