Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 129 references

A central tidal disruption event candidate in high redshift quasar SDSS J000118.70+003314.0

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The nine-year $ugriz$ light curves of quasar SDSS J0001 can be modeled as a main-sequence star of about 1.9 solar masses being tidally disrupted by a black hole of about $6.5\times10^7$ solar masses, making it the highest-redshift optical…

desk verdict A plausible but unproven high-z TDE candidate in a quasar; the headline 0.009% probability is not meaningful as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17046 v1 pith:EY32DPIV submitted 2024-12-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Ying Gu , Xue-Guang Zhang , Xing-Qian Chen , Xing Yang , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventbroad-linequasarhighredshiftvariabilitydampedrandomwalkStripe82lightcurvesblackholemassSDSSJ000118.70+003314.0
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a high-redshift tidal disruption event (TDE) candidate in the broad-line quasar SDSS J000118.70+003314.0 at redshift $z=1.404$. It argues that the nine-year SDSS $ugriz$ light curves, which show a rise to peak followed by a smooth decline, can be described by the conventional TDE model: a main-sequence star of about $1.9\,M_\odot$ disrupted by a black hole of about $6.5\times10^7\,M_\odot$. It further estimates, through damped-random-walk simulations of quasar variability, that the chance the flare is intrinsic quasar churn is only about 0.009 per cent. If correct, SDSS J0001 would be the highest-redshift optical TDE candidate found in a broad-line quasar, supporting the idea that TDEs occur in active galaxies and that some AGN variability is powered by shredded stars.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the standard tidal-disruption fallback model in which a star is shredded at the tidal radius, the debris returns to the black hole on a spread of binding energies, and the resulting accretion rate is convolved with a viscous delay to produce a blackbody-photosphere light curve. The paper uses hydrodynamically computed fallback-rate templates, scales them to arbitrary black-hole and stellar masses through the known scaling relations, and adopts a main-sequence mass-radius relation, then fits the model to all five SDSS bands with MCMC. A second machine, the damped random walk (CAR) stochastic process, generates $10^5$ mock light curves with the quasar's measured variance and correlation time; counting how many of those mocks can also be fitted by the TDE model yields the claimed 0.009 per cent probability that the flare is intrinsic AGN variability.

What would settle it

A decisive observation would be continued photometric and spectroscopic monitoring of SDSS J0001 over the next several years. A tidal disruption event should fade smoothly toward the pre-flare level and not re-flare on timescales of years, while the damped random-walk model predicts continuing stochastic variability; the first clear re-brightening or erratic upturn would contradict the TDE interpretation. In addition, a spectrum taken after the flare has faded could check whether the Mg II line width and shift follow the ordinary quasar virial relation, which the debris scenario predicts they should not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the long-term variability of SDSS J0001 is a tidal disruption event rather than a coincidence of AGN activity. The observed $ugriz$ light curves are well fitted by the standard viscous-delayed fallback model, yielding a disrupted main-sequence star of mass $1.905^{+0.023}_{-0.009}\,M_\odot$ and a central black hole of mass $6.5^{+3.5}_{-2.6}\times10^7\,M_\odot$, with about $0.78\,M_\odot$ accreted and $1.12\,M_\odot$ ejected. The flare's peak luminosity and photosphere temperature are moderate compared with known optical TDEs, and its unusually long observed timescale follows from a large impact parameter, a relatively massive black hole, and redshift time dilation. The virial black-hole mass from the broad Mg II line is about 7.5 times larger than the TDE fit, which the paper attributes to non-virial motions of TDE debris contributing to the broad-line emission. Finally, mock light curves generated with the damped random walk (CAR) process and fitted with the TDE model give a probability of about 0.009 per cent that the observed flare is intrinsic quasar variability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 0.009 per cent probability computed from mock light curves for this single object, without accounting for the 7253 visually inspected light curves or for fitting the CAR parameters to the same data, is a valid measure of the chance that the flare is intrinsic quasar variability rather than a TDE.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SDSS J0001 becomes the highest-redshift optical TDE candidate found in a broad-line quasar at $z=1.404$, extending TDE searches beyond quiescent galaxies.
  • The $7.5\times$ gap between the TDE-fitted black-hole mass and the Mg II virial mass implies that broad emission lines in TDE-hosting AGN may contain non-virial debris components, so virial masses in such objects can be biased.
  • The long observed timescale of the flare follows from the combination of a high impact parameter, a large black-hole mass, and time dilation, so similar long flares at high redshift need not require exotic physics.
  • The low mock-light-curve probability supports the interpretation that some apparent quasar flares are central TDEs rather than stochastic accretion variability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the paper's TDE-template fit to the other 19 visually selected flare candidates from the same Stripe82 parent sample would reveal whether the highest-redshift case is a one-off or the bright end of a population.
  • If the TDE interpretation is right, the same archival method should find more such flares in high-redshift quasars, and the fraction of AGN variability attributable to TDEs could be measured from the parent sample.
  • The non-virial broad-line interpretation could be tested by high-resolution follow-up spectroscopy: TDE debris should produce velocity-offset or time-variable line profiles tied to the continuum decay, whereas a normal broad-line region would not.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. SDSS J000118.70+003314.0 (SDSS J0001) is a z=1.404 quasar with a broad Mg II line. It was one of 20 flare-shaped candidates found by visual inspection of the light curves of 7253 z>1 Stripe82 quasars, and is analyzed here because it has the highest redshift among them. The paper fits its nine-year ugriz photometry (about 60 epochs per band from Stripe82 plus PHOTOOBJALL) with the publicly available MOSFIT/TDEFIT tidal disruption event model and reports a best fit with a main-sequence star of about 1.9 M_sun and a black hole of 6.5x10^7 M_sun, at reduced chi^2/dof of about 4.5. The authors then test the null hypothesis of intrinsic AGN variability by fitting a damped random walk (CAR) model with JAVELIN to the g-band light curve (tau about 470 days), generating 10^5 mock light curves, and counting how many the TDE model fits as well as the data; 9 of 10^5 pass, giving the quoted 0.009% probability. Alternative explanations (dust extinction, microlensing, accretion) are discussed and argued to be disfavored. The paper concludes that SDSS J0001 is a high-redshift TDE candidate in an AGN, supporting the view that some AGN variability is produced by tidal disruption events.

