Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Black hole accretion and radiation variability in GRMHD simulations with Rezzolla-Zhidenko spacetime

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the flicker amplitude of a black hole's 230 GHz emission rises systematically with the spacetime deviation parameter, offering a variability-based test for Sgr A*.

desk verdict A genuinely new systematic scan of RZ deviation parameters in 2D GRMHD/GRRT for Sgr A* that finds a plausible monotonic trend in variability, but the headline modulation indices come without error bars and each is a single 2D realization, so the trend is suggestive rather than established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08720 v1 pith:HZ2DXATQ submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE

Kotaro Moriyama , Alejandro Cruz-Osorio , Yosuke Mizuno , Indu K. Dihingia , Akhil Uniyal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeaccretionGRMHDsimulationsRezzolla-ZhidenkometricmodulationindexSgrA*230GHzvariabilitygeneral-relativisticradiativetransferspacetimedeviations
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 aims to show that the brightness flicker of a black hole's horizon-scale emission carries a readable imprint of the spacetime it orbits. Using two-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations on Rezzolla-Zhidenko spacetimes that deviate from Schwarzschild by a parameter $a_1$, it finds that accretion flows move faster and fluctuate more strongly when the gravitational potential is shallower, and slower with weaker fluctuations when the potential is deeper. The 230 GHz modulation index rises monotonically with $a_1$ across two metric families, and the independent Hayward metric lands on the same trend. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a variability-based route, complementary to shadow imaging, for telling which black hole solution actually describes Sgr A*.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Rezzolla-Zhidenko (RZ) parameterized metric, a line element $ds^2=-N^2(r)dt^2 + (B^2/N^2)dr^2 + r^2d\Omega^2$ built from the horizon radius $r_0$ and continued-fraction parameters $\{a_i,b_i\}$; the paper varies only $a_1$, with $a_0=b_0=0$ and $B^2=1$, producing shallower potentials for larger $a_1$ and deeper potentials for smaller $a_1$ while keeping the shadow size inside the Sgr A* constraints. Two-dimensional GRMHD simulations evolve the accretion flow in these spacetimes, and general-relativistic radiative transfer with azimuthal remapping turns one quasi-stable window into 230 GHz light curves. The modulation index $\sigma_t(F)/\langle F\rangle_t$ is the diagnostic that carries the argument: it converts spacetime geometry into a number an observer could measure.

