Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Modeling the UV/Optical light curve of re-brightening tidal disruption events

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single star stripped twice by a black hole can explain re-brightening tidal disruption events, and the model predicts when the next flares will appear.

desk verdict A useful two-flare fitting tool with testable forecasts, but the 'well fitted' claim outruns the chi-square and the third-flare brightness rests on a ZAMS-radius assumption that needs to be presented more honestly. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12549 v2 pith:ZCW6Z2HQ submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Shiyan Zhong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventspartialre-brighteningtransientslightcurvemodelingsupermassiveblackholesAT2022dbl2023adrmassfallbackrate
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

Re-brightening tidal disruption events, where a flare fades and then brightens again, are hard to explain with existing single-flare models. This paper tries to establish that both flares come from one star that is partially torn apart twice: the first encounter strips some mass, the surviving remnant keeps orbiting the black hole on an eccentric orbit, and a second partial disruption produces the second flare. The author builds a composite mass fallback rate from two such partial disruptions, converts it into UV/optical light curves, and fits the observed data of AT 2022dbl and AT 2023adr. The fit works, and on that basis the paper predicts when and how bright the third flare of each source should be.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite mass fallback rate for two consecutive partial tidal disruptions of the same star. It is constructed by taking the debris energy distribution $dm/d\epsilon$ from a parabolic disruption, shifting it by the orbital energy of an eccentric orbit, computing the stripped mass, updating the remnant's mass and radius through a zero-age main-sequence mass-radius relation, updating its orbital energy with a fitted formula from simulations, and then summing the fallback of the first and second disruptions. The amount of stripping is set by a scaled penetration factor $b$, related to the ratio of tidal radius to pericenter distance. This composite rate is converted to a bolometric luminosity through a constant radiation efficiency and a viscous delay, then to multi-band magnitudes through a luminosity-dependent photosphere with a black-body spectrum; the two flares are combined in flux space. The whole chain lets one set of physical parameters describe both flares at once.