Significance. If confirmed, this would be one of the very few TDE candidates hosted by a broad-line quasar at z>1 and would add empirical support to the idea that central stellar disruptions contribute to AGN variability. The manuscript has genuine strengths: the TDE modeling is not ad hoc, since it uses published MOSFIT/TDEFIT hydrodynamical templates and standard scaling relations; the flare characterization is multi-pronged (Gaussian-rise/exponential-decay fit, Weibull shape parameters, g-r color evolution); the DRW/CAR test is a serious attempt to quantify the intrinsic-variability null rather than asserting it; and each alternative scenario receives a concrete physical argument. The analysis is transparent and reproducible in structure: the light-curve sources, the SQL query, the fitting codes (kmpfit, emcee, JAVELIN), and the template interpolations (Appendix B) are all described. These strengths make the candidate worth keeping in the literature, provided the statistical significance issues described in the major comments are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3; Abstract] The quoted probability p about 0.009% is a per-object false-positive rate and does not account for the way SDSS J0001 was selected. Section 2 reports a visual inspection of the light curves of 7253 z>1 Stripe82 quasars, from which 20 flare-shaped candidates were chosen, with SDSS J0001 analyzed as the highest-redshift example. Section 5.3 then simulates 10^5 mock DRW light curves for this single object and finds 9 that pass the TDE-fit criterion. If the per-object rate is about 9x10^-5, the parent sample of 7253 quasars yields about 0.65 expected false positives, and the authors' own alternative calculation with tau uniformly drawn from [50,5000] days (0.144%) yields about 10 expected false positives. The observation is therefore fully consistent with the null of intrinsic DRW variability once the search is taken into account. I recommend that the authors either analyze all 20 selected candidates with the same machinery, apply an explicit trial correction, or clearly state that 0.009% is a per-object conditional rate and refrain from presenting it in the Abstract as the probability that the event results from intrinsic variability of quasars.
  2. [Section 5.3; Eq. (10)] The DRW/CAR null simulations are calibrated on the very light curve under test. The parameters tau about 470+260-178 days and sigma are fitted with JAVELIN to the same g-band light curve that is hypothesized to contain the TDE (Section 5.3, Figure 9), and the mock light curves are then generated from these data-derived parameters using the variance (0.07 mag^2) of that same light curve. If the flare is real, the fitted CAR process is contaminated by the signal; if the flare is an extreme DRW fluctuation, the object was selected from 7253 quasars precisely because of that fluctuation. In neither case is the simulation an independent null, and the resulting 0.009% is a conditional probability given the fitted parameters, not the probability that the event is intrinsic variability as the Abstract states. Depending on the direction of the bias, this could either over- or under-state the significance. I recommend re-running the simulation with population-level priors on (tau, sigma), or with parameters fitted only to the pre- and post-flare portions of the light curve, and reporting how the resulting probability changes.
  3. [Section 4; Table 1] The fit quality does not support the Abstract's statement that the light curves can be described by the conventional TDE model. Section 4 reports reduced chi^2/dof of about 4.5; with roughly 300 photometric points (Section 2 states about 60 per band in five bands) and 13 free parameters (Table 1), this corresponds to chi^2 of about 1300 for about 287 degrees of freedom and is a formally poor fit. The MCMC parameter uncertainties in Table 1 (e.g., log(M_star/M_sun)=0.28 with very small asymmetric errors) are therefore underestimated, because no rescaling for chi^2/dof>1 is applied. Please quantify the likely sources of excess scatter (underestimated photometric errors, correlated systematics, model deficiencies), rescale the uncertainties accordingly, and justify the chi^2/dof<4.5 acceptance threshold used for the mock light curves in Section 5.3 in light of this assessment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The claim that SDSS J0001 is the highest-redshift optical TDE candidate known in AGN is internally inconsistent with the Introduction, which lists SDSS J120414.37+351800.5 at z about 2.359 as a TDE candidate in a N-rich quasar; please qualify the statement (e.g., among candidates with well-sampled multi-band light curves) or correct it.
  2. [Section 5.2] The spectrum was taken near the flare peak, so the continuum luminosity entering the Shen et al. (2011) virial Mg II estimator is likely flare-boosted; part of the factor-7.5 discrepancy between the virial and TDE black-hole masses may therefore arise from the virial estimator itself, a possibility not discussed alongside the proposed non-virial dynamics of TDE debris.
  3. [Section 5.4] The dust-extinction test in the left panel of Figure 11 derives E(B-V) from binned i-band mean magnitudes under the assumption that all i-band variability is extinction; the test would be biased if the i-band contains intrinsic variability, and the binning and interpolation choices are not described in detail.
  4. [Section 5.4; Figure 11] No fit statistics are reported for the 1S2L microlensing model; a chi^2 value or a residual plot is needed to support the claim that microlensing is disfavored by the achromaticity argument.
  5. [Eq. (10)] Equation (10) is not written as a proper stochastic differential equation: the drift term is missing the dt factor and the noise term notation is ambiguous; please correct the expression so that the CAR process is unambiguously defined.
  6. [Section 2] The comparison with the Weibull parameters of simulated lensing flares in Graham et al. (2017) is purely qualitative; a figure or table showing the location of SDSS J0001 relative to the simulated 1S1L and lensing distributions would make the argument against lensing quantitative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 0.009% intrinsic-variability probability is computed from CAR/DRW parameters fitted to the same g-band light curve under test, making the key significance claim partially circular; the MOSFIT TDE fit itself is external and non-circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3 (Eqs. 10-11, Fig. 9) and Abstract's 0.009% claim]
    "the left panel of Figure 9 shows the best fit ... to the photometric SDSS g-band light curve with the JAVELIN code. ... We have ln(τ/days) ∼ 6.15 ... (τ∼ 470 ... days) ... The CAR process parameter τ is randomly selected from 470-178 to 470+260 ... and the parameter σ∗ is determined by σ∼0.07. ... Finally, we found 9 light curves that can be well described by the theoretical TDE model. Therefore, the probability is about 0.009%."