What would settle it

Run the same initial torus in full three-dimensional GRMHD for Schwarzschild and for the RZ models with $a_1=-0.5$ and $a_1=+0.5$, using identical resolution and electron treatment, and compare 230 GHz modulation indices over several quasi-stable windows; if the positive-$a_1$ case does not show larger variability than Schwarzschild, or if the three cases overlap within window-to-window scatter, the claimed ordering collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the modulation index $\sigma_t(F)/\langle F\rangle_t$ of the 230 GHz light curve increases systematically with the Rezzolla-Zhidenko deviation parameter $a_1$ in both the A family (horizon radius $2\,r_g$) and the AS family ($1.5\,r_g$), and it decreases for deeper gravitational potentials relative to Schwarzschild. The reported values run from 0.12 at $a_1=-0.50$ to 0.23 at $a_1=0.50$ in the A family, with the AS family giving larger indices and the Hayward regular black hole falling on the same AS trend. The same ordering appears in the dynamics: fluid and Alfvén velocities grow with $a_1$, while time-averaged mass accretion rate and magnetic flux show no clear dependence on the deviation. The authors conclude that variability amplitude, rather than time-averaged image morphology, is the more promising observable for distinguishing black hole spacetimes.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on treating the modulation-index differences between neighboring spacetimes (0.12, 0.14, 0.19, 0.23) as real signals, even though each value comes from a single two-dimensional simulation over one 3,500 $t_g$ window with no error bars, and on assuming that the ordering survives in a full three-dimensional accretion flow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the trend holds, 230 GHz variability becomes a discriminant between black hole spacetimes that look nearly identical in time-averaged images.
  • Because all simulated shadow sizes stay within the Sgr A* observational range, variability adds information that the image alone cannot provide.
  • Physically motivated spacetimes with shallower potentials and smaller horizons, such as the Hayward regular black hole, are predicted to have higher modulation indices than Schwarzschild.
  • The authors expect the ordering to persist in more realistic 3D simulations with electron cooling, which would make it directly comparable to future Event Horizon Telescope variability data.
  • The absolute modulation index depends on the electron distribution (kappa versus thermal), but the trend with $a_1$ remains in both cases, making the differential claim more robust than the absolute value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: if the monotonic relation is real, future time-domain observations could rank candidate spacetimes by a single number, the modulation index, once accretion-model uncertainty is reduced.
  • Editorial: all reported indices exceed the observed 2017 ALMA range (0.04–0.13), so matching Sgr A* would push the flow toward the deep-potential end of the allowed parameter space or require a disk model with lower intrinsic variability; the paper does not resolve that tension.
  • Editorial: a natural next test is to replace the axisymmetric remapping with genuine 3D turbulence at fixed accretion rate, which would show whether the $a_1$ ordering is an artifact of the 2D setup.
  • Editorial: measuring the same modulation index at other frequencies, such as 86 GHz or X-ray flares, could isolate emission radii where the metric sensitivity is stronger or weaker.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 230 GHz emission variability of magnetized accretion flows around spherically symmetric black holes described by the Rezzolla-Zhidenko (RZ) parameterized metric. It performs 2D GRMHD simulations with BHAC for two inspection families of spacetimes (A and AS), a Schwarzschild reference, and the Hayward regular black hole, and then computes light curves with the BHOSS GRRT code under the assumption of uniform azimuthal remapping. The main reported result is that the modulation index of the 230 GHz light curve increases with the RZ deviation parameter a1 and is smaller for deeper gravitational potentials compared with Schwarzschild, with the Hayward model falling on the AS trend. The authors argue that this systematic dependence on spacetime deviation, if it persists in more realistic 3D, cooled simulations, could help distinguish black hole solutions for Sgr A*.