What would settle it

Watch the two predicted third flares: if AT 2022dbl does not re-brighten near MJD 61061 at about 18--19 mag, or AT 2023adr does not re-brighten near MJD 60787 at about 22 mag, the model's predicted remnant state is wrong. A more targeted test is to catch the third flare's rise: if it is much brighter than the second flare, the remnant must have expanded after absorbing tidal energy, contradicting the assumed main-sequence radius recovery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed double-flare light curves of AT 2022dbl and AT 2023adr can be reproduced by a single surviving star that experiences two partial tidal disruptions. The key physical updates relative to standard parabolic-disruption models are that the star's orbit is eccentric, so the debris energy distribution is shifted toward negative binding energy, and that the remnant's orbital energy, period, mass, and radius are updated after each encounter using prescriptions from hydrodynamical simulations. With these ingredients, the model fits both light curves, yields black hole masses around $10^{6.9}$--$10^{7.2}\,M_\odot$, and yields the forecast that AT 2022dbl will re-brighten near MJD 61061 at roughly 18--19 mag and AT 2023adr near MJD 60787 at roughly 22 mag.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after each partial stripping the surviving star immediately shrinks back to the radius of a normal zero-age main-sequence star of its new mass and keeps the same closest approach distance, which forces every later flare to be dimmer than the one before it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, re-brightening TDEs with a dimmer second peak are the expected outcome of repeated partial disruptions, with the flare gap set by the remnant's updated orbital period.
  • AT 2022dbl should re-brighten near MJD 61061, around January 2026, at roughly 18--19 mag in the UV/optical bands, bright enough for ground and space telescopes.
  • AT 2023adr should re-brighten near MJD 60787, around April 2025, at roughly 22 mag, requiring deeper monitoring.
  • Existing single-flare fitting tools are inadequate for these systems, because the first flare still contributes during the second peak and the eccentric-orbit fallback differs from parabolic fallback.
  • The same machinery can be applied to single-flare TDEs with slightly non-parabolic orbits, turning them into candidates for a future second flare.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted third flares arrive at the stated times and magnitudes, that would strongly favor repeated partial disruption over alternative double-star or two-phase accretion explanations; a non-detection at the predicted brightness would instead point to the remnant star expanding rather than returning to its main-sequence radius.
  • The same two-flare construction should be testable on other gradually dimming re-brightening TDEs, while systems with a brighter second flare would require allowing the remnant radius or pericenter to change between encounters.
  • Because the model predicts both time and brightness, it turns each re-brightening TDE into a scheduling tool for catching the early rise of the next flare, which is exactly the phase where competing shock-powered emission models differ most.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a light-curve model for re-brightening tidal disruption events in which a single star undergoes two partial tidal disruptions on an eccentric orbit. The mass fallback rate for each encounter is built from the GRR2013 templates, shifted in energy for e<1 following Hayasaki et al. (2013), with the remnant's orbital energy updated after each encounter using the Chen et al. (2024) fitting formulae. The model is applied to AT 2022dbl and AT 2023adr, and the author reports that both light curves are well fitted and then forecasts the time and peak brightness of the third flare for each source (Table 3). The central claim is that the two-flare composite model reproduces the observations and that the third-flare predictions are reliable enough for observers to prepare follow-up observations.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap: existing public TDE fitters assume a single parabolic encounter and cannot model two flares from the same star. The construction is largely transparent, using independently published simulation templates for fallback, eccentric-orbit energy shifts, and orbital-energy changes, and the third-flare forecast is a genuinely testable prediction whose time and brightness were not fed back into the fit. A working fitting code of this kind would be useful to the time-domain community, and the forecasts for AT 2022dbl and AT 2023adr are falsifiable within a few years. However, the current evidence for the central claim is mixed: one of the two fits has a reduced chi-square of 14, several data segments are removed post-hoc, and the forecast rests on a remnant-radius assumption that the paper itself identifies as potentially incorrect. If the caveats are addressed, the model would be a valuable contribution; in its present form the claims outrun the validation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Table 2] The reduced chi-square for AT 2022dbl is reported as chi²_red = 14.0, which is not consistent with the abstract's statement that the light curves are 'well fitted.' Please report the number of degrees of freedom, the chi-square contribution of each excluded data segment, and a fit-quality statistic that accounts for the rejected points; alternatively, soften the claim to reflect that the model captures the overall morphology but not the detailed photometry.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 4] The exclusion of the MJD 59800-60300 segment for AT 2022dbl and of the first two g-band points for AT 2023adr is decided after inspecting residuals, and the paper states that including the AT 2022dbl points changes the black hole mass by about 0.2 dex. Because the fit and the forecast are conditioned on these post-hoc cuts, please show that the best-fit parameters in Table 2 and the third-flare predictions in Table 3 are robust to including those points with an alternative radiation treatment or an objective outlier criterion.
  3. [Section 2.4, Section 4.1] The model imposes monotonic dimming by setting r*,1 to the ZAMS radius at the reduced mass (Tout et al. 1996) and by taking rp,1 = rp,0, so beta and the stripped mass necessarily decrease after each encounter. As Section 4.1 acknowledges, tidal energy injection can expand the remnant and make subsequent flares brighter, and the paper explicitly states that the model is 'clearly not appropriate' for brighter-second-flare sources. The fitted b0, stellar mass, and the Table 3 forecasts are therefore contingent on an unvalidated radial-response assumption; a concrete test would be to compare the assumed ZAMS radius evolution with the remnant radii from hydrodynamic or stellar-evolution calculations at the fitted parameters, or to introduce a free expansion parameter and examine how the forecast changes.
  4. [Section 4.3] The same radiation parameters (eta, Rph0, l, t_nu) are used for both flares with no physical justification, as the author states directly in Section 4.3. For AT 2023adr, the discussion admits that stream-disk collision may dominate the emission and that a common eta may be inappropriate, which would change b0 and make the third flare fainter than predicted. Please quantify the sensitivity of the fitted parameters and of the Table 3 forecasts to fitting the two flares with independent radiation parameters or to including the stream-disk efficiency estimate in the likelihood.
  5. [Table 2] The reported posterior for b0 in AT 2022dbl is 0.63+0.00-0.00, with Porb,0 = 680.44+0.16-0.17; the zero-width b0 uncertainty suggests that the MCMC chains are not resolving the posterior, likely because of a prior boundary or a degenerate direction, rather than a genuine 1-sigma constraint. Please provide corner plots for all fitted parameters and convergence diagnostics; as presented, the third-flare forecast inherits an artificially precise b0.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (12)] The interpolation of Delta_epsilon_orb between the gamma=4/3 and gamma=5/3 fitting formulae of Chen et al. (2024) is an ad hoc extension to hybrid stars; please state explicitly that this linear interpolation is an assumption rather than a result of the cited simulations.
  2. [Equation (14)] The composite magnitude in Equation (14) assumes that the two flares evolve independently as blackbodies and that their fluxes add linearly; this is discussed in Section 4.3, but the assumption should be flagged at the point of use.
  3. [Section 2.2] The statement that the eccentricity condition e > e5% is 'always satisfied' in the explored parameter space should be backed with the actual fitted eccentricities for the two targets, rather than only a typical example.
  4. [Table 3] Several quoted uncertainties, such as 18.1+0.0-0.0 for AT 2022dbl, are unrealistically small after rounding; please report the posterior widths with enough significant figures to be meaningful, or use a different summary statistic.
  5. [Figure 3] The corner plots show only four parameters; because the model has ten free parameters, please show the full posterior or state explicitly that the remaining parameters are marginalized out.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model uses independent external templates and fits, and the third-flare forecast is an extrapolation not fed back into the fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to external, non-self-citation inputs. The parabolic fallback templates come from GRR2013/MOSFiT; the eccentric-orbit shift (equation 8) is from Hayasaki et al. (2013) and supported by Liu et al. (2023a); the orbital-energy update (equation 12) uses the fitting formulae of Chen et al. (2024); and the remnant radius is taken from the ZAMS mass-radius relation of Tout et al. (1996). None of these inputs are the present author's own results, and none assume the target light curves or the third-flare predictions. The MCMC fits the first two flares, and the third-flare time and brightness in Table 3 are computed by propagating the posterior parameters through the same model; they are not included as constraints, so the forecast is not forced by the fit by construction. The informative prior on Porb0 is informed by the observed first-to-second flare interval (650-690 d for AT 2022dbl, 340-370 d for AT 2023adr), but the forecast third-flare epoch depends on the model-dependent orbital-energy change and period update, rather than being identical to the prior interval. The caveats acknowledged in Section 4.1 (the ZAMS-radius assumption forces monotonically dimmer flares and is 'clearly not appropriate' for brighter-second-flare TDEs) and Sections 4.2-4.3 are scientific validity concerns about physical assumptions, not circular reductions: no equation in the paper defines X in terms of the Y it claims to predict. The self-citation to Zhong et al. (2023) in Section 5 is a peripheral suggestion about e-beta distributions and does not carry the derivation. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in through self-citation. Therefore the paper does not exhibit a circular derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built almost entirely on published results: GRR2013 fallback templates, Hayasaki et al. eccentricity shift, Chen et al. orbital energy change, Tout et al. ZAMS radii, and the MOSFiT radiation model. The paper's own contribution is the assembly and application. The free parameters listed above are fitted to the two light curves, so the claimed agreement is not a parameter-free prediction; the only parameter-free output is the third-flare forecast, which depends on the fitted parameters being correct.