    The reported probability that SDSS J0001's long-term variability is intrinsic AGN variability is not an independent null test. JAVELIN fits the CAR/DRW parameters (τ∼470 days, σ) to the same g-band light curve that is hypothesized to contain a TDE flare; the mock light curves are then generated from those data-derived parameters, with variance σ=0.07 taken from that same light curve, and the acceptance threshold χ2/dof<4.5 is set by the observed TDE fit. The null distribution is therefore calibrated on the signal being tested: the 0.009% is the rate at which the fitted CAR process, contaminated by the flare, reproduces a TDE-like curve, not the probability that the observed variability arises from intrinsic AGN activity.

full rationale

The TDE model fit itself is not circular: the ugriz light curves are compared with external MOSFIT/TDEFIT templates (Guillochon et al. 2014; Mockler et al. 2019) with free physical parameters, and the reported stellar and black-hole masses come from that fit. The main circularity is concentrated in Section 5.3, where the quantitative claim that excludes intrinsic quasar variability is produced by fitting the CAR/DRW null model to the same g-band light curve under study and then simulating from those fitted parameters, including the light curve's own variance. This makes the 0.009% probability a fitted-input prediction rather than an independent significance estimate. The per-object value is also quoted after visual selection from 7253 Stripe82 quasars without a trials correction, so it cannot be read as an experiment-wide false-alarm rate; that is a statistical validity issue rather than circularity. The self-citations to Zhang et al. (2019) and Zhang (2021, 2022) for non-virial BLR dynamics are present but not the load-bearing derivation of the TDE candidate, which rests on the external MOSFIT fit. Overall, the central TDE identification has independent content, but the headline probability is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The TDE interpretation rests on the standard MOSFIT template framework with eight physical free parameters plus five host-band magnitudes, the DRW/CAR description of quasar variability, and the assumption that a single main-sequence star disrupted by the SMBH produces the observed flare. No new particles or forces are introduced; the only invented component is the non-virial Mg II emitting debris invoked to reconcile the fitted and virial BH masses.

free parameters (11)
  • Black hole mass M_BH = log10(M_BH/Msun)=1.81, about 6.5e7 Msun
    MCMC fit parameter; drives the light-curve timescale and luminosity.
  • Disrupted star mass M_star = log10(M_star/Msun)=0.28, about 1.905 Msun
    MCMC fit parameter; degenerate with BH mass and radius in the fallback scaling.
  • Impact parameter beta = log10(beta)=0.25, beta=1.77
    MCMC fit parameter; controls the fallback rate shape and timescale.
  • Viscous time T_v = log10(T_v/yr)=-0.84
    MCMC fit parameter; delays accretion relative to fallback.
  • Energy conversion efficiency eta = log10(eta)=-0.98, eta about 0.105
    MCMC fit parameter; sets the luminosity scale.
  • Photosphere radius normalization R0 = log10(R0)=-0.77
    MCMC fit parameter; dimensionless normalization in Equation (7).
  • Photosphere luminosity power-law index l_p = log10(l_p)=-0.82
    MCMC fit parameter; exponent in the photosphere radius relation.
  • Host galaxy magnitude offsets mag0_u/g/r/i/z = 21.61, 22.25, 21.85, 21.47, 21.31 mag
    Five free host magnitudes; host subtraction affects the flare shape and color evolution.
  • DRW/CAR timescale tau = about 470 days, ln(tau)=6.15
    JAVELIN MCMC fit to the same light curve; used to simulate the quasar variability null.
  • DRW/CAR amplitude sigma = ln(sigma)=-1.38
    JAVELIN MCMC fit to the same light curve; same caveat as tau.
  • Phenomenological shape parameters = Gaussian-exponential log(sigma)=2.99, log(tau)=3.46; Weibull log(a)=0.016, log(b)=0.016
    Used to characterize the flare shape, not for the physical TDE parameter inference.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption MOSFIT/TDEFIT fallback-rate templates from Guillochon et al. (2014) and Mockler et al. (2019) are valid for this event after linear interpolation in beta and T_v.
    Invoked in Section 3.1; errors in the hydro templates propagate directly into M_BH and M_star.
  • domain assumption The radiating region is a single blackbody photosphere with radius depending on luminosity as a power law (Equations 6 and 7).
    Standard MOSFIT radiation assumption; not independently verified for high-redshift quasar TDEs.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy contributes constant flux in each band, represented by five free magnitudes.
    Used in Section 4; if the host varies or is mis-subtracted, the flare parameters shift.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic AGN variability is adequately described by a DRW/CAR process, and JAVELIN recovers tau for this cadence.
    Basis of the 0.009% probability in Section 5.3; DRW is an approximation and tau is fit to the same data.
  • domain assumption The disrupted star follows the main-sequence mass-radius relation from Tout et al. (1996).
    Used in Equation (5) to connect M_star, R_star, and BH mass scaling.
  • domain assumption A single partial disruption with polytropic index gamma=4/3 describes the fallback.
    The fit fixes gamma=4/3 and beta=1.77; other physical models such as repeating partial TDEs are not explored in the fit.
  • standard math Cosmological parameters H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7.
    Adopted in the introduction and used to convert fluxes to luminosities and timescales.
invented entities (1)
  • Non-virial Mg II emitting clouds from TDE debris
    purpose: Explains why the TDE-model BH mass (6.5e7 Msun) is 7.5 times smaller than the virial Mg II BH mass (4.9e8 Msun) in Section 5.2.
    No spectral decomposition or velocity-resolved analysis is presented; the explanation relies on the authors' prior works and an analogy to ASASSN-14li.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A central tidal disruption event candidate in high redshift quasar SDSS J000118.70+003314.0." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EY32DPIV

@misc{pith2026241217046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A central tidal disruption event candidate in high redshift quasar SDSS J000118.70+003314.0},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EY32DPIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17046}
}
abstract

