Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Galactic Isolated Stellar-Mass Black Holes with the Magnetospheric Spark Gap as Possible GeV-TeV Gamma-ray Unidentified Sources

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that spark gaps in the magnetospheres of isolated stellar-mass black holes emitting GeV-TeV gamma rays could account for roughly $10^3$ Fermi-LAT and $10$ H.E.S.S.

desk verdict A genuine, carefully-built forecast paper: spark-gap gamma rays from isolated stellar-mass BHs could show up in Fermi/H.E.S.S./CTAO data, with the main caveat being the quasi-spherical, isotropic gap assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09181 v1 pith:7NP3LXM5 submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.HE

Koki Kin , Riku Kuze , Shigeo S. Kimura This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords isolatedstellar-massblackholesmagnetosphericsparkgapmagneticallyarresteddisksGeV-TeVgamma-raysourcesFermi-LATunidentifiedBondi-Hoyle-LittletonaccretionGalacticdiffusegammarays
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 tries to establish that billions of isolated stellar-mass black holes wandering through the Galaxy can be found through gamma rays even though they are nearly invisible otherwise. When such a black hole moves through dense interstellar gas it accretes matter, and if magnetic flux piles up into a magnetically arrested disk, the spinning hole powers a magnetosphere whose "spark gap" converts part of the Blandford-Znajek power into GeV-TeV curvature and inverse-Compton radiation. Combining this emission model with a simulated Galactic population, the authors estimate that roughly $10^3$ such objects could be hiding among Fermi-LAT unidentified sources, about $10$ among H.E.S.S. unidentified sources, and that a future CTAO survey could detect of order $10^2$. If right, this gives a new observational route to isolated black holes and turns unidentified gamma-ray catalogs into a population probe of black-hole formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spark gap: a thin, charge-starved layer in the black-hole magnetosphere where a longitudinal electric field accelerates electrons, producing curvature photons and up-scattered MAD photons in the GeV-TeV band. Its strength is set by the pair-production optical depth against the MAD's thermal synchrotron radiation, quantified by the compactness parameter $\tau_0$; the paper connects the gap luminosity to the Blandford-Znajek power $L_{\rm BZ}$ through the empirical scalings above. The rest of the machinery is a chain from Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion, to saturated magnetic flux building a magnetically arrested disk, to a synthetic Galactic population with kick velocities, spins, and ISM phases that converts each black hole's luminosity into a count above detector sensitivity.