free parameters (9)
  • MBH (SMBH mass) = 10^6.91 and 10^7.18 solar masses for AT 2022dbl and AT 2023adr
    Fitted with a log-uniform prior between 10^6 and 10^8 solar masses; the inferred black hole mass is degenerate with other parameters in the fallback scaling.
  • m*0 (initial stellar mass) = 1.00 and 0.90 solar masses
    Sampled from a Kroupa IMF prior; sets the fallback template and the stripped mass. The AT 2022dbl value is 1.00 with zero reported uncertainty.
  • b0 (initial scaled penetration factor) = 0.63 and 0.80
    Flat prior 0.5 to 0.95; controls the ratio of the two flare peaks and the stripped mass in each encounter.
  • Porb0 (initial orbital period) = 680.44 and 346.97 days
    Informed priors set to the observed inter-flare intervals (650-690 d and 340-370 d); this drives the forecast of the next flare time.
  • tdisrupt (disruption date) = not reported in Table 2
    Fitted within prior windows (MJD 59550-59600 for AT 2022dbl, MJD 59850-59910 for AT 2023adr); sets the absolute phase of the light curve.
  • eta (radiation efficiency) = 1.82e-2 and 7.4e-3
    Log-uniform prior from 1e-4 to 0.1; converts mass fallback to bolometric luminosity and absorbs uncertainty in the unknown radiation mechanism.
  • Rph0 (photosphere radius normalization) = not reported
    Log-uniform prior 1e-2 to 1e2; normalizes the photosphere radius in equation 16 and is degenerate with eta.
  • l (photosphere radius luminosity index) = not reported
    Flat prior 0 to 2; sets the temperature evolution in the MOSFiT photosphere model.
  • t_nu (viscous timescale) = log t_nu = 0.71 and -0.19 days
    Log-uniform prior from 0.1 to 10 days; controls viscous smoothing of the fallback rate; for AT 2023adr the best fit is near the lower bound.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The debris energy distribution from a parabolic disruption computed by GRR2013 hydrodynamic simulations can be shifted by the orbital energy to describe an eccentric disruption (equation 8).
    Section 2.2: dm/depsilon(epsilon) = [dm/depsilon]_e=1 (epsilon - epsilon_orb). This is the bridge that lets the model reuse MOSFiT fallback templates for eccentric orbits; it rests on Hayasaki et al. 2013 and Liu et al. 2023a.
  • domain assumption The remnant star's orbital energy change after each PTDE follows the fitting formulas of Chen et al. (2024), linearly interpolated between gamma=4/3 and 5/3 polytropes for hybrid stars (equation 12).
    Section 2.3 and Figure 1. The original formulas are for polytropic stars; applying them to arbitrary-mass hybrid stars via gfrac is a linear extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The remnant star returns to a ZAMS radius after mass loss and keeps the same orbital pericenter (rp,1=rp,0).
    Section 2.4. This forces a dimming sequence of flares and directly controls the forecast brightness of the third flare; it is the weakest load-bearing modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The same radiation model parameters (eta, Rph0, l, t_nu) apply to both flares, and the flares' fluxes add independently (equation 14).
    Sections 2.5 and 4.3. The paper states there is no physical reason for sharing these parameters, and equation 14 ignores debris-disk interaction or a leftover disk from the first flare.
  • domain assumption The luminosity-dependent photosphere model of MOSFiT (equation 16) adequately converts fallback rate to multi-band magnitude.
    Section 2.5. The paper adopts the MOSFiT phenomenological model and acknowledges in Section 4.3 that shock and stream-disk mechanisms are not modeled; eta absorbs the mismatch.
  • domain assumption The e > e5% condition of Liu et al. 2023a is satisfied, justifying the shifting approximation.
    Section 2.2: the paper estimates e about 0.989 for typical parameters and claims e > e5% about 0.95 always holds in the explored parameter space.
  • standard math Kepler's third law and standard physics.
    Used throughout to convert orbital period to energy and time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the UV/Optical light curve of re-brightening tidal disruption events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCW6Z2HQ