We report a high-redshift ($z=1.404$) tidal disruption event (TDE) candidate in SDSS J000118.70+003314.0 (SDSS J0001), which is a quasar with apparent broad Mg~{\sc ii} emission line. The long-term variability in its nine-year photometric $ugriz$-band light curves, obtained from the SDSS Stripe82 and the PHOTOOBJALL databases, can be described by the conventional TDE model. Our results suggest that the TDE is a main-sequence star with mass of $1.905_{-0.009}^{+0.023}{\rm M_\odot}$ tidally disrupted by a black hole (BH) with mass {$6.5_{-2.6}^{+3.5}\times10^7{\rm M_\odot}$}. The BH mass is about 7.5 times smaller than the virial BH mass derived from the broad Mg~{\sc ii} emission line, which can be explained by non-virial dynamic properties of broad emission lines from TDEs debris. Furthermore, we examine the probability that the event results from intrinsic variability of quasars, which is about $0.009\%$, through applications of the DRW/CAR process. Alternative explanations for the event are also discussed, such as the scenarios of dust obscurations, microlensing and accretion. Our results provide clues to support that TDEs could be detectable in broad line quasars as well as in quiescent galaxies, and to indicate the variability of some active galactic nuclei may be partly attributed to central TDEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The inverted color image for the SDSS J0001 cut from the SDSS fits image (Flexible Image Transport System), which is constructed through the images of bands. The kpc/arcsec scale and r band psfmag along with the MJD are shown in the top right region. 2022cmc was suggested as an optically bright and fast relativistic TDE (Andreoni et al. 2022; Pasham et al. 2023; Cikota et al. 2023; Matsumoto & Metzger 2023; Rhodes e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panels and bottom left two panels show the observed band light curves of SDSS J0001 and the best fit with the TDE model. Data points from both the Stripe82 and the PHOTOOBJALL databases have been used in our analysis. In each panel, solid blue and green circles with error bars represent the data points and the corresponding 1 uncertainties from the Stripe82 and the PHOTOOBJALL databases, respectively. The grey d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Best fit (black solid line) to the SDSS g-band light curve of SDSS J0001 (solid blue circles), with a Gaussian rise and an exponential decay (left panel) and Webull distribution (right panel). The red solid and dashed green lines show the best fit and the corresponding confidence bands determined by the 1 uncertainties of the model parameters with the Least Squares Method, respectively. represents the power-law expo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The fallback material rate (¤ fbt) (solid lines) and viscous-delayed accretion rate (¤ at with = 0.7 as an example) (dashed lines) of a 1M⊙ star disrupted by 106M⊙ black hole determined through the theoretical TDE model with polytropic index = 4/3 (left panel) and = 5/…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corner plot shows the posterior probability distributions of the TDE model parameters obtained from the MCMC technique. In each panel, the three circles from outer to inner represent 3, 2, and 1 confidence levels, and the blue dot in the center of each contour marks th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal Evolution of the bolometric luminosity (left panel) and photosphere temperature (right panel) of SDSS J0001 in comparison with that of four events from Mockler et al. (2019) as marked in each panel with different colors. All events align with their peak bolome…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the slowly-decayed UV-optical transient AT 2017bgt reported by Trakhtenbrot et al. (2019a) with the 13 TDE candidates reported by Mockler et al. (2019). The best fit results by applying the fitting parameters from Mockler et al. (2019) in our fitting proc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Optical spectrum of SDSS J0001 in observer frame. The vertical solid red lines mark positions of the broad lines.                  [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel—The best fit with the JAVELIN code (solid blue line) and the corresponding 1 confidence band (the black dashed lines) to the -band light curve of SDSS J0001 in observer frame. Right panel— Two-dimensional posterior distributions in the − plane derived from t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of mock light curves generated by the CAR process model that pass (left panel) and do not pass (right panel) the criterion for evaluating whether the light curves can be fitted with the TDE model, i.e. 2 /dof < 4.5. The red solid and dashed lines represent th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left panel— The dust extinction effect on the -band (red open circles) and -band (blue open circles) data of SDSS J0001. The solid blue (or red) squares represent the average values of the -band (-band) magnitude in the following bins with zero time at MJD-50500: [100…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahumada R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249....3A 249, 3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    Almeida A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...44A 267, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903..116A 903, 116

    Anderson M. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903..116A 903, 116

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b 2020

  4. [4]

    W., Bailer-Jones C

    Andrae R., Kim D. W., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A.137A 554, A137

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321335 2013

  5. [5]