What would settle it

A global 2D or 3D GRPIC simulation of the same magnetosphere would settle the geometry: if the gap opens only around the poles, the isotropic-luminosity assumption fails and the predicted counts collapse. Observationally, a CTAO Galactic-plane survey that resolves the predicted $\sim10^2$ sources but finds no hard-spectrum, optically bright, X-ray-variable counterparts near $\sim1$ kpc would argue against the scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spark gap in the magnetosphere of an isolated stellar-mass black hole with a magnetically arrested disk is a real GeV-TeV gamma-ray emitter, and that a Galaxy full of such objects is observable. The gap is regulated by pair production against MAD thermal synchrotron photons; from 1D general-relativistic particle-in-cell simulations the paper adopts $L_{\rm cur,pk}\simeq 10^{-2}(\tau_0/30)^{-14/5}L_{\rm BZ}$ and $L_{\rm IC,pk}\simeq 5.8\times10^{-4}L_{\rm BZ}$, with peak curvature energies around $1$-$100$ GeV. Feeding these scalings into a dynamical population of $10^8$ IBHs yields about $10^3$ Fermi-LAT, $10$ H.E.S.S., and $10^2$ CTAO detections at maximum duty cycle and high spin, mostly at Galactic latitudes $|b|\lesssim5^\circ$ and distances near $1$ kpc, with masses peaking near $5\,M_\odot$ and $40\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole enterprise rests on treating the quasi-spherical spark gap seen in 1D simulations as a faithful description of every Galactic IBH magnetosphere: if the gap is actually confined near the polar regions, or if its duty cycle is as low as $10^{-2}$ rather than near unity, the predicted detection numbers drop by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fermi-LAT unidentified sources near the Galactic plane should hide roughly $10^3$ IBH spark-gap sources under the high-spin, low-kick, unit-duty-cycle version of the model.
  • H.E.S.S. and a CTAO Galactic-plane survey should find about $10$ and $10^2$ sources at 100 GeV, mostly in cold and warm HI rather than molecular clouds.
  • The combined sub-threshold emission can reach about half of the measured 1-100 GeV Galactic diffuse gamma-ray background, so diffuse data already constrain the population.
  • Detectable IBHs should have optical and X-ray counterparts with $F_{\rm GeV}/F_X\sim1$-$100$, X-ray variability on minute-to-hour timescales, and Gaia parallax, separating them from pulsars and blazars.
  • The counts, diffuse flux, and variability together would constrain the average supernova kick velocity and the spin distribution of isolated black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: the same model implies a specific searchable population: hard-spectrum, low-latitude Fermi unIDs with bright optical counterparts and $F_{\rm GeV}/F_X$ near unity should cluster at distances $\sim1$ kpc, which could be tested with a matched-filter catalog now.
  • Going beyond the paper: if the gap is polar rather than quasi-spherical, the expected counts shrink by orders of magnitude, so a global 2D or 3D particle-in-cell simulation is arguably a sharper test than any near-term observation.
  • Going beyond the paper: the diffuse gamma-ray floor the model predicts could be used as a Bayesian prior on black-hole natal kicks even before any individual IBH is confirmed, since high-spin and low-kick populations would overshoot observed diffuse emission.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that isolated stellar-mass black holes (IBHs) in the Galaxy, accreting via Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion and forming magnetically arrested disks, can produce GeV-TeV gamma rays through spark gaps in their magnetospheres. The authors combine a Monte Carlo population model of IBHs with analytic MAD spectral calculations and empirical gap luminosity relations from their 1D GRPIC simulations to compute cumulative flux distributions and detection numbers for Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S., and CTAO. They find at most about 1e3 Fermi-LAT, about 10 H.E.S.S., and about 1e2 CTAO detectable IBHs, mainly in cold and warm HI gas, and discuss multiwavelength counterparts, variability, constraints on kick velocity and spin, and a possible contribution to the Galactic diffuse gamma-ray emission.