Significance. If robust, the claimed dependence of the variability amplitude on the spacetime deviation would be a genuinely useful discriminator, complementing time-averaged image morphology, which the paper shows is nearly indistinguishable at current EHT resolution (rho_NX > 0.97 for 20 microarcsecond images). The study has several strengths: it uses a well-defined parameterized metric with shadow-size constraints, includes a physically motivated Hayward cross-check, provides a resolution-convergence test (Appendix A), and compares kappa and thermal electron distributions (Appendix B). The analysis is not circular: a1 is an input parameter and the modulation index is a measured output, and the Hayward match is made by fitting the metric shape rather than the light curve. The principal weaknesses are the lack of uncertainty quantification on the headline observable and the reliance on two-dimensional, azimuthally averaged radiative transfer for a variability claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figures 6 and 8] The modulation indices in Figure 8 (0.12, 0.14, 0.14, 0.19, 0.23 for the A family) are quoted to two decimal places without confidence intervals, and each value is derived from a single 3,500 t_g quasi-stable segment (Section 3). Because the PSDs are red-noise-like with slope -2.3 +/- 0.5 (Section 4), the sample standard deviation of a single realization is a noisy estimator of the underlying variability: A-0.25 and Schwarzschild are identical at the quoted precision, and the A-0.50-to-A-0.25 difference is only 0.02. The monotonic claim, especially on the negative-a1 side, is therefore not statistically demonstrated. I request bootstrap or multiple-realization uncertainties (or an explicit covariance-based windowing estimate) and a restatement of the trend in light of those uncertainties.
  2. [Sections 2.3 and 5] The GRRT procedure assumes a uniform azimuthal distribution obtained by remapping the 2D GRMHD data, which removes non-axisymmetric turbulent fluctuations that can dominate the real Sgr A* 230 GHz light curve. The statement that the modulation-index ordering will persist in full 3D simulations is deferred rather than demonstrated (Sections 2.3 and 5). Since the claimed observable is precisely the temporal variability, this approximation is load-bearing. Please add at least a small number of 3D test runs (for example A-0.50, Schwarzschild, A0.50) or, if that is not feasible in this work, provide a quantitative argument based on the PSD and the compact emission region (r < 20 r_g) explaining why azimuthal structures cannot reorder the modulation indices.
  3. [Section 2.1.2, Table 1, and Section 4] There is an internal contradiction in the radius statements. Section 2.1.2 says that as a1 increases both the photon radius r_ph and the shadow radius r_sh monotonically increase, but Table 1 lists r_sh = [5.58, 4.82] and r_ph = [3.25, 2.81] for the A family and r_sh = [4.95, 4.42], r_ph = [2.71, 2.29] for AS from the smallest to the largest a1; both radii instead decrease with a1. In Section 4, the sentence 'The shadow size in the AS metric (4.42 <= r_sh <= 4.95) is larger than that in the A metric (4.82 <= r_sh <= 5.58)' is numerically backwards. These statements are used to connect the modulation index to the horizon and photon-orbit radii, so the interpretation must be corrected.
  4. [Section 2.1.2, Section 4, Figure 8] The Hayward validation point in Figure 8 needs clarification. Section 2.1.2 gives the exact RZ coefficients of the Hayward metric as (epsilon, a1, a2, a3, a4) = (0.33333, -0.08333, -3.75000, 3.46667, -0.15897), while Figure 8 and Section 4 place the Hay0.75 result at a1 = -0.20, obtained by a least-squares fit of the AS metric. Please state explicitly whether the plotted point is the actual Hayward simulation mapped through the fitted a1 or an approximate AS-0.20 run; the 'validation' claim depends on the accuracy of this mapping, and the text 'The modulation index for a1, estimated using the least squares method, and the metric Hay0.75 agree with the AS curve' is ambiguous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B] In the thermal-electron model the modulation index for a1 = 0.50 (0.25) is lower than for a1 = 0.25 (0.30), so the monotonic trend is not universal across electron distribution models; the main text should state this caveat or justify the kappa model as the fiducial case.
  2. [Section 3] The statement that fluid and Alfven velocities 'consistently decrease' for deeper gravitational potentials is too strong given that the a1 = -0.25 model shows only minor deviations from Schwarzschild; please qualify this claim.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence beginning 'We report in Fig. 6 shows...' is ungrammatical and should be rephrased.