    Andreoni I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.612..430A 612, 430

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

  6. [6]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...38A 793, 38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  7. [7]

    Bade N., Komossa S., Dahlem M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...309L..35B 309, L35

    1996

  8. [8]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843..106B 843, 106

    Blanchard P. K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843..106B 843, 106

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    S., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1207150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...333..203B 333, 203

    Bloom J. S., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1207150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...333..203B 333, 203

    2011 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Levan A

    Brown G. C., Levan A. J., Stanway E. R., Tanvir N. R., Cenko S. B., Berger E., Chornock R., Cucchiaria A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.4297B 452, 4297

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    S., Shappee B

    Brown J. S., Shappee B. J., Holoien T. W. S., Stanek K. Z., Kochanek C. S., Prieto J. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3993B 462, 3993

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1130B 473, 1130

    Brown J. S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1130B 473, 1130

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.476..421B 476, 421

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.476..421B 476, 421

    2011 doi

  8. [17]

    A., Moretti A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A..17C 581, A17

    Campana S., Mainetti D., Colpi M., Lodato G., D'Avanzo P., Evans P. A., Moretti A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A..17C 581, A17

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    Cappelluti N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...495L...9C 495, L9

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    P., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...121...97C 121, 97

    Carter B., Luminet J. P., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...121...97C 121, 97

    1983

  11. [20]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...77C 753, 77

    Cenko S. B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...77C 753, 77

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818L..32C 818, L32

    Cenko S. B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818L..32C 818, L32

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    C., 2007, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts

    Chambers K. C., 2007, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 142.06

    2007

  14. [23]

    Chornock R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...44C 780, 44

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    Cikota A., Leloudas G., Bulla M., Dai L., Maund J., Andreoni I., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943L..18C 943, L18

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    De Colle F., Lu W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NewAR..8901538D 89, 101538

    2020

  17. [26]

    J., Miller M

    Dittmann A. J., Miller M. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3732D 493, 3732

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    L., Brandt W

    Donley J. L., Brandt W. N., Eracleous M., Boller T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124.1308D 124, 1308

    2002 doi

  19. [28]

    J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..870D 696, 870

    Drake A. J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..870D 696, 870

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735..106D 735, 106

    Drake A. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735..106D 735, 106

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    Elvis M., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...95....1E 95, 1

    1994 doi

  22. [31]

    D., Freyberg M

    Esquej P., Saxton R. D., Freyberg M. J., Read A. M., Altieri B., Sanchez-Portal M., Hasinger G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...462L..49E 462, L49

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    Esquej P., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...489..543E 489, 543

    2008 doi

  24. [33]

    L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    1999 doi

  25. [34]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..338F 135, 338

    Frieman J. A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..338F 135, 338

    2008 doi

  27. [36]

    Gezari S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59...21G 59, 21

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Gezari S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..944G 676, 944

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    Gezari S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.485..217G 485, 217

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Djorgovski S

    Graham M. J., Djorgovski S. G., Drake A. J., Stern D., Mahabal A. A., Glikman E., Larson S., Christensen E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4112G 470, 4112

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    Greiner J., Schwarz R., Zharikov S., Orio M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0009430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...362L..25G 362, L25

    2000 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Gromadzki M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622L...2G 622, L2

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    C., Leighly K

    Grupe D., Thomas H. C., Leighly K. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350L..31G 350, L31

    1999 doi arXiv

  34. [43]

    Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...25G 767, 25

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    Guillochon J., Manukian H., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...23G 783, 23

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K

    Guillochon J., Nicholl M., Villar V. A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K. S., Berger E., Williams P. K. G., 2017, MOSFiT: Modular Open-Source Fitter for Transients , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1710.006 ( @eprint ascl 1710.006 )

    2017

  37. [46]

    A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K

    Guillochon J., Nicholl M., Villar V. A., Mockler B., Narayan G., Mandel K. S., Berger E., Williams P. K. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236....6G 236, 6

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    Hammerstein E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942....9H 942, 9

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2035H 519, 2035

    Hinkle J. T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2035H 519, 2035

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    Holoien T. W. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3263H 445, 3263

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    Holoien T. W. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2918H 455, 2918

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    Holoien T. W. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ae1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880..120H 880, 120

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Hung T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...29H 842, 29

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Hung T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879..119H 879, 119

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    Hung T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...31H 903, 31

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    B., Novikov I

    Ivanov P. B., Novikov I. D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...549..467I 549, 467

    2001 doi

  47. [56]

    Kajava J. J. E., Giustini M., Saxton R. D., Miniutti G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A.100K 639, A100