Significance. The paper is a serious, methodologically transparent population forecast for a novel detection channel. Its main strengths are the explicit treatment of IBH spatial/velocity distributions, the multiwavelength counterpart predictions, the parameter study over spin, kick velocity, mass-loading, and duty cycle, and the candid statement of caveats. If the underlying gap model is correct, the predicted numbers are falsifiable with existing Fermi-LAT unIDs and with future CTAO and eROSITA/Fermi cross-correlations, and they would provide a new way to constrain IBH demographics. The central forecast, however, rests on an isotropic, quasi-spherical gap geometry and on gap luminosity relations taken from the authors' own 1D simulations; these are the least secure links in the chain and are not yet quantified as uncertainties in the headline numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.7 and §4.3] The abstract and Fig. 6 numbers assume isotropic gamma-ray emission from a quasi-spherical gap. The authors correctly note in §4.3 that 2D GRPIC simulations place the gap mainly near the polar region and that a limited opening angle would reduce N_det, but this reduction is not quantified. Because the flux calculation in §3 uses isotropic-equivalent luminosity, a polar cap with solid angle Ω/4π ≈ 0.1 reduces each source's flux by an order of magnitude and removes most of the faint tail in Fig. 4; the resulting N_det in Fig. 6 would drop substantially more than linearly. The paper needs a sensitivity study in which the gap luminosity is multiplied by Ω/4π (or by the appropriate beaming fraction), and the abstract's "about 10^3, 10, and 10^2" should be explicitly framed as upper limits unless the spherical emission geometry is justified.
  2. [§2.7 and Fig. 6] The duty cycle f_duty is stated to be unconstrained and is varied between 10^-2 and 1; this single parameter changes N_det by two orders of magnitude. The abstract's headline numbers correspond to f_duty = 1 and v_avg = 10 km/s with the high-spin model, while the text notes that with f_duty = 10^-2 the detections are reduced by about 10^-2. The central forecast should either adopt a physically motivated fiducial duty cycle or present N_det explicitly as a function of f_duty in the abstract and conclusions, so that this dominant uncertainty is not hidden behind a single number.
  3. [§2.5 and Appendix B] The gap luminosity relations L_cur,pk ≈ 10^-2 (τ0/30)^-14/5 L_BZ and L_IC,pk ≈ 5.8 × 10^-4 L_BZ are fitted to the authors' own 1D GRPIC simulations and then applied over the full parameter space. Appendix B reports a factor 3-10 spin dependence, and the fits are made for a split-monopole magnetosphere; the 1D local treatment cannot capture global current closure or the polar/equatorial gap structure found in the 2D simulations cited in §4.3. The authors should state the associated systematic uncertainty in the predicted N_det and, if possible, test the luminosity relations against those 2D simulations before the forecast is used quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The quoted detection numbers are maxima over f_duty and over the spherical-gap assumption; adding "up to" or "at most" would prevent the reader from mistaking the upper limits for a fiducial prediction.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The quantity λ_w is described as the "wind mass loss rate," but it is a dimensionless mass-loading factor suppressing the Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion rate; the wording should be corrected to avoid dimensional confusion.
  3. [§4.2] The phrase "Gaia will be able to major the parallax" should read "measure the parallax."
  4. [§4.3] The phrase "such the concordance" should be "such a concordance."
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The sensitivity limits for H.E.S.S. and CTAO are given only as URLs; published references would be more appropriate for a journal article.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gap-luminosity relations are fitted to the authors' own 1D GRPIC simulations, not to the target Fermi/H.E.S.S./CTAO observations, and the resulting detection numbers are genuine predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: BHL accretion rate (Eq. 1) sets the MAD properties (Eqs. 2-5); the BZ luminosity (Eq. 6) follows from the MAD magnetic flux; the spark-gap gamma-ray luminosity is then taken from empirical fits, Lcur,pk ≈ 10^-2(τ0/30)^-14/5 LBZ and LIC,pk ≈ 5.8×10^-4 LBZ, obtained from 1D GRPIC simulations (Kin et al. 2024, with supplemental spin runs in Appendix B). These relations are fitted to simulation output, not to the Fermi-LAT un-ID catalog, H.E.S.S. survey, or the Galactic diffuse emission. The paper then uses these luminosities as inputs to compute fluxes, cumulative source counts, and detection numbers. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no parameter is fitted to the target observations and then renamed as a prediction. The most load-bearing self-citation is the Kin et al. (2024) luminosity relations, but that prior work is a numerical simulation with stated assumptions (1D GRPIC, split-monopole magnetosphere, MAD soft-photon fields) and does not contain the present paper's central claim about 10^3/10/10^2 IBHs in un-ID catalogs; the present prediction is externally testable against un-ID counts and the GDE intensity. The acknowledged caveat in Section 4.3 that a limited gap opening angle would reduce the detection number is an honest uncertainty rather than a circular step, and the duty-cycle factor fduty = 0.01-1 is an explicit multiplicative assumption whose effects are shown in the figures. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and no reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several parameters that are not pinned down by the paper: the duty cycle fduty, the mass-loading factor λw, and the empirical gap luminosity scalings from the authors' own simulation. The physical chain from BHL accretion to MAD to spark gap is plausible but relies on domain assumptions about MAD formation and gap geometry that are flagged as caveats in Section 4.3.