  4. [References] The reference list contains a duplicated entry for Cruz-Osorio et al. 2021 with identical details; please remove the duplicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variability trend is an emergent simulation output, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the 230 GHz modulation index varies systematically with the Rezzolla-Zhidenko deviation parameter a1. This is not circular: a1 is an input metric parameter, while sigma_t(F)/<F>_t is a measured output of independent GRMHD (BHAC) and GRRT (BHOSS) integrations. No parameter is fitted to the light curves or to the modulation indices themselves. The only least-squares fit in the paper is a1 ~ -0.20, which matches the AS inspection metric's gtt to the Hayward metric's gtt (Section 2.1.2), and the Hayward modulation index is then obtained from a separate full GRMHD/GRRT simulation. The agreement between Hay0.75 and AS(-0.20) is therefore a consistency check between two independently computed models, not a construction of the target result. The self-citations appearing in the paper (BHAC code, BHOSS code, prior non-thermal electron distribution setups, and the initial-condition conventions from Mizuno et al. 2018 and Roeder et al. 2023) are methodological references and do not carry the existence or direction of the trend. The absence of error bars on the modulation indices, the use of a single 3,500 tg quasi-stable window per spacetime, and the explicitly deferred 3D verification (Sections 2.3 and 5) concern statistical robustness and physical realism rather than circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the RZ parametrization's coverage of plausible deviations, a single-torus 2D initial condition per spacetime, the kappa/thermal electron prescriptions, and the assumption that 2D GRMHD with azimuthal remapping captures the variability ordering of a 3D flow. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • a1 (RZ metric deviation) = A: -0.50, -0.25, 0.00, 0.25, 0.50; AS: -0.25, 0.00, 0.25, 0.50
    Input parameter scanned to define the inspection spacetimes; the paper's central result is the modulation index trend as a function of a1.
  • r0 (horizon radius) / epsilon = A: r0 = 2.0 rg (epsilon = 0); AS: r0 = 1.5 rg (epsilon = 1/3)
    Horizon radius distinguishes the A and AS metric families; values are chosen within the Sgr A* shadow-size constraints.
  • a1 fit to Hayward = -0.20
    Obtained by least-squares fitting the RZ metric to the Hayward gtt; used to place Hayward on the AS modulation-index curve as a validation step, not a fit to light curves.
  • Electron distribution parameters (Rlow, Rhigh, epsilon_kappa) = (1, 160, 0.5)
    Chosen from prior Sgr A* GRMHD modeling; affects absolute modulation index values though the trend persists for a thermal distribution (Appendix B).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The metric is a fixed background and the accretion flow does not back-react on the spacetime geometry.
    Used implicitly in GRMHD with a prescribed RZ metric; standard for this class of simulations.
  • domain assumption The RZ parametrization with a0 = b0 = 0 and PPN constraints adequately covers the physically interesting deviations from Schwarzschild.
    Section 2.1; the paper restricts to (a1, epsilon) with b_i = 0 based on PPN limits from Will (2006).
  • domain assumption The initial torus (inner radius 20 rg, density maximum at 30 rg, specific angular momentum 5.9, magnetization beta = 100) is representative of the accretion state of Sgr A*.
    Section 2.2; a single initial condition per spacetime is used.
  • domain assumption Emission at 230 GHz is dominated by synchrotron radiation with a kappa electron distribution and a two-temperature model.
    Section 2.3; an alternative thermal distribution is tested in Appendix B and gives the same qualitative trend.
  • domain assumption The 2D axisymmetric flow, azimuthally remapped in GRRT, reproduces the variability ordering of a full 3D flow.
    Sections 2.2-2.3; the paper states 3D verification is needed.
  • domain assumption Ideal GRMHD without radiative cooling is adequate for the dynamics, with electron heating treated via a prescribed prescription.
    Sections 2.2-2.3; the authors note future work must include electron cooling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black hole accretion and radiation variability in GRMHD simulations with Rezzolla-Zhidenko spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZ2DXATQ