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    C., Bechtold J., Siemiginowska A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..895K 698, 895

    Kelly B. C., Bechtold J., Siemiginowska A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..895K 698, 895

    2009 doi

  49. [58]

    Kesden M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvD..85b4037K 85, 024037

    2012 doi

  50. [59]

    S., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424684 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...615..855K 615, 855

    Kobayashi S., Laguna P., Phinney E. S., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424684 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...615..855K 615, 855

    2004 doi

  51. [60]

    S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...422..508K 422, 508

    Kochanek C. S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...422..508K 422, 508

    1994 doi

  52. [61]

    Komossa S., Bade N., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...343..775K 343, 775

    1999 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

    Komossa S., Greiner J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...349L..45K 349, L45

    1999 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    Komossa S., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678L..13K 678, L13

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    C., Martel H., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Kormendy J., Gebhardt K., 2001, in Wheeler J. C., Martel H., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 586, 20th Texas Symposium on relativistic astrophysics. pp 363--381 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0105230 ), @doi 10.1063/1.1419581

    2001 arXiv

  56. [65]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    2013 doi

  57. [66]

    Koz owski S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A.128K 597, A128

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    Koz owski S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708..927K 708, 927

    2010 doi

  59. [68]

    R., Klein R

    Krumholz M. R., Klein R. I., McKee C. F., Offner S. S. R., Cunningham A. J., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1165857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...323..754K 323, 754

    2009 doi

  60. [69]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800..144L 800, 144

    LaMassa S. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800..144L 800, 144

    2015 doi

  61. [70]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/648598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1395L 121, 1395

    Law N. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/648598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1395L 121, 1395

    2009 doi

  62. [71]

    Lawrence A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..296L 463, 296

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    Leloudas G., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-016-0002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatAs...1E...2L 1, 0002

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1207143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...333..199L 333, 199

    Levan A. J., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1207143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...333..199L 333, 199

    2011 doi

  65. [74]

    Lin D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...43L 811, 43

    2015 doi

  66. [75]

    Liu X., Dittmann A., Shen Y., Jiang L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabb04 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859....8L 859, 8

    2018 doi

  67. [76]

    Liu Z., Li D., Liu H.-Y., Lu Y., Yuan W., Dou L., Shen R.-F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab880f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894...93L 894, 93

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..359L 410, 359

    Lodato G., Rossi E. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..359L 410, 359

    2011

  69. [78]

    R., Pringle J

    Lodato G., King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14049.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..332L 392, 332

    2009

  70. [79]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1014M 721, 1014

    MacLeod C. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1014M 721, 1014

    2010 doi

  71. [80]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..106M 753, 106

    MacLeod C. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..106M 753, 106

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..389M 457, 389

    MacLeod C. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..389M 457, 389

    2016 doi

  73. [82]

    P., Lin D., Irwin J

    Maksym W. P., Lin D., Irwin J. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792L..29M 792, L29

    2014 doi

  74. [83]

    B., 2009, in Bohlender D

    Markwardt C. B., 2009, in Bohlender D. A., Durand D., Dowler P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII. p. 251 ( @eprint arXiv 0902.2850 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.0902.2850

    2009 doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4028M 522, 4028

    Matsumoto T., Metzger B. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4028M 522, 4028

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    Merloni A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452...69M 452, 69

    2015 doi

  77. [86]

    Mockler B., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..151M 872, 151

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    A., Katz J

    Nolthenius R. A., Katz J. I., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..377N 263, 377

    1982 doi

  79. [88]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7...88P 7, 88

    Pasham D. R., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7...88P 7, 88

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    S., 1989

    Phinney E. S., 1989. p. 543

    1989

  81. [90]

    J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    Rees M. J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    1988 doi

  82. [91]

    Ren W., Wang J., Cai Z., Hu X., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad17cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963....7R 963, 7

    2024 doi

  83. [92]

    Rhodes L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..389R 521, 389

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695..404R 695, 404

    Rosswog S., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Hix W. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695..404R 695, 404

    2009 doi

  85. [94]

    Rumbaugh N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..160R 854, 160

    2018 doi

  86. [95]

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...73R 904, 73

    2020 doi

  87. [96]

    D., Read A

    Saxton R. D., Read A. M., Komossa S., Lira P., Alexander K. D., Wieringa M. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..29S 598, A29

    2017 doi

  88. [97]

    G., 2021, Correction to: X-Ray Properties of TDEs , Space Science Reviews, Volume 217, Issue 1, article id.18 ( @eprint arXiv 2103.15442 ), @doi 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7