free parameters (9)
  • λw (Bondi mass-loading factor) = 1.0 (fiducial); recent GRMHD sims suggest 0.1-0.5
    Scales the BHL accretion rate (Eq. 1) and hence every luminosity and detection number. A factor 3-10 reduction propagates directly into Ndet.
  • fduty (gap duty cycle) = 0.01 to 1.0
    Multiplies the persistent gamma-ray flux (Section 2.7). The authors show that the range of fduty changes Ndet by about 10^-2. Essentially unconstrained.
  • α (viscosity parameter) = 0.3
    Used in MAD density and temperature estimates (Section 2.4). Standard value from Shakura-Sunyaev.
  • β (plasma beta) = 0.1
    MAD magnetization assumption in Section 2.4.
  • εdis and εNT (dissipation and non-thermal fractions) = 0.15 and 0.33
    Set the energy budget for thermal and non-thermal emission in the MAD (Section 2.4).
  • φ (normalized magnetic flux) = 50
    MAD saturation flux from GRMHD simulations; sets BH field strength and LBZ (Section 2.5).
  • Empirical gap luminosity exponents = γe,max ~ τ0^-0.4; Lcur,pk ~ τ0^-2.8; LIC,pk ~ τ0^-0.2 with prefactors
    Fitted to the authors' 1D GRPIC simulation runs at τ0 = 30, 100, 300; extrapolated to all τ0 (Section 2.5, Appendix B).
  • Ntot (total number of IBHs in Galaxy) = 10^8
    Normalization for all detection counts (Section 3.1); could be 10^9, which would multiply Ndet by 10.
  • vavg (mean kick velocity) = 10 to 400 km/s
    Chosen to cover observational constraints; Ndet is sensitive to vavg, with detections mainly for vavg <= 50 km/s.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion formula (Eq. 1) gives the accretion rate for an IBH moving through the ISM.
    Standard classical accretion formula used as the base of all luminosity calculations.
  • domain assumption Efficient magnetic flux accumulation leads to a magnetically arrested disk with saturated flux φ ≈ 50 around every IBH.
    Based on GRMHD simulations (Tchekhovskoy et al., Narayan et al., Kaaz et al.) and prior IBH accretion models; not directly confirmed for isolated BHs.
  • ad hoc to paper The 1D GRPIC split-monopole magnetosphere results (Kin et al. 2024) represent the spark gap dynamics of real IBH magnetospheres, with a quasi-spherical gap and isotropic emission.
    The paper itself notes in Section 4.3 that 2D GRPIC simulations find polar gaps, which would reduce the detection number.
  • domain assumption The ISM phase volume filling factors and scale heights (Table 1) adequately describe the environment IBHs traverse.
    Standard ISM model from Bland-Hawthorn and Reynolds (2000), used to assign each IBH a density.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray attenuation in the Galaxy is negligible below about 100 TeV, and only the gap duty cycle reduces the observed flux.
    Justified in Section 2.7 with Bethe-Heitler and EBL estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galactic Isolated Stellar-Mass Black Holes with the Magnetospheric Spark Gap as Possible GeV-TeV Gamma-ray Unidentified Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NP3LXM5

@misc{pith2026250209181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galactic Isolated Stellar-Mass Black Holes with the Magnetospheric Spark Gap as Possible GeV-TeV Gamma-ray Unidentified Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NP3LXM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09181}
}
abstract