@misc{pith2026250108720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black hole accretion and radiation variability in GRMHD simulations with Rezzolla-Zhidenko spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZ2DXATQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08720}
}
read the original abstract

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has revealed the horizon-scale radiation of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), our galaxy's central supermassive black hole, offering a new platform to test gravitational theories. The next step involves studying accretion flows and spacetime structures near black holes using EHT time variability data and GRMHD simulations. We study accretion dynamics in spherically symmetric black hole spacetimes deviating from general relativity, using 2D GRMHD simulations with Rezzolla-Zhidenko spacetime. This study systematically investigates how light curve variability amplitudes from non-Kerr GRMHD simulations depend on Schwarzschild spacetime deviations, based on the constraints from weak gravitational fields and Sgr A*'s shadow size. We find that the dynamics of accretion flows systematically depend on the deviation. In spacetimes with a deeper gravitational potential, fluid and Alfv\'en velocities consistently decrease relative to the Schwarzschild metric, indicating weaker dynamical behavior. We also examine the influence of spacetime deviations on radiation properties by computing luminosity fluctuations at 230 GHz using general relativistic radiative transfer simulations, in line with EHT observations. The amplitude of these fluctuations exhibits a systematic dependence on the deviation parameters, decreasing for deeper gravitational potentials compared to the Schwarzschild metric. These features are validated using one of the theoretically predicted metrics, the Hayward metric, a model that describes nonsingular black holes. This characteristic is expected to have similar effects in future comprehensive simulations that include more realistic accretion disk models and electron cooling in the future, potentially aiding in distinguishing black hole solutions that explain the variability of Sgr A*.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the temporal spacetime metric |gtt|(= 1/|grr|) for different horizon radii: small (r0 ≃ 1.5 rg, left panel) and stan￾dard (r0 = 2.0 rg, right panel). The black and blue curves represent the Schwarzschild metric and the RZ metric with different parameters indi￾cated by the model symbols (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass accretion rate M˙ , magnetic flux ϕ, and normalized mag￾netic flux Ψ = ϕ/ √ M˙ expressed in code units for black holes with different spacetime metrics. The labels of each spacetime are sum￾marized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time averaged distribution of the fluid and Alfvén velocities (|v| and vAlfven´ ). The dashed and solid black curves represent the boundary of the plasma magnetization σB = 3 (σB = b 2 /ρ, where b is the norm of the magnetic field in the fluid frame and ρ is the rest-mass density) and the Bernoulli parameter Be = 1.02, respectively. 100 ≤ r/rg ≤ 300, are plotted as functions of θ. The behav￾iors of the outflow regio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Polar angle distribution of the radially and time-averaged radial velocity sgn(v r ) √ v rvr (top panels) and magnetization parameter σB (bottom) in the range 100 ≤ r/rg ≤ 300. The gray color indicates the outflow region defined by the Bernoulli parameter Be > 1.02 [P…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spacetime dependency of the 230 GHz light curves and power spectral densities (PSDs) is shown. The panels, from left to right, correspond to black holes in A spacetimes with varying parameters a1. Article number, page 8 of 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The metric dependence of the time-averaged 230 GHz images (top panels) during the quasi-stable time window (13, 500 ≤ t/tg ≤ 17, 000). The bottom panels show images restored using a circular Gaussian beam with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 20 µas. The normaliz…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Summary plot of the modulation index σt(F)/⟨F⟩t . The corre￾sponding parameter a1 of the plot of the Hayward metric is set to −0.2 based on the least squares method (see Section 2). spacetime results in the large dynamics of accretion flow and magnetic field characteri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Viscosity effects on the shadow of a non-rotating black hole

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Shear viscosity and spacetime-curvature transport alter synthetic black hole shadow images of stationary magnetized tori at the few-μJy level.

  2. Analytic and Numerical Constraints on QPOs in EHT and XRB Sources Using Quantum-Corrected Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantum-corrected black hole models predict different QPO frequency evolutions, with Model-I showing an ISCO shift and QPO suppression that can be tested against X-ray binary observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K., Bautz , M

    Baganoff , F. K., Bautz , M. W., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

    2001

  2. [2]

    Blandford , R. D. & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433

    1977

  3. [3]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Cassing , M. & Rezzolla , L. 2023, , 522, 2415

    2023

  4. [4]

    N., & Quataert , E

    Chael , A., Lupsasca , A., Wong , G. N., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 958, 65

    2023

  5. [5]

    2018, , 478, 5209

    Chael , A., Rowan , M., Narayan , R., Johnson , M., & Sironi , L. 2018, , 478, 5209

    2018

  6. [6]

    2013, , 777, 13

    Chan , C.-k., Psaltis , D., & \"O zel , F. 2013, , 777, 13

    2013

  7. [7]

    S., Wong , G

    Chan , H.-S., Chan , C.-k., Prather , B. S., Wong , G. N., & Gammie , C. 2024, , 964

    2024

  8. [8]

    2023 a , Galaxies, 11, 38

    Chatterjee , K., Chael , A., Tiede , P., et al. 2023 a , Galaxies, 11, 38

    2023

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.20043

    Chatterjee , K., Younsi , Z., Kocherlakota , P., & Narayan , R. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.20043

    2023

  2. [10]

