Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Wind-fed Supermassive Black Hole Accretion by the Nuclear Star Cluster: the Case of M31*

T0 review · 2 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 argues that M31*'s dim quiescent emission is powered by stellar winds from 100 old asymptotic giant branch stars in Andromeda's eccentric nuclear star cluster, with simulated accretion rate and X-ray luminosity matching Chandra…

desk verdict First 3D wind-fed simulation for M31* gets the X-ray luminosity right, but 'successfully identified' overstates what the unresolved inner flow can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04778 v2 pith:72LNRUQS submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Zhao Su , Zhiyuan Li , Zongnan Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords AndromedaGalaxySupermassiveblackholesHydrodynamicalsimulationsAccretionNuclearstarclustersStellarwindsAsymptoticgiantbranchstarsM31*
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 sets out to explain why M31*, the roughly $10^{8}$ solar-mass black hole at the center of Andromeda, is so dim despite being so massive. It argues that the black hole is fed by the slow, cold winds shed by about 100 asymptotic giant branch stars in the surrounding eccentric nuclear star cluster, a scenario previously untested for old stellar populations. In three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations, these winds build up a quasi-Keplerian cool gas disk several parsecs across, which delivers about 2e-5 solar masses per year to the black hole and produces an X-ray luminosity near $10^{36}$ erg per second, matching Chandra observations. If right, the result identifies the feeding mechanism of M31* and supports the broader idea that dormant supermassive black holes are fueled by stellar mass loss from their host star clusters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations in which stellar winds are injected star-by-star as source terms in mass, momentum, and energy, with stellar orbits and the extended gravitational potential taken from the Peiris and Tremaine eccentric-disk model of the nuclear star cluster. Radiative cooling and photoheating are handled through a tabulated ionization calculation, and gas within the central 23 cells, corresponding to 8700 gravitational radii, is removed each timestep to mimic accretion onto the black hole. This combination produces the paper's central outcome: a cool quasi-Keplerian disk continuously resupplied by AGB winds, a hot inner plasma that dominates the X-ray emission, and a quasi-steady accretion rate that matches the observed low luminosity of M31*.

What would settle it

Run the same wind-feeding setup with the inner boundary pushed to roughly 10 to 100 gravitational radii and with magnetic fields included; if the net accretion rate is an order of magnitude below 2e-5 solar masses per year because most inflowing gas is ejected as a hot wind, the predicted $10^{36}$ erg per second X-ray luminosity would lack its fuel. A complementary observational test is a CO or infrared search sensitive enough to rule out the predicted roughly 40 solar-mass cool gas disk in the central few parsecs of M31.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that M31*'s extremely low Eddington ratio, about $10^{-9}$, is not an anomaly but the expected outcome of wind-fed accretion from an old nuclear star cluster. The authors simulate 100 thermally pulsing AGB stars on Keplerian orbits drawn from the Peiris and Tremaine eccentric-disk model, each injecting a 3000 K wind at 10 km per second. The winds collide, cool, and settle into a roughly 40 solar-mass disk of $10^{3}$ to $10^{4}$ K gas, while the innermost 0.2 parsecs is heated to $10^{7}$ to $10^{8}$ K. At 2 Myr the accretion rate onto the 8700 gravitational-radius sink is about 2.4e-5 solar masses per year in the fiducial run, rising to 135 percent of the injected wind mass with a moderate external inflow, and the predicted 0.5 to 8 keV X-ray luminosity of about $10^{36}$ erg per second matches the observed quiescent and post-flare levels. The authors conclude that the feeding mechanism of M31* is successfully identified.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that essentially all gas removed at the simulation's inner boundary, 8700 gravitational radii, actually reaches the event horizon, so the simulated inflow rate equals the true accretion rate; if the inner flow drives strong outflows, the real accretion rate and X-ray luminosity could be lower than predicted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • M31*'s quiescent emission can be understood as the byproduct of mass loss from an ordinary old stellar population, with no need for young massive stars or recent gas infall.
  • The non-axisymmetric potential of the eccentric nuclear star cluster boosts the accretion rate by a factor of 3.5 relative to a point-mass potential, making the cluster's shape a key control on black hole fueling.
  • A moderate external inflow of about 1.6e-5 solar masses per year can raise the accretion rate above the injected wind mass, so wind-fed and inflow-fed regimes can coexist.
  • The predicted roughly 40 solar-mass cool disk is consistent with current CO upper limits and photoionizes to produce H-alpha emission near 1.4e36 erg per second, in line with the observed nuclear disk.
  • Quiescent supermassive black holes in the local universe may generally be fed by nuclear star cluster winds, giving a physical basis for their low Eddington ratios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same mechanism implies that the accretion history of M31* is intrinsically episodic on roughly 1 Myr timescales, set by the lifetime of the TP-AGB phase and punctuated by supernovae or outbursts; the current quiescent state may be a transient window rather than a steady end state.
  • A testable extension is to monitor M31* X-ray and radio variability on timescales of 10^3 to 10^4 years imprinted by individual AGB stars near pericenter; the predicted quasi-periodic modulation at about 50 percent amplitude could appear in longer Chandra campaigns than those available today.
  • The same star-by-star wind injection approach could be applied to other old-population nuclear star clusters, where a spherical cusp rather than an eccentric disk may concentrate winds closer to the black hole and yield higher accretion efficiencies than in M31.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the gas supplied by stellar winds from the nuclear star cluster (NSC) of M31 to its central supermassive black hole, M31*. The authors model 100 AGB stars on Keplerian orbits sampled from the Peiris & Tremaine (2003) eccentric-disk model, inject slow and cold winds in PLUTO, and follow the buildup of a cool parsec-scale disk and a hot inner flow. Three runs (PointMass, Fiducial, Inflow) are carried out for 2 Myr. The Fiducial run yields a sink accretion rate of about 2.4e-5 solar masses per year and a post-processed 0.5-8 keV luminosity near 1e36 erg/s, which the authors compare with Chandra and with optical line observations. The paper concludes that M31*'s feeding mechanism is successfully identified as wind-fed accretion from the eccentric NSC.