Billions of isolated stellar-mass black holes (IBHs) are thought to wander through the interstellar medium (ISM) in the Galaxy, yet only one has been detected. IBHs embedded in ISM would accrete gas via Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion, and with efficient magnetic flux accumulation, the magnetosphere would be formed in the vicinity of IBHs. We explore the detectability of such IBHs through high-energy gamma rays from spark gaps in their magnetospheres based on our recent numerical simulation. The gap gamma rays can be bright at the GeV-TeV energies when IBHs are in the dense ISM. About $10^3$ and $10$ IBHs might be contained in unidentified objects of the $\textit{Fermi}$ Large Area Telescope and the High Energy Stereoscopic System, respectively. A future Galactic plane survey by the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory would lead to $\sim10^2$ detections. We also evaluate the combined gamma-ray emission of IBHs in the Galaxy and find that the IBHs may contribute to the Galactic diffuse gamma rays. IBHs will emit optical and X-ray photons from their accretion disk as counterparts, potentially useful for identifying candidates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic image of the IBH-MAD￾magnetosphere system. where mp is the proton mass, µ is the mean molecular weight, G is the gravitational constant, λw is the wind mass loss rate, and Vrela = (c 2 s,ISM + v 2 ) 1/2 is the IBH relative velocity considering the effective sound velocity of ISM, cs,ISM. We focus on M˙ in the sub-Eddington regime, in which we expect a MAD formation: ˙m ≡ M /˙ M˙ Edd ≤ 10−2 , where M˙ Edd =… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The multi-wavelength luminosity spectra of the IBH-MAD/spark gap for a = 0.9. Each panel shows the results for (m = M/M⊙, m˙ ) = (10, 1.0 × 10−2 ), (10, 1.8 × 10−4 ), (50, 6.2 × 10−5 ). The black solid line denotes the total spectrum. The dotted lines show synchrotron emission from MAD thermal electrons (red) and non-thermal primary electrons (orange). The dashed lines show spark gap curvature radiation (cyan) and I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color maps for Lgap (left), Eγ,cur,pk (middle), and Eγ,IC,pk (right) as functions of M and ˙m, with a = 0.9. cutoff energy. We use sinj = 2 based on the long-term 3D PIC simulation (Zhang et al. 2023), which is dif￾ferent from that used in Kimura et al. (2021a). The luminosities of non-thermal components are determined to satisfy R N˙ Ep,injEpdEp ≈ ϵdisϵNTM c ˙ 2 for protons and R N˙ Ee,injEedEe ≈ feϵdisϵNTM c ˙ 2 f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cumulative distribution function of IBH gamma-ray flux, N(>F), as functions of gamma-ray flux at 10 GeV (left) and at 100 GeV (right). Red and blue shaded regions denote the sums of all ISM phases for 10−2 ≤ fduty ≤ 1.0, assuming the low spin and the high spin mode…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of M, d, and b for IBHs detectable with Fermi-LAT at 10 GeV (black solid), H.E.S.S. at 100 GeV (red solid), and CTAO at 100 GeV (red dash-dotted) for vavg = 10 km s−1 and fduty = 1. Ndet for Fermi-LAT in the graph is represented on the left y-axis, while tha…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ndet above the sensitivity limits of Fermi-LAT (left), H.E.S.S. (middle), and CTAO (right). The top panels show the results for low spin and the bottom panels are for high spin. Results for (λw, fduty) = (1.0, 1.0), (1.0, 10−2 ), (10−2 , 1.0) are shown by solids lines …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: the σ (black), 2σ (gray), and 3σ (silver) re￾gions that IBHs both detectable by eROSITA and Fermi￾LAT at 10 GeV occupy in FGeV-FX plane for the low spin case, vavg = 10 km s−1 . Differential sensitivity limits for the two detectors are shown by navy and purple dotted l…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of the combined IBH intensity spectra in 1-100 GeV for vavg = 10 km s−1 , fduty = 1.0 (solid lines) and 50 km s−1 , fduty = 1.0 (dash-dot lines). in the 10-100 TeV band, which could explain some of LHAASO un-IDs (see Kimura et al. 2024). 4.2. Implication to BH phy…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dynamical calculation results of the surface density in R direction (left), the surface density in z direction (middle), and the velocity distribution (right). The black dotted line in each panel represents the initial spatial/velocity distributions. system as Kin et a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results from our simulation. The results for a = 0.9 (’LA1’, ’LA3’, and ’LA5’ model in Kin et al. 2024) are shown with red curves/dots for comparison. Each panel shows (top left) the time evolution of spark gap inner/outer radius rin/out around the null rnull for τ0 =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    t < ڟB߉Hth/D̆q] ^ ` n =AfV j>Z7iS j<@