    2020, , 499, 362

    Chatterjee , K., Younsi , Z., Liska , M., et al. 2020, , 499, 362

    2020

  3. [11]

    D., et al

    Chavez , E., Issaoun , S., Johnson , M. D., et al. 2024, , 974, 116

    2024

  4. [12]

    M., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Fromm , C. M., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103

    2022

  5. [13]

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Gimeno-Soler , S., & Font , J. A. 2020, , 492, 5730

    2020

  6. [14]

    A., De Laurentis, M., & Mendoza, S

    Cruz-Osorio, A., Gimeno-Soler, S., Font, J. A., De Laurentis, M., & Mendoza, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 124009

    2021

  7. [15]

    A., De Laurentis , M., & Mendoza , S

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Gimeno-Soler , S., Font , J. A., De Laurentis , M., & Mendoza , S. 2021, , 103, 124009

    2021

  8. [16]

    2019, , 632, A2

    Davelaar , J., Olivares , H., Porth , O., et al. 2019, , 632, A2

    2019

  9. [17]

    K., et al

    Do , T., Witzel , G., Gautam , A. K., et al. 2019, , 882, L27

    2019

  10. [18]

    2009, , 698, 676

    Dodds-Eden , K., Porquet , D., Trap , G., et al. 2009, , 698, 676

    2009

  11. [19]

    2022 a , , 930, L12

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 a , , 930, L12

    2022

  12. [20]

    2022 b , , 930, L17

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 b , , 930, L17

    2022

  13. [21]

    2019 a , , 875, L1

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 a , , 875, L1

    2019

  14. [22]

    2019 b , , 875, L4

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 b , , 875, L4

    2019

  15. [23]

    2022 c , , 930, L14

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 c , , 930, L14

    2022

  16. [24]

    2022 d , , 930, L15

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 d , , 930, L15

    2022

  17. [25]

    2022 e , , 930, L16

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 e , , 930, L16

    2022

  18. [26]

    Font, J. A. & Daigne, F. 2002, , 334, 383

    2002

  19. [27]

    M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, , 660, A107

    2022

  20. [28]

    W., Broderick, A

    Georgiev , B., Pesce, D. W., Broderick, A. E., Wong, G. N., et al. 2022, , 930, 0

    2022

  21. [29]

    2009, , 692, 1075

    Gillessen , S., Eisenhauer , F., Trippe , S., et al. 2009, , 692, 1075

    2009

  22. [30]

    M., Lora-Clavijo , F

    Gimeno-Soler , S., Pimentel , O. M., Lora-Clavijo , F. D., Cruz-Osorio , A., & Font , J. A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 023023

    2024

  23. [31]

    E., Holz , D

    Gralla , S. E., Holz , D. E., & Wald , R. M. 2019, , 100, 024018

    2019

  24. [32]

    2019, , 625, L10

    Gravity Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., et al. 2019, , 625, L10

    2019

  25. [33]

    2020, , 643, A56

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Jim \'e nez-Rosales , A., Dexter , J., et al. 2020, , 643, A56

    2020

  26. [34]

    I., Paragi , Z., Amils , R

    Gurvits , L. I., Paragi , Z., Amils , R. I., et al. 2022, Acta Astronautica, 196, 314

    2022

  27. [35]

    Hayward , S. A. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96

    2006

  28. [36]

    D., Lupsasca , A., & Strominger , A

    Himwich , E., Johnson , M. D., Lupsasca , A., & Strominger , A. 2020, , 101, 084020

    2020

  29. [37]

    V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M

    Igumenshchev , I. V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 592, 1042

    2003

  30. [38]

    2024, , 972, L5

    Imbrogno , M., Meringolo , C., Servidio , S., et al. 2024, , 972, L5

    2024

  31. [39]

    K., Liu , C., Mizuno , Y., & Zhu , T

    Jiang , H.-X., Dihingia , I. K., Liu , C., Mizuno , Y., & Zhu , T. 2024, , 2024, 101

