Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Testing the Shock-cooling Emission Model from Star-Disk Collisions for Quasiperiodic Eruptions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the simplest star-disk collision explanation for quasiperiodic eruptions fails for six of eight sources, because no stellar radius can match the observed luminosity and duration without the star being tidally…

desk verdict The temperature comparison is genuinely useful, but the paper's central stellar-radius constraint (Eq. 12) is not derivable, so the per-source exclusions are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12762 v4 pith:ZHWKJQOD submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRhep-ph

Wenyuan Guo (SYSU) , Rong-Feng Shen (SYSU) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRhep-ph
keywords quasiperiodiceruptionsstar-diskcollisionsshock-coolingemissionaccretiondiskstidaldisruptionX-raytransientsblackhole
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

Quasiperiodic eruptions are repeated soft X-ray flares from galactic nuclei, and one popular explanation is that an orbiting star periodically plows through the black hole's accretion disk, producing a shock-cooling fireball that radiates the flare. This paper derives what stellar radius $R_\star$ such a model needs to match the observed peak luminosity, duration, quiescent luminosity, period, and black-hole mass, and it checks that radius against the requirement that the star survive tidal disruption. Across six QPE sources and two QPE-like sources, the test finds that only eRO-QPE3 and eRO-QPE4 admit a roughly solar-radius star; the others either have no self-consistent radius or require a star so large that it would be torn apart. The model also predicts peak temperatures near 10 eV while the observed values cluster near 100 eV. If correct, the result rules out the simplest star-disk shock-cooling picture for most of the sample and redirects attention to variants such as stream-disk collisions or repeated partial tidal stripping.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the supernova-like shock-cooling diffusion model for the collision ejecta. A star of radius $R_\star$ sweeps up a disk mass $M_{\rm sh}\simeq 4.3\times10^{-7}\,r_\star^2 P_1\,\alpha_{-1}^{-1}\dot{m}M_6\,M_\odot$ (Eq. 4); that material is heated to internal energy $E\simeq M_{\rm sh}v_{\rm K}^2$ and expands adiabatically at $v_{\rm ej}\simeq(2/3)v_{\rm K}$. The eruption duration follows from the photon-diffusion condition $\kappa\Sigma=c/v_{\rm ej}$ (Eq. 8), the peak luminosity from the internal energy remaining at the diffusion radius divided by $t_{\rm e}$ (Eq. 10), and the quiescent luminosity fixes the accretion rate (Eq. 11). Eliminating $\dot{m}$ two different ways produces the two stellar-radius constraints (Eqs. 12 and 13), while the tidal-disruption limit for a possibly inflated star (Eq. 16) supplies the survival bound. The same scalings give the predicted color temperature (Eq. 14) used for the final comparison.