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  5. [5]

    2022, , 260, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, , 260, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  6. [6]

    2002, , 334, 553, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05523.x

    Agol , E., & Kamionkowski , M. 2002, , 334, 553, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05523.x

    arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    G., Bazer-Bachi , A

    Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Bazer-Bachi , A. R., et al. 2006, , 457, 899, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065351 2006

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo , A

    Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet , J., Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration . 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    2000, in Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Bland-Hawthorn , J., & Reynolds , R. 2000, in Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. P. Murdin , 2636, 10.1888/0333750888/2636

    2000 doi

  3. [12]

    D., & Znajek , R

    Blandford , R. D., & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433, 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  4. [13]

    E., & Bethe , H

    Brown , G. E., & Bethe , H. A. 1994, , 423, 659, 10.1086/173844

    1994 doi

  5. [14]

    2011, , 737, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/94

    Cao , X. 2011, , 737, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/94

    2011 doi

  6. [15]

    P., de Vries , N., Patruno , A., & Portegies Zwart , S

    Caputo , D. P., de Vries , N., Patruno , A., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2017, , 468, 4000, 10.1093/mnras/stw3336

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    2018, , 478, 5209, 10.1093/mnras/sty1261

    Chael , A., Rowan , M., Narayan , R., Johnson , M., & Sironi , L. 2018, , 478, 5209, 10.1093/mnras/sty1261

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    Y., Uzdensky , D., & Dexter , J

    Chen , A. Y., Uzdensky , D., & Dexter , J. 2023, , 944, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb68a

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Y., & Yuan , Y

    Chen , A. Y., & Yuan , Y. 2020, , 895, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c46

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    S., Agudo , I., et al

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium , Acharya , B. S., Agudo , I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , 10.1142/10986

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    S., & Blandford , R

    Coppi , P. S., & Blandford , R. D. 1990, , 245, 453, 10.1093/mnras/245.3.453

    1990 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Casares , J., Mu \ n oz-Darias , T., et al

    Corral-Santana , J. M., Casares , J., Mu \ n oz-Darias , T., et al. 2016, , 587, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2020, , 124, 145101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.145101

    Crinquand , B., Cerutti , B., Philippov , A., Parfrey , K., & Dubus , G. 2020, , 124, 145101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.145101

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    A., Miller , J

    Draghis , P. A., Miller , J. M., Costantini , E., et al. 2024, , 969, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad43ea

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    2004, , 48, 843, 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    Edgar , R. 2004, , 48, 843, 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    2004 doi

  16. [25]

    2023 a , , 518, 1057, 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Quataert , E., et al. 2023 a , , 518, 1057, 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    2023 b , , 521, 4323, 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Cendes , Y., et al. 2023 b , , 521, 4323, 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    P., Maccarone , T

    Fender , R. P., Maccarone , T. J., & Heywood , I. 2013, , 430, 1538, 10.1093/mnras/sts688

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    Fujita , Y., Inoue , S., Nakamura , T., Manmoto , T., & Nakamura , K. E. 1998, , 495, L85, 10.1086/311220

    1998 doi

  20. [29]

    2024, , 686, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    Gaia Collaboration , Panuzzo , P., Mazeh , T., et al. 2024, , 686, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11486, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11486

    Galishnikova , A., Philippov , A., Quataert , E., Chatterjee , K., & Liska , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11486, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11486

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al. 2018, , 612, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732098

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    Hakobyan , H., Ripperda , B., & Philippov , A. A. 2023, , 943, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb264

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    2016, , 818, 50, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/50

    Hirotani , K., & Pu , H.-Y. 2016, , 818, 50, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/50

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    2018, , 867, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae47a

    Hirotani , K., Pu , H.-Y., Outmani , S., et al. 2018, , 867, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae47a

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.13140

    Hirotani , K., Shang , H., Krasnopolsky , R., & Nishikawa , K.-i. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.13140. 2209.13140