    2024

  32. [40]

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

    Johnson , M. D., Lupsasca , A., Strominger , A., et al. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaaz1310

    2020

  33. [41]

    Kerr , R. P. 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 237

    1963

  34. [42]

    2023, , 956, L11

    Kocherlakota , P., Narayan , R., Chatterjee , K., Cruz-Osorio , A., & Mizuno , Y. 2023, , 956, L11

    2023

  35. [43]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Kocherlakota , P. & Rezzolla , L. 2022, , 513, 1229

    2022

  36. [44]

    2024, , 109, 064064

    Kocherlakota , P., Rezzolla , L., Roy , R., & Wielgus , M. 2024, , 109, 064064

    2024

  37. [45]

    A., & Mej\' as, A

    Lahiri, S., Gimeno-Soler, S., Font, J. A., & Mej\' as, A. M. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 044034

    2021

  38. [46]

    2018, , 474, L81

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, , 474, L81

    2018

  39. [47]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Ma , Y. & Rezzolla , L. 2024, , 110, 024032

    2024

  40. [48]

    P., Baganoff , F

    Marrone , D. P., Baganoff , F. K., Morris , M. R., et al. 2008, , 682, 373

    2008

  41. [49]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2012, , 423, 3083

    2012

  42. [50]

    2023, , 944, 122

    Meringolo , C., Cruz-Osorio , A., Rezzolla , L., & Servidio , S. 2023, , 944, 122

    2023

  43. [51]

    M., et al

    Mizuno , Y., Younsi , Z., Fromm , C. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 585

    2018

  44. [52]

    2024, , 960, 106

    Moriyama , K., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2024, , 960, 106

    2024

  45. [53]

    F., Dolence , J

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Gammie , C. F., Dolence , J. C., Shiokawa , H., & Leung , P. K. 2009, , 706, 497

    2009

  46. [54]

    J., & Ressler , S

    Murchikova , L., White , C. J., & Ressler , S. M. 2022, , 932, L21

    2022

  47. [55]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, Publications of the ASJ, 55, L69

    2003

  48. [56]

    F., & Kulkarni , A

    Narayan , R., S a dowski , A., Penna , R. F., & Kulkarni , A. K. 2012, , 426, 3241

    2012

  49. [57]

    A., Gammie , C., et al

    Neilsen , J., Nowak , M. A., Gammie , C., et al. 2013, , 774, 42

    2013

  50. [58]

    2019, , 629, A61

    Olivares, H., Porth, O., Davelaar, J., et al. 2019, , 629, A61

    2019

  51. [59]

    M., et al

    Olivares , H., Younsi , Z., Fromm , C. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 521

    2020

  52. [60]

    \"O vg \"u n , A., Sese , L. J. F., & Pantig , R. C. 2024, Annalen der Physik, 536, 2300390

    2024

  53. [61]

    Palumbo , D. C. M. & Wong , G. N. 2022, , 929, 49

    2022

  54. [62]

    Pantig , R. C. & \"O vg \"u n , A. 2023, Annals of Physics, 448, 169197

    2023

  55. [63]

    2024, , 964, 127

    Paul , D., Bhattacharjee , P., & Kalita , S. 2024, , 964, 127

    2024

  56. [64]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    Porth , O., Olivares , H., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    2017

  57. [65]

    Reid , M. J. 2009, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 18, 889

    2009

  58. [66]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2019, , 885, 131

    2019

  59. [67]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 130

    2014

  60. [68]

    M., Quataert , E., & Stone , J

    Ressler , S. M., Quataert , E., & Stone , J. M. 2018, , 478, 3544

    2018

  61. [69]

    M., Quataert , E., & Stone , J

    Ressler , S. M., Quataert , E., & Stone , J. M. 2020 a , , 492, 3272

    2020

  62. [70]

    M., White , C

    Ressler , S. M., White , C. J., Quataert , E., & Stone , J. M. 2020 b , , 896, L6