@misc{pith2026241212549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the UV/Optical light curve of re-brightening tidal disruption events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCW6Z2HQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12549}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, a new subclass of tidal disruption events (TDEs) was reported from the literature. The light curve of these TDEs show a re-brightening feature in the decline phase after the first peak, which then leads to a second flare. The re-brightening TDEs challenges the existing light curve fitting tools, which are designed to handle single flare. In this work, we present a model, aimed at reproducing of the light curve of the re-brightening TDEs, based on the scenario that the consecutive flares are produced by the same star who experienced two partial disruptions (PTDEs). We also develop a fitting code from this model, and apply it to two re-brightening TDEs: AT 2022dbl and AT 2023adr. The light curve of both TDEs are well fitted. Finally, we forecast the time and peak brightness of the next flare for these two TDEs, so that the observers could get prepared in advance and make an examination on our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12549 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dependence of ∆ϵorb on the scaled penetration factor b for the two γ stellar models (indicated by color), based on equation 9 of Chen et al. (2024). We have transformed β in their equation 9 to b, using equation 5. β in the original fitting formulae to b (see the plot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The composite mass fallback rate with various of b0. The blue and red curves represent the mass fallback rate of the first (M˙ 0) and second (M˙ 1) PTDE, respectively. The starting time of M˙ 0 is shifted to t0, and the starting time of M˙ 1 is shifted to t1 (see the main text). The black curve represents the composite mass fallback rate of the two consecutive PTDEs. In all these plots, we set MBH = 106 M⊙, m∗,0 = 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of log(MBH/M⊙), m∗,0, b0 and Porb,0, for AT 2022dbl (left) and AT 2023adr (right). evolving η, or with more physically motivated radiation models (also see Section 4.3). We have excluded the data points between MJD 59800 and 60300 from the light curve fitting procedure. Including those data points would result in a black hole mass ∼ 0.2 dex higher than the value reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fitting results for AT 2022dbl (left) and AT 2023adr (right). The dots represent the observations, and the curves represent the mock light curves generated by the fitting code. To identify the nature of re-brightening TDEs, a third flare from the same target is essenti…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Forecast the next flare for AT 2022dbl (left) and AT 2023adr (right). The color and offset settings of different bands are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