What would settle it

Measure the quiescent disk accretion rate at the collision radius by a route independent of $L_{\rm Q}$ (for example from the disk continuum normalization or from X-ray variability and reverberation) and compare it with the value inferred from Eq. (11); a significant disagreement would invalidate the $L_{\rm Q}$-based radius constraint. Alternatively, a sensitive EUV-to-soft-X-ray spectrum of eRO-QPE3 or eRO-QPE4 during an eruption that shows the peak at about 100 eV rather than the predicted about 10 eV would directly falsify the shock-cooling emission model for the sources where the radius test passes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper treats each eruption as a radiation-dominated shock-cooling fireball: the star sweeps up a disk mass $M_{\rm sh}\propto R_\star^2\Sigma_d$, the shocked gas expands at roughly $v_{\rm ej}\simeq 2v_{\rm K}/3$, and the flare peaks when the expanding fireball becomes thin enough for photons to escape. Combining this with the $\alpha$-disk surface density, the quiescent luminosity $L_{\rm Q}$ (Eq. 11), and the tidal-disruption radius (Eq. 15) yields two independent constraints on the stellar radius $R_\star$ (Eqs. 12 and 13) plus an upper bound from tidal survival (Eq. 16). Applied to six QPE sources and two QPE-like sources, the paper finds a self-consistent, non-disrupted stellar radius only for eRO-QPE3 ($R_\star\sim1\,R_\odot$) and eRO-QPE4 ($R_\star\sim2\,R_\odot$). For GSN 069 and eRO-QPE2 any allowed radius implies repeated partial tidal stripping; for RX J1301, eRO-QPE1, ASASSN-14ko, and J0230 no radius satisfies both luminosity and duration constraints. The predicted peak temperature from Eq. (14) is $kT_{\rm p}\sim10$ eV, one order of magnitude below the observed $\sim100$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole test rests on treating the quiescent X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm Q}$ as a direct measure of the same mass accretion rate that sets the disk surface density at the collision radius, with radiative efficiency near 0.1, so if $L_{\rm Q}$ has another origin, or the accretion rate at the collision radius differs from the inner disk value, the $L_{\rm Q}$-based radius constraint collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only eRO-QPE3 and eRO-QPE4 can be powered by a whole, roughly solar-mass star colliding with the disk; the other six sources require a different mechanism or repeated partial tidal stripping.
  • For GSN 069 and eRO-QPE2, any acceptable star-disk collision would be dominated by accretion of tidally stripped stellar material rather than by the shock-cooling emission itself.
  • The two long-period QPE-like sources (ASASSN-14ko and J0230) are incompatible with the model, because the required radii of $10^3$–$10^4\,R_\odot$ are unphysical.
  • A systematic factor-of-ten shortfall in predicted peak temperature means the fully thermalized blackbody assumption is inadequate even if the radius constraints are relaxed.
  • If the collider is instead a debris stream shed by the star, the same framework (with $R_\star^2$ replaced by the stream cross section and the tidal limit dropped) can accommodate four of the six QPE sources, though not the two long-period QPE-like events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $L_{\rm Q}$-based constraint is only as good as the assumption that quiescent X-rays trace the same accretion rate that sets the disk surface density at the collision radius; a spectral or variability decomposition of $L_{\rm Q}$ would show whether the no-solution sources are truly excluded.
  • The temperature gap suggests that relaxing the full-thermalization assumption, for example with a Comptonized or non-blackbody photosphere, could raise $T_{\rm p}$ without changing $L_{\rm p}$ or $t_{\rm e}$, potentially reviving the model for the two surviving sources.
  • The same two-constraint overlap test can be applied immediately to any newly discovered QPE: with only $P$, $t_{\rm e}$, $L_{\rm p}$, and $L_{\rm Q}$, one can check whether any stellar radius exists before undertaking timing analysis.
  • If the stream-disk variant is correct, eruptions should carry a signature of the stream's orbital-energy spread, a collision that lasts several hours rather than being nearly instantaneous, which is a testable discriminator between the two scenarios.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests the shock-cooling emission model for quasiperiodic eruptions (QPEs) and QPE-like sources by comparing observed peak luminosity, eruption duration, quiescent luminosity, and peak temperature with analytic model predictions. It derives two constraints on the stellar radius r* (Eqs. 12 and 13), overlays them with tidal-disruption limits for eight sources, and concludes that six of the eight are excluded, with only eRO-QPE3 and eRO-QPE4 requiring r* of order 1 R_sun. The paper also reports a systematic temperature discrepancy between the model prediction (kT_p ~ 10 eV) and observations (~100 eV).