    2022 arXiv

  27. [36]

    1977, , 214, 840, 10.1086/155314

    Ichimaru , S. 1977, , 214, 840, 10.1086/155314

    1977 doi

  28. [37]

    2017, , 470, 3332, 10.1093/mnras/stx1337

    Ioka , K., Matsumoto , T., Teraki , Y., Kashiyama , K., & Murase , K. 2017, , 470, 3332, 10.1093/mnras/stx1337

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    2013, , 549, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220540

    Irrgang , A., Wilcox , B., Tucker , E., & Schiefelbein , L. 2013, , 549, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220540

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    Kaaz , N., Murguia-Berthier , A., Chatterjee , K., Liska , M. T. P., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2023, , 950, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Kim , Y., & Most , E. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12359, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12359

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    S., Kashiyama , K., & Hotokezaka , K

    Kimura , S. S., Kashiyama , K., & Hotokezaka , K. 2021 a , , 922, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac35dc

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Sudoh , T., Kashiyama , K., & Kawanaka , N

    Kimura , S. S., Sudoh , T., Kashiyama , K., & Kawanaka , N. 2021 b , , 915, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff58

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    S., & Toma , K

    Kimura , S. S., & Toma , K. 2020, , 905, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc343

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    S., Toma , K., Noda , H., & Hada , K

    Kimura , S. S., Toma , K., Noda , H., & Hada , K. 2022, , 937, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8d5a

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Tomida , K., Kobayashi , M

    Kimura , S. S., Tomida , K., Kobayashi , M. I. N., Kin , K., & Zhang , B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08136, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08136

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    S., & Levinson , A

    Kin , K., Kisaka , S., Toma , K., Kimura , S. S., & Levinson , A. 2024, , 964, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20cd

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    2014, , 442, 2963, 10.1093/mnras/stu1022

    Kinugawa , T., Inayoshi , K., Hotokezaka , K., Nakauchi , D., & Nakamura , T. 2014, , 442, 2963, 10.1093/mnras/stu1022

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    2020, , 902, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb46c

    Kisaka , S., Levinson , A., & Toma , K. 2020, , 902, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb46c

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    2022, , 924, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35da

    Kisaka , S., Levinson , A., Toma , K., & Niv , I. 2022, , 924, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35da

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    2023, , 945, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7ea

    Kitajima , K., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2023, , 945, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7ea

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.07502, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.07502

    Koshimoto , N., Kawanaka , N., & Tsuna , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.07502, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.07502

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    S., & Tanikawa , A

    Kumamoto , J., Fujii , M. S., & Tanikawa , A. 2020, , 495, 4268, 10.1093/mnras/staa1440

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    S., & Toma , K

    Kuze , R., Kimura , S. S., & Toma , K. 2022, , 935, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ec1

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    2024, , 977, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f4

    ---. 2024, , 977, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f4

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    M., Dai , L., & Tchekhovskoy , A

    Kwan , T. M., Dai , L., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2023, , 946, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc334

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    Y., & Lu , J

    Lam , C. Y., & Lu , J. R. 2023, , 955, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced4a

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    Y., Lu , J

    Lam , C. Y., Lu , J. R., Udalski , A., et al. 2022, , 933, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7442

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    2018, , 616, A184, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832915

    Levinson , A., & Cerutti , B. 2018, , 616, A184, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832915

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    2011, , 730, 123, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/123

    Levinson , A., & Rieger , F. 2011, , 730, 123, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/123

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    1997, , 477, 585, 10.1086/303727

    Mahadevan , R. 1997, , 477, 585, 10.1086/303727

    1997 doi

  52. [61]

    Mayer , M. G. F., & Becker , W. 2024, , 684, A208, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348620

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16847, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16847

    Nagarajan , P., & El-Badry , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16847, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16847

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 55, L69, 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  55. [64]

    F., & Kulkarni , A

    Narayan , R., S \"A dowski , A., Penna , R. F., & Kulkarni , A. K. 2012, , 426, 3241, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    2012