    Saxton R., Komossa S., Auchettl K., Jonker P. G., 2021, Correction to: X-Ray Properties of TDEs , Space Science Reviews, Volume 217, Issue 1, article id.18 ( @eprint arXiv 2103.15442 ), @doi 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7

    2021 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Sazonov S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3820S 508, 3820

    2021 doi

  90. [99]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  91. [100]

    Shen Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...45S 194, 45

    2011 doi

  92. [101]

    Sheng X., Ross N., Nicholl M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.5580S 512, 5580

    2022 doi

  93. [102]

    W., Wang S

    Shu X. W., Wang S. S., Dou L. M., Jiang N., Wang J. X., Wang T. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaba17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857L..16S 857, L16

    2018 doi

  94. [103]

    C., Metzger B

    Stone N. C., Metzger B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..859S 455, 859

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    C., Kesden M., Cheng R

    Stone N. C., Kesden M., Cheng R. M., van Velzen S., 2019, @doi [General Relativity and Gravitation] 10.1007/s10714-019-2510-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GReGr..51...30S 51, 30

    2019 doi

  96. [105]

    R., et al., 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022GCN.31602....1T 31602, 1

    Tanvir N. R., et al., 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022GCN.31602....1T 31602, 1

    2022

  97. [106]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4505T 130, 064505

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4505T 130, 064505

    2018 doi

  98. [107]

    A., Pols O

    Tout C. A., Pols O. R., Eggleton P. P., Han Z., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.1.257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..257T 281, 257

    1996 doi

  99. [108]

    Trakhtenbrot B., et al., 2019a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..242T 3, 242

    doi

  100. [109]

    Trakhtenbrot B., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883...94T 883, 94

    doi

  101. [110]

    K., Szyma \'n ski G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AcA....65....1U 65, 1

    Udalski A., Szyma \'n ski M. K., Szyma \'n ski G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AcA....65....1U 65, 1

    2015 doi arXiv

  102. [111]

    Wang X.-Y., Liu R.-Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..93h3005W 93, 083005

    2016 doi

  103. [112]

    Wevers T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4816W 488, 4816

    2019 doi

  104. [113]

    Wyrzykowski ., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1409.1095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AcA....64..197W 64, 197

    2014 doi arXiv

  105. [114]

    Wyrzykowski ., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465L.114W 465, L114

    2017 doi

  106. [115]

    Yan Z., Xie F.-G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.1190Y 475, 1190

    2018 doi

  107. [116]

    Yang C.-W., Wang T.-G., Ferland G., Yuan W., Zhou H.-Y., Jiang P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774...46Y 774, 46

    2013 doi

  108. [117]

    J., Dou L., Zhou H., Jiang N., Sheng Z., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..150Y 846, 150

    Yang C., Wang T., Ferland G. J., Dou L., Zhou H., Jiang N., Sheng Z., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..150Y 846, 150

    2017 doi

  109. [118]

    Yao Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L...6Y 955, L6

    2023 doi

  110. [119]

    R., Gezari S., Guolo M., Cenko S

    Yao Y., Lu W., Harrison F., Kulkarni S. R., Gezari S., Guolo M., Cenko S. B., Ho A. Y. Q., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b6b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...39Y 965, 39

    2024 doi

  111. [120]

    Zhang X.-G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500L..57Z 500, L57

    2021 doi

  112. [121]

    Zhang X.-G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516L..66Z 516, L66

    2022 doi

  113. [122]

    arXiv:2310.07095

    Zhang X., 2023, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231007095X p. arXiv:2310.07095

    2023 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Zhang X.-G., Bao M., Yuan Q., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490L..81Z 490, L81

    2019 doi

  115. [124]

    Zhang X., YingFei Z., PeiZhen C., BaoHan W., Yi-Li L., HaiChao Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..248X 922, 248

    2021 doi

  116. [125]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A.119Z 660, A119

    Zhang W. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A.119Z 660, A119

    2022 doi

  117. [126]

    S., Koz owski S., Udalski A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..106Z 765, 106

    Zu Y., Kochanek C. S., Koz owski S., Udalski A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..106Z 765, 106

    2013 doi

  118. [127]

    S., Koz owski S., Peterson B

    Zu Y., Kochanek C. S., Koz owski S., Peterson B. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..122Z 819, 122

    2016 doi

  119. [128]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...73V 741, 73

    2011 doi

  120. [129]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe0c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..198V 872, 198

    2019 doi

  121. [130]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908....4V 908, 4

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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