Significance. The paper addresses an active debate on the origin of QPEs and assembles a useful compilation of radiative properties for eight sources. Its cleanest contribution is the peak-temperature prediction, Eq. (14), which is parameter-free in the sense that it does not depend on r*, mdot, alpha, or eta, and the reported factor-of-ten temperature discrepancy is a genuine falsifiable test. If the r*-constraint analysis were valid, the six-of-eight exclusion would be an important discriminator. However, the central algebraic step leading to Eq. (12) is incorrect, so the headline exclusion claim is not currently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.6, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) is not derivable from Eqs. (8) and (10). Eliminating mdot between these equations cancels r* exactly. From Eq. (10), mdot^{1/2} = [Lp/(6.1e41 M6)]^{3/2} (r*/P1)^{-1}; inserting this into Eq. (8) gives te = 0.18 alpha_{-1}^{1/2} (Lp/6.1e41)^{3/2} P1^{5/3} M6^{-13/6} hr, with no r* dependence. No rearrangement of the same two equations yields an expression for r*, so the red lines in Figs. 1-3 are not constraints on r*, and the statements that RX J1301, eRO-QPE1, ASASSN-14ko, and J0230 have no allowed r* are unsupported. This is the load-bearing step for the paper's main conclusion.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) is internally inconsistent with the preceding equations. Using E_i0 = Msh v_k^2, V0 proportional to R*^2 h, R_diff = vej te, and te from Eq. (8), the adiabatic factor (V0/V_diff)^{1/3} scales as r*^{-1/3} alpha^{-1/2} mdot^{-1/6} P1^{-1/3} M6^{2/3}; multiplying by E_i0 proportional to r*^2 alpha^{-1} mdot P1^{1/3} M6^{5/3} yields E_i(R_diff) proportional to r*^{5/3} alpha^{-3/2} mdot^{5/6} M6^{7/3}. The printed Eq. (9) has mdot^{-1/6} and M6^{1/3}, so the mdot (and M6, alpha) scalings are wrong. Since Eq. (10) is derived from Eq. (9), the luminosity constraint and the subsequent r* analysis should be re-derived.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3)] The surface-density expression in Eq. (3) appears inconsistent with the stated viscosity law. With h = 1.5 mdot Rg from Eq. (2), nu = alpha sqrt(GMR) (h/R)^2, and R from Eq. (1), one obtains Sigma_d = Mdot/(3 pi nu) proportional to alpha^{-1} P1 mdot^{-1} M6^{-1}, not the printed proportionality to P1 mdot M6. This changes the scaling of Msh in Eq. (4), and hence of te in Eq. (8), Lp in Eq. (10), and the final r* constraints. The authors should either confirm the printed Eq. (3) with a specific disk model or correct it, and then re-derive the subsequent equations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, text] The source name 'ASASSIN14-ko' appears to be a typo; the standard name used throughout the rest of the paper is ASASSN-14ko.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (9)] The units of E_i(R_diff) are written as erg s^{-1}; since this is an internal energy, the units should be erg.
  3. [Section 4.2, paragraph on RX J1301] The sentence 'the shock-cooling emission model from star-disk collisions can work for RX J1301' is inconsistent with the surrounding argument and with the paper's own conclusion in Section 6; this is likely a typo for 'cannot work'.
  4. [Section 4.4, Figure 4] The eight predicted-temperature curves and eight observed points are overplotted in a single panel; separate panels with shared axes would make the comparison much easier to read.
  5. [Section 5.1, retrograde-orbit analysis] The retrograde-orbit constraints are derived using the same framework as Eqs. (8)-(13), so they should be re-examined after the errors in Eqs. (3), (9), and (12) are corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis tests an external model against independent observables; the noted Eq. (12) issue is an algebraic correctness problem, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper derives stellar-radius constraints from a shock-cooling emission model using the physical scalings in Eqs. (8), (10), and (11), with Lp, te, LQ, Tp, and Mh taken from the observational literature. No QPE data are used to set the model constants; alpha and eta are treated as free parameters and varied over representative values. The temperature prediction in Eq. (14) is evaluated from the same model without fitting to the observed Tp values, so the reported factor-of-ten discrepancy is an independent model test. The self-citations (e.g., Chen et al. 2023 and Huang et al. 2023) appear in the discussion of alternative repeated-stripping scenarios and are not used to justify the tested equations. The cited Linial & Metzger (2023) formulas are the model under examination rather than an unverified premise unique to this paper. The tidal-disruption constraint uses standard physics and observed Mh. None of the load-bearing constraints is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. A separate algebraic concern has been raised that eliminating mdot between Eqs. (8) and (10) may not yield Eq. (12) because both equations depend on r* and mdot only through r* mdot^{1/2}; that issue, if confirmed, is a correctness flaw affecting the red constraints, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. Under the hard rules, circularity findings require exhibiting a reduction of the result to its inputs by construction; no such reduction is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The constraints rest on the star-disk shock-cooling framework inherited from Linial and Metzger (2023), plus physical assumptions about the alpha disk and the relation between quiescent luminosity and accretion rate. Alpha, eta, and the bloating factor are representative or ad hoc choices. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (dimensionless disk viscosity) = 0.1 (fiducial), 0.01 (test)
    Chosen by hand as representative values; enters the duration and Eq. (12).
  • eta (radiative efficiency) = 0.1 (fiducial), 0.01 (test)
    Chosen by hand to convert quiescent luminosity into accretion rate; enters Eq. (13).
  • b (stellar bloating factor) = 1 (fiducial), 3 (inflated-star test)
    Ad hoc factor describing heating-induced inflation; modifies the tidal-disruption limit in Eq. (16).
  • mdot (dimensionless accretion rate) = Inferred from LQ via Eq. (11), not fitted
    A model quantity not measured directly; its assumed relation to quiescent luminosity is load-bearing for Eq. (13).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Radiation-pressure-dominated alpha disk with Thompson opacity; scale height h approximately 1.5 mdot Rg.
    Used to compute the surface density and shocked mass in Eqs. (3) and (4).
  • domain assumption Near-circular stellar orbit crossing a geometrically thin disk twice per period; collision radius from Kepler's law.
    Sets the geometry for all derived constraints; the inclination discussion in Section 5.1 relaxes only one aspect.
  • domain assumption Shocked material expands adiabatically with gamma = 4/3 and peaks when the optical depth drops to c/v_ej.
    Basis for the duration and peak luminosity formulas, Eq. (8) and Eq. (10).
  • domain assumption Quiescent X-ray luminosity tracks the same accretion rate as the collision region, with efficiency eta.
    Basis for the LQ-based stellar-radius constraint, Eq. (13).
  • domain assumption Emission is blackbody at the diffusion radius, with radiation energy density u = a T^4.
    Used for the temperature prediction in Eq. (14); the paper notes incomplete thermalization could raise Tp.
  • domain assumption Tidal disruption radius formula with partial-disruption threshold n between 1 and 2, plus the high-mass ZAMS mass-radius relation and bloating factor b.
    Defines the tidal-disruption exclusion region in Eq. (16).
  • domain assumption Shocked mass per collision is Msh = 2 pi Rstar^2 sqrt(2) Sigma_d, with a compression factor of 1/7 in the initial volume.
    Geometric factors enter Eq. (4) and Eq. (9).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the Shock-cooling Emission Model from Star-Disk Collisions for Quasiperiodic Eruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHWKJQOD

@misc{pith2026250412762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the Shock-cooling Emission Model from Star-Disk Collisions for Quasiperiodic Eruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHWKJQOD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12762}
}
abstract

Quasiperiodic eruptions (QPEs), the repeated outbursts observed in soft X-ray bands, have attracted broad interest, but their physical origin is under debate. One of the popular models, the star-disk collision model, suggests that QPEs can be produced through periodic collisions of an orbiting star with the accretion disk of a central black hole (BH). However, previous tests of the star-disk collision model mainly focus on the timing analysis. Other observed properties, such as peak luminosities $L_{\rm{p}}$, durations $t_{\rm{e}}$, and radiation temperatures $T_{\rm{p}}$ of the eruptions, are not systematically investigated. For a sample of six QPE sources and two QPE-like sources, we test the shock-cooling emission model from star-disk collisions by using these observables to derive the constraints on the stellar radius $R_\star$. We find that, except for two sources (eRO-QPE3 and eRO-QPE4), the rest of the sample either has no allowed $R_\star$ to simultaneously reproduce the observed $L_{\rm{p}}$ and $t_{\rm{e}}$, or the required $R_\star$ is too large to avoid being disrupted by the central BH. For the two exceptions, a stellar radius of the order of $1\ R_{\rm{\odot}}$ is necessary to satisfy all the constraints. Another issue with the simplest version of this model is that it predicts $k T_{\rm{p}} \sim 10\ \rm{eV}$, one order of magnitude lower than the observed value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The constraints on the stellar radius for GSN 069 (left panel) and RX J1301 (right panel). The red and blue lines stand for the constraints based on Eq. (12) and Eq. (13), respectively. The solid and dashed lines are for different adopted values of 0.1 and 0.01 for the model parameter (α or η), respectively. The horizontal lines with downward arrows represent the full tidal disruption limit (green, Eq. 16, n = 1 and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The constraints on the stellar radius for other four QPE sources. The legends are the same as those in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The constraints of stellar radius for longer time-scale repeating sources: ASASSN-14ko and J0230. The legends are the same as those in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparison of the peak radiation tempera￾tures Tp predicted by the shock-cooling emission model from star-disk collisions (solid lines) and those observed (crosses with error bars) for the sample. The predicted Tp is cal￾culated from Eq. (14). The horizontal error …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SRG/eROSITA No. 5: Discovery of quasi-periodic eruptions every ~3.7 days from a galaxy at z>0.1