Significance. The study is valuable: it is the first dedicated numerical treatment of wind-fed accretion from an old, eccentric NSC onto M31*, and it produces quantitative, non-fitted predictions for the accretion rate, thermal X-ray luminosity, H-alpha and forbidden-line luminosities, and the CO mass upper limit. Those predictions are falsifiable with existing or forthcoming observations. If the quantitative identification is ultimately confirmed, the paper would establish a second firm example (after Sgr A*) of stellar wind-fed dormant SMBHs and support the use of NSC mass loss in sub-grid models of SMBH fueling. The main limitation is that the simulated accretion rate is measured at 8700 gravitational radii and equated to the rate onto the black hole, with the inner-flow efficiency unresolved.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5, §3, §5.2] In §2.5, gas in the central 23 cells is removed every timestep, corresponding to an effective accretion radius of about 8700 r_g, and in §3 (Figure 4a) this removal rate is reported as the accretion rate onto M31*. This equates the mass flux crossing 8700 r_g with the mass flux actually reaching the event horizon. Hot accretion flow theory, cited in §5.3, predicts that a large fraction of the supplied mass is ejected in outflows at smaller radii; with the commonly quoted scaling Mdot ∝ r^s with s ≈ 0.5–1, the horizon accretion rate could be several times lower than the Fiducial run's 2.4e-5 solar masses per year. The zoom-in run in §5.2 only reduces r_acc to about 1000 r_g and does not measure the mass flux at the horizon; the text itself states that the net effect of r_acc can only be quantified with higher-resolution simulations. The abstract's conclusion that the feeding mechanism is 'successfully identified' is therefore stronger than the simulation currently supports. Please either qualify the conclusion, for example by presenting the reported rate as an upper limit or as identifying the supply mechanism rather than the horizon accretion rate, or add a quantitative estimate of the inner accretion efficiency and its effect on the predicted luminosity.
  2. [§4.1, Figure 4(c), §5.2] The synthetic X-ray spectrum in Figure 4(c) has a power-law-equivalent photon index of about 4.2, compared with the value of 1.8 inferred by Li et al. (2011) from the Chandra hardness ratio; the zoom-in run in §5.2 improves this only to about 3.2. The text acknowledges the mismatch but then states that it is 'safe to conclude that the wind-feeding scenario can provide a reasonable explanation for the observed X-ray emission from M31*.' Because the claimed multi-wavelength agreement in §5.3 includes the spectral shape as well as the luminosity, this difference should be presented as a genuine tension or an unresolved modeling uncertainty rather than as being safely explained by the scenario. The current evidence robustly supports the luminosity scale, but not the observed spectral hardness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.5] The phrase 'central 23 cells' is ambiguous; please specify that the sink region is a cube of 23 cells per side or otherwise define its volume.
  2. [§2.2] In the sentence giving the adopted total mass-loss rate, the text reads '4 × 10−5 M⊙ yr−1, .' with a stray comma before the period; this typo should be corrected.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 4(c)] The caption and text do not state whether the quoted photon index of about 4.2 refers to the absorbed or unabsorbed synthetic spectrum; please clarify, since the spectrum is shown with foreground absorption and the Chandra response applied.
  4. [§5.1] In the stellar-collision estimate following Equation (1), the time integration interval for p_coll should be stated explicitly; the text mentions the 0.5 Gyr RGB lifetime, but not the exact limits of the integral.
  5. [§4.2] The sentence 'This can be simply scaled to ∼10^2 M⊙ accumulated on a time interval of 2 Myr' is confusing because it refers to the scenario of Chang et al. (2007) rather than directly to the simulation output; please rephrase to make the scaling and its applicability to the simulation clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulated accretion rate and X-ray luminosity are genuine outputs of a self-contained hydrodynamical model, with the wind injection rate set by independent stellar isochrones and the observed comparisons made a posteriori.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The wind injection rate is set by PARSEC+COLIBRI isochrones for an 8 Gyr, [M/H]=0.3 population (Section 2.2), not by the observed X-ray luminosity or accretion rate of M31*. The PT03 orbital model and the PLUTO hydrodynamics then produce the accretion rate at the sink as an output (Section 3). The synthetic 0.5–8 keV luminosity is computed from the simulated gas distribution using ATOMDB emissivities (Section 4.1), following a standard method; the Su et al. (2022) citation is methodological, and the underlying atomic data are external, so it is not load-bearing. The comparison with Chandra (Li et al. 2011) is made after the fact, and the model brackets rather than fits the observed LX. The remaining issue—that the sink at 8700 rg is a numerical accretion radius rather than the event horizon, so inner-flow outflows could reduce the true rate—is an unverified physical assumption flagged by the authors in Section 5.2, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