    2020

  63. [71]

    & Zhidenko , A

    Rezzolla , L. & Zhidenko , A. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 084009

    2014

  64. [72]

    J., Yusef-Zadeh , F., Wardle , M., et al

    Royster , M. J., Yusef-Zadeh , F., Wardle , M., et al. 2019, , 872, 2

    2019

  65. [73]

    M., et al

    Röder , J., Cruz-Osorio , A., Fromm , C. M., et al. 2023, , 671

    2023

  66. [74]

    Sengo , I., Cunha , P. V. P., Herdeiro , C. A. R., & Radu , E. 2023, , 2023, 047

    2023

  67. [75]

    2013, , 436, 3856

    S a dowski , A., Narayan , R., Penna , R., & Zhu , Y. 2013, , 436, 3856

    2013

  68. [76]

    Steenbrugge , K. C. & Blundell , K. M. 2008, , 388, 1457

    2008

  69. [77]

    C., Heywood , I., & Blundell , K

    Steenbrugge , K. C., Heywood , I., & Blundell , K. M. 2008, , 388, 1465

    2008

  70. [78]

    C., Heywood , I., & Blundell , K

    Steenbrugge , K. C., Heywood , I., & Blundell , K. M. 2010, , 401, 67

    2010

  71. [79]

    R., Ohsuga , K., Kawashima , T., & Sekiguchi , Y

    Takahashi , H. R., Ohsuga , K., Kawashima , T., & Sekiguchi , Y. 2016, , 826, 23

    2016

  72. [80]

    2004, Astrophys

    Takahashi , R. 2004, Astrophys. J., 611

    2004

  73. [81]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2010, , 711, 50

    2010

  74. [82]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79

    2011

  75. [83]

    K., & Mizuno , Y

    Uniyal , A., Dihingia , I. K., & Mizuno , Y. 2024, , 970, 172

    2024

  76. [84]

    C., & \"O vg \"u n , A

    Uniyal , A., Pantig , R. C., & \"O vg \"u n , A. 2023, Physics of the Dark Universe, 40, 101178

    2023

  77. [85]

    2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 165007

    Vagnozzi , S., Roy , R., Tsai , Y.-D., et al. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 165007

    2023

  78. [86]

    K., Ghosh , S

    Walia , R. K., Ghosh , S. G., & Maharaj , S. D. 2022, , 939, 77

    2022

  79. [87]

    2022, , 930, L19

    Wielgus , M., Marchili , N., Mart \' -Vidal , I., et al. 2022, , 930, L19

    2022

  80. [88]

    Will , C. M. 2006, Living Rev. Relativity, 9, 3

    2006

  81. [89]

    2006, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 48, 203

    Xiao , F. 2006, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 48, 203

    2006

  82. [90]

    M., & Olivares , H

    Younsi , Z., Porth , O., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., & Olivares , H. 2020, in Perseus in Sicily: From Black Hole to Cluster Outskirts, ed. K. Asada , E. de Gouveia Dal Pino , M. Giroletti , H. Nagai , & R. Nemmen , Vol. 342, 9--12

    2020

  83. [91]

    Younsi , Z., Wu , K., & Fuerst , S. V. 2012, , 545, A13

    2012

  84. [92]

    2016, Phys

    Younsi , Z., Zhidenko , A., Rezzolla , L., Konoplya , R., & Mizuno , Y. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 084025

    2016

  85. [93]

    2009, , 706, 348

    Yusef-Zadeh , F., Bushouse , H., Wardle , M., et al. 2009, , 706, 348

    2009

  86. [94]

    2020, , 499, 3909

    Yusef-Zadeh , F., Royster , M., Wardle , M., et al. 2020, , 499, 3909

    2020

  87. [95]

    M., Younsi , Z., & Cruz-Osorio , A

    Zhang , M., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., Younsi , Z., & Cruz-Osorio , A. 2024, , 687, A88

    2024

  88. [96]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  89. [97]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.