  56. [65]

    1994, , 428, L13, 10.1086/187381

    Narayan , R., & Yi , I. 1994, , 428, L13, 10.1086/187381

    1994 doi

  57. [66]

    2022, , 74, L17, 10.1093/pasj/psac027

    Nishino , Y., Kimura , M., Sako , S., et al. 2022, , 74, L17, 10.1093/pasj/psac027

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    2018, , 859, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe32

    Nomura , M., Oka , T., Yamada , M., et al. 2018, , 859, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe32

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    2020, , 638, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557

    Olejak , A., Belczynski , K., Bulik , T., & Sobolewska , M. 2020, , 638, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    P., & Nelemans , G

    Repetto , S., Igoshev , A. P., & Nelemans , G. 2017, , 467, 298, 10.1093/mnras/stx027

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    2022, , 924, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda , B., Liska , M., Chatterjee , K., et al. 2022, , 924, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    E., Sironi , L., & Narayan , R

    Rowan , M. E., Sironi , L., & Narayan , R. 2017, , 850, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9380

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    C., Anderson , J., Casertano , S., et al

    Sahu , K. C., Anderson , J., Casertano , S., et al. 2022, , 933, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

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

    1973

  65. [74]

    L., & Lightman , A

    Shapiro , S. L., & Lightman , A. P. 1976, , 204, 555, 10.1086/154203

    1976 doi

  66. [75]

    L., & Teukolsky , S

    Shapiro , S. L., & Teukolsky , S. A. 1986, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects

    1986

  67. [76]

    2020, , 892, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7922

    Tagawa , H., Haiman , Z., & Kocsis , B. 2020, , 892, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7922

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    2022, , 926, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4247

    Tanikawa , A., Yoshida , T., Kinugawa , T., et al. 2022, , 926, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4247

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2010, , 711, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50

    2010 doi

  70. [79]

    2011, , 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    ---. 2011, , 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  71. [80]

    E., Sivakoff , G

    Tetarenko , B. E., Sivakoff , G. R., Heinke , C. O., & Gladstone , J. C. 2016, , 222, 15, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    X., Woosley , S

    Timmes , F. X., Woosley , S. E., & Weaver , T. A. 1996, , 457, 834, 10.1086/176778

    1996 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, , 488, 2099, 10.1093/mnras/stz1809

    Tsuna , D., & Kawanaka , N. 2019, , 488, 2099, 10.1093/mnras/stz1809

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    2018, , 477, 791, 10.1093/mnras/sty699

    Tsuna , D., Kawanaka , N., & Totani , T. 2018, , 477, 791, 10.1093/mnras/sty699

    2018 doi

  75. [84]

    van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 1992, Endpoints of stellar evolution: the incidence of stellar mass black holes in the Galaxy. , In ESA, Environment Observation and Climate Modelling Through International Space Projects. Space Sciences with Particular Emphasis on High-Energy Astroph...

    1992

  76. [85]

    2016, , 94, 063009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063009

    Vernetto , S., & Lipari , P. 2016, , 94, 063009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063009

    2016 doi

  77. [86]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19061, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19061

    Vos , J., Cerutti , B., Moscibrodzka , M., & Parfrey , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19061, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19061

    2024 doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    N., Ryan , B

    Wong , G. N., Ryan , B. R., & Gammie , C. F. 2021, , 907, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd0f9

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Yang , H., Hare , J., Kargaltsev , O., Volkov , I., & Chen , S. 2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 20, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 116.84

    2023

  80. [89]

    2014, , 52, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan , F., & Narayan , R. 2014, , 52, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  81. [90]

    2023, , 956, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c

    Zhang , H., Sironi , L., Giannios , D., & Petropoulou , M. 2023, , 956, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    R., Chen , J

    Zhu , K. R., Chen , J. M., Zheng , Y. G., & Zhang , L. 2024, , 527, 1794, 10.1093/mnras/stad2813

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.