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

The central prediction rests on a small set of chosen inputs: the AGB mass-loss rate (representative within a factor-of-7 range), the wind temperature and speed, the sink radius, and for one variant an arbitrary external inflow. The orbital and potential models are taken from prior observational modeling, not from this paper. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Total AGB wind mass-loss rate (Mdot_w) = 4e-5 Msun/yr
    Chosen as a representative 8 Gyr stellar population from PARSEC+COLIBRI isochrones; the plausible range is (2-14)e-5 Msun/yr. The accretion rate and X-ray luminosity scale with this input.
  • Effective accretion radius (racc) = 8700 rg (0.16 pc)
    Set by removing the central 23 grid cells; gas crossing this radius is treated as accreted. The value affects the predicted accretion rate and radiation, as acknowledged in Section 5.2.
  • External inflow rate (Inflow run) = 1.6e-5 Msun/yr (40% of wind rate)
    Adopted arbitrarily in Section 2.4 to test sensitivity to large-scale gas inflow; not constrained by observations.
  • AGB wind speed and temperature = 10 km/s, 3000 K
    Adopted from Hoefner & Olofsson (2018); these values are essential for forming the cool disk, but the exact choice is a modeling assumption rather than a measured constraint.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Ideal gas equation of state with gamma = 5/3
    Used in the governing equations (Section 2.1); standard for astrophysical gas dynamics.
  • domain assumption The PT03 eccentric disk model describes the stellar density and orbital distribution of the M31 NSC
    The gravitational potential and AGB star orbits are drawn from Peiris & Tremaine (2003); if this model is wrong, the simulated disk geometry and accretion rate change.
  • domain assumption AGB winds dominate the stellar mass-loss from the old population; RGB and P3 contributions are negligible
    Based on NGC 6791 as an age-metallicity analogue and stellar isochrones (Section 2.2); supports the total injection rate used in the simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas crossing the effective accretion radius is accreted by the SMBH
    The sink prescription in Section 2.5 removes gas at racc; the inner flow is not modeled, so the true BH accretion rate could differ if outflows are significant.
  • domain assumption Magnetic fields are negligible for the large-scale wind-fed flow
    The simulations are unmagnetized; Section 5.3 notes magnetic fields could collimate and launch winds, affecting the accretion rate and feedback.
  • domain assumption The simulation has reached a quasi-steady state at 2 Myr
    Claimed from the flattened accretion rate and stable disk-halo configuration (Section 3); the disk mass is still growing at the end of the run, so convergence is not fully demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wind-fed Supermassive Black Hole Accretion by the Nuclear Star Cluster: the Case of M31*." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72LNRUQS