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new quasi-periodic X-ray eruption source, eRO-QPE5, repeats every 3.7 days at z=0.1155, making it the most distant QPE discovered.

  2. Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    QPE arrival times from an EMRI-disk collision model can recover black hole mass and orbital size/eccentricity to about 10% over tens of orbits, while spin and disk precession properties are much harder to constrain.

  3. Disk Instability Model for Quasi-Periodic Eruptions: Investigating Period Dispersion and Peak Temperature

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A magnetized disk instability model splits QPE sources into stable and unstable regimes by critical thresholds in accretion rate and magnetic field, explaining period scatter while keeping peak temperatures nearly constant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

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

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

  2. [2]

    2024a, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    Arcodia, R., Linial, I., Miniutti, G., et al. 2024a, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

  3. [3]

    2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

  4. [4]

    Arnett, W. D. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541, doi: 10.1086/157898

    doi:10.1086/157898 1980

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    Chakraborty, J., Arcodia, R., Kara, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941 2024

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    Chen, J.-H., Shen, R.-F., & Liu, S.-F. 2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Fuerst, S

    Dai, L. J., Fuerst, S. V., & Blandford, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16038.x

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    A., Nixon, C

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

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  3. [11]

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

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al

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

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Shen, R.-F., Wang, T., & Sheng, Z. 2023, ApJL, 956, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Aigrain, S., & Karastergiou, A

    Ingram, A., Motta, S. E., Aigrain, S., & Karastergiou, A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab609

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020 11 —

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020 11 —. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1641 —. 2023, MNRAS, 520, L63, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad006

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    H., & Linial, I

    Krolik, J. H., & Linial, I. 2022, ApJ, 941, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb6

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, ApJ, 991, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa0e

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    Linial, I., & Quataert, E. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Stone, N

    Metzger, B. D., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2022, ApJ, 926, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ee1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346653 —. 2023b, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    doi

  18. [26]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, A&A, 693, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

    Miniutti, G., Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452400

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00289

    Pasham, D., Kejriwal, S., Coughlin, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00289, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00289

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d —. 2022, ApJ, 926, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac480c

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    V., Auchettl, K., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Auchettl, K., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd455

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 435, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    1963 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 1145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3023

    Pihajoki, P. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3023

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    J., & Do˘ gan, S

    Raj, A., Nixon, C. J., & Do˘ gan, S. 2021, ApJ, 909, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc24

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

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

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  29. [37]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1986, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects ´Sniegowska, M., Grz¸ edzielski, M., Czerny, B., & Janiuk, A. 2023, A&A, 672, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828 Sukov´ a, P., Zajaˇ cek, M., Witzany, V., & ...

    1986 doi

  30. [38]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    Sun, L., Shu, X., & Wang, T. 2013, ApJ, 768, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2243

    Suzuguchi, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2243

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa, H., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Vurm, I., Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, ApJ, 983, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 1440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae641

    Wu, X.-J., Yuan, Y.-F., Luo, Y., & Lin, W. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae641

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., He, J., & Shu, X. 2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C

    Yao, P. Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C. J. 2025, ApJ, 978, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Zhao, Z. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Zou, Y. C., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, A&A, 661, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142519

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    Zhou, C., Huang, L., Guo, K., Li, Y.-P., & Pan, Z. 2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    doi

  39. [47]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2

    Zhou, C., Zeng, Y., & Pan, Z. 2025, ApJ, 985, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    2024b, PhRvD, 110, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019

    Zhou, C., Zhong, B., Zeng, Y., Huang, L., & Pan, Z. 2024b, PhRvD, 110, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.