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

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

  2. [2]

    N., & Wolf, R

    Bahcall, J. N., & Wolf, R. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 214, doi: 10.1086/154711

    doi:10.1086/154711 1976

  3. [3]

    R., Nixon, C

    Bandopadhyay, A., Coughlin, E. R., Nixon, C. J., & Pasham, D. R. 2024, ApJ, 974, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a5a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a5a 2024

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac146

    Bonnerot, C., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac146

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac146 2022

  6. [6]

    K., Lee, H

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

    doi:10.1086/168442 1990

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 673, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    Charalampopoulos, P., Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245065 2023

  8. [8]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10925, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10925

    Chen, J.-H., Dai, L., Liu, S.-F., & Ou, J.-W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10925, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10925

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.10925 2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558d

    Chen, J.-H., Dou, L.-M., & Shen, R.-F. 2022, ApJ, 928, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558d

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Cohn, H., & Kulsrud, R. M. 1978, ApJ, 226, 1087, doi: 10.1086/156685

    1978 doi

  3. [11]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Cufari, M., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2022, ApJL, 929, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6021

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    D., & Eggleton, P

    Dai, L., Blandford, R. D., & Eggleton, P. P. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1208

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Miller, M

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., & Miller, M. C. 2015, ApJL, 812, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L39

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Nixon, C

    Evans, P. A., Nixon, C. J., Campana, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72 32

    Faris, S., Arcavi, I., Makrygianni, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72 32

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Frank, J., & Rees, M. J. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 633

    1976

  10. [18]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv350

    Gafton, E., Tejeda, E., Guillochon, J., Korobkin, O., & Rosswog, S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv350

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Hjellming, M. S., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2010, ApJ, 717, 724, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/724

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40 —. 2020, ApJ, 899, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Chen, X., et al

    Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Chen, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea6

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

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

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Golightly, E. C. A., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd2f

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2099

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Short, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2099

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/23

    Guillochon, J., Manukian, H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/23

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    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

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al

    Guolo, M., Pasham, D. R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 347, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    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

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 055004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac5800

    Hampel, J., Komossa, S., Greiner, J., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 055004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac5800

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt871

    Hayasaki, K., Stone, N., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt871

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a5

    Spurzem, R. 2018, ApJ, 855, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a5

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

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

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    2024a, ApJL, 964, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 964, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f

    doi

  30. [38]

    W., & Jiang, Y.-f

    Huang, X., Davis, S. W., & Jiang, Y.-f. 2024b, 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 33

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Mou, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

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

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    1999, A&A, 343, 775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141

    Komossa, S., & Bade, N. 1999, A&A, 343, 775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141

    1999 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 Kov´ acs-Stermeczky, Z. V., & Vink´ o, J. 2023a, PASP, 135, 034102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb9bb —. 2023b, PASP, 135, 104102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acf8f8

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    1996, ApJ, 466, 946, doi: 10.1086/177565

    Kumar, P., & Goodman, J. 1996, ApJ, 466, 946, doi: 10.1086/177565

    1996 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJL, 971, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2023a, ApJ, 944, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe1

    Liu, C., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 944, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe1

    doi

  38. [46]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01670

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01670

    doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    2023b, A&A, 669, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

    Liu, Z., Malyali, A., Krumpe, M., et al. 2023b, A&A, 669, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

    doi

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Liu, Z., Ryu, T., Goodwin, A. J., et al. 2024b, A&A, 683, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348682 Llamas Lanza, M., Quintin, E., Russeil, E., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 178, 1

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad022

    Malyali, A., Liu, Z., Rau, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad022

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2015, ApJL, 805, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L4

    Mandel, I., & Levin, Y. 2015, ApJL, 805, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L4

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Manukian, H., Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & O’Leary, R. M. 2013, ApJL, 771, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L28

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc955

    Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2021, ApJ, 906, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc955

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Mummery, A., & Balbus, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa192

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

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

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

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    R., et al

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

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ebb

    Park, G., & Hayasaki, K. 2020, ApJ, 900, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ebb

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 849, doi: 10.1086/430167 34

    Pfahl, E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 849, doi: 10.1086/430167 34

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164

    Shiokawa, H. 2015, ApJ, 806, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    1996, MNRAS, 279, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.4.1104

    Podsiadlowski, P. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.4.1104

    1996 doi

  56. [64]

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

    1988 doi

  57. [65]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, ApJ, 904, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de

    Avara, M. 2023, ApJ, 957, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  61. [69]

    J., & Heger, A

    Sharma, M., Price, D. J., & Heger, A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1455

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    H., Cheng, R

    Shiokawa, H., Krolik, J. H., Cheng, R. M., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2015, ApJ, 804, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/85

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03782

    2023 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

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

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    E., & Quataert, E

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

    2009

  66. [74]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09720, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09720

    Sun, L., Jiang, N., Dou, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09720, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09720

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    A., Pols, O

    Tout, C. A., Pols, O. R., Eggleton, P. P., & Han, Z. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/281.1.257 van Velzen, S., Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4...

    1996 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al

    Veres, P. M., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6

    Wang, M., Yin, J., Ma, Y., & Wu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 933, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

    Wang, Y., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    R., Pasham, D

    Wevers, T., Coughlin, E. R., Pasham, D. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f36

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    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

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0122

    Spurzem, R. 2023, ApJ, 959, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0122

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Q., Liu, F

    Zhou, Z. Q., Liu, F. K., Komossa, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcccb 35 APPENDIX A. THE RADIATION EFFICIENCY OF STREAM-DISK COLLISION The accurate luminosity of stream-disk collision should be measured in hydrodynamic simula- tion (Ryu et al. 2023; Hu...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.