@misc{pith2026250604778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wind-fed Supermassive Black Hole Accretion by the Nuclear Star Cluster: the Case of M31*},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72LNRUQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04778}
}
abstract

The central supermassive black hole (SMBH) of the Andromeda galaxy, known as M31*, exhibits dim electromagnetic emission and is inferred to have an extremely low accretion rate for its remarkable mass ($\sim10^8~\rm~M_\odot$). In this work, we use three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations to explore a previously untested scenario, in which M31* is fed by the collective stellar mass-loss from its surrounding nuclear star cluster, manifested as a famous eccentric disk of predominantly old stellar populations. The stellar mass-loss is assumed to be dominated by the slow and cold winds from 100 asymptotic giant-branch stars, which follow well-constrained Keplerian orbits around M31* and together provide a mass injection rate of $\sim4\times10^{-5}\rm~M_\odot~yr^{-1}$. The simulations achieve a quasi-steady state on a Myr timescale, at which point a quasi-Keplerian, cool ($T\sim10^3-10^4~\rm K$) gas disk extending several parsecs is established. This disk is continuously supplied by the stellar winds and itself feeds the central SMBH. At the end of the simulations at 2 Myr, an accretion rate of $\sim2\times10^{-5}\rm~M_\odot~yr^{-1}$ is found but could vary by a factor of few depending on whether the subdominant gravity of the NSC or a moderate global inflow is included. The predicted X-ray luminosity of $\sim10^{36}~\rm erg~s^{-1}$, dominated by the hot ($T\sim10^7-10^8~\rm K$) plasma within 0.2 parsec of the SMBH, is well consistent with Chandra observations. We conclude that the feeding mechanism of M31* is successfully identified, which has important implications for the working of dormant SMBHs prevalent in the local universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Orbital distribution of the PT03 NSC model (contours) and the randomly sampled AGB stars (black dots). The side panels display the distributions of the semi-major axis and eccentricity for the NSC model (curve) and randomly sampled AGB stars (histogram). Right: Initial positions of the AGB stars and trajectories of their eccentric orbits adopted in the simulation. The colors of the trajectories indicate orbita… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass-weighted density (top) and temperature (bottom) distributions for the final snapshot at 2.0 Myr. From left to right, the panels correspond to the PointMass, Fiducial, and Inflow simulations. The distributions are shown as projections onto the mean orbital plane (x-y plane) and the plane perpendicular to it (x-z plane). Arrows indicate the gas velocity. Wind sources are depicted as blobs in both panels, while th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density (left) and temperature (right) radial profiles in the “disk” (solid curves) and “halo” (dashed curves) regions. The two regions are defined by the elevation angle relative to the disk plane (x-y plane). parsecs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a): Evolution of the accretion rate. The evo￾lutionary curve is binned in 1000 yr for better trace of the trend. The shaded region represents the minimum and max￾imum in each bin. (b): Evolution of the predicted 0.5–8 keV X-ray luminosity, sampled every 0.2 Myr. The i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prediction for optical and infrared emission lines in the Fiducial simulation at 2.0 Myr. (a): synthetic Hα surface brightness map projected on the sky plane. (b) and (c): Hα flux-weighted line-of-sight velocity and velocity dispersion maps. In the top three panels, th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2005, PhR, 419, 65, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002 —

    Alexander, T. 2005, PhR, 419, 65, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002 —. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002 2005

  2. [2]

    2001, ApJ, 549, 948, doi: 10.1086/319436

    Alexander, T., & Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 549, 948, doi: 10.1086/319436

    work page doi:10.1086/319436 2001

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2c3

    Alig, C., Prieto, A., Bla˜ na, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace2c3 2023

  4. [4]

    N., & Wolf, R

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

    doi:10.1086/154711 1976

  5. [5]

    C., & Davies, M

    Bailey, V. C., & Davies, M. B. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 257, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02740.x

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Balakrishnan, M., Russell, C. M. P., Corrales, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6866

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6866 2024

  7. [7]

    2005, ApJ, 631, 280, doi: 10.1086/432434

    Bender, R., Kormendy, J., Bower, G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, 280, doi: 10.1086/432434

    doi:10.1086/432434 2005

  8. [8]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  2. [10]

    L., et al

    Brogaard, K., Grundahl, F., Sandquist, E. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140911 Calder´ on, D., Cuadra, J., Russell, C. M. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452800 Calder´ on, D., Cuadra, J., Schartmann, M., Burkert, A., &

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Russell, C. M. P. 2020, ApJL, 888, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5e81

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Barth, A

    Carson, D. J., Barth, A. J., Seth, A. C., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/170

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 236, doi: 10.1086/521018

    Chang, P., Murray-Clay, R., Chiang, E., & Quataert, E. 2007, ApJ, 668, 236, doi: 10.1086/521018

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Cowan, J

    Crane, P. C., Cowan, J. J., Dickel, J. R., & Roberts, D. A. 1993, ApJL, 417, L61, doi: 10.1086/187094

    1993 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Dickel, J

    Crane, P. C., Dickel, J. R., & Cowan, J. J. 1992, ApJL, 390, L9, doi: 10.1086/186359

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 358, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09837.x

    Cuadra, J., Nayakshin, S., Springel, V., & Di Matteo, T. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 358, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09837.x

    2006

  11. [19]

    E., Davies, M

    Dale, J. E., Davies, M. B., Church, R. P., & Freitag, M. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1016, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14254.x

    2009

  12. [20]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1d5

    DiKerby, S., Zhang, S., & Irwin, J. 2025, ApJ, 981, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1d5

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, A&A, 584, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526336

    Feldmeier-Krause, A., Neumayer, N., Sch¨ odel, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526336

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    2017 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Williams, B

    Garcia, M. R., Williams, B. F., Yuan, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 1042, doi: 10.1086/432967

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 —. 2009, ApJ, 699, 626, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/626 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 405, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00855.x

    2010

  20. [28]

    C., et al

    Kacharov, N., Neumayer, N., Seth, A. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1973, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1985

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 14 Su et al

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 14 Su et al. —. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    2001

  22. [30]

    Green, R. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/121

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Scowen, P. A. 1998, AJ, 116, 2263, doi: 10.1086/300617

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Faber, S

    Lauer, T. R., Faber, S. M., Groth, E. J., et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 1436, doi: 10.1086/116737

    1993 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Forman, W

    Li, Z., Garcia, M. R., Forman, W. R., et al. 2011, ApJL, 728, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/728/1/L10

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0299

    Li, Z., Li, Z., Garc ´ ıa-Benito, R., & Jin, Y. 2023, ApJ, 958, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0299

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Li, Z., Li, Z., Smith, M. W. L., & Gao, Y. 2020, ApJ, 905, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc5ba

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz040

    Li, Z., Li, Z., Zhou, P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz040

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    D., & Wakker, B

    Li, Z., Wang, Q. D., & Wakker, B. P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 148, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14918.x

    2009

  30. [38]

    E., Lu, J

    Lockhart, K. E., Lu, J. R., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa71

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa714

    Madigan, A.-M., Halle, A., Moody, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa714

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1034

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    I., & Zijlstra, A

    McDonald, I., Johnson, C. I., & Zijlstra, A. A. 2011, MNRAS, 416, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01086.x

    2011

  35. [43]

    McDonald, I., & Zijlstra, A. A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv007

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    L., & Combes, F

    Melchior, A. L., & Combes, F. 2013, A&A, 549, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220204

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, A&A, 607, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730910 —

    Melchior, A.-L., & Combes, F. 2017, A&A, 607, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730910 —. 2025, A&A, 693, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347597

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Steiner, J

    Menezes, R. B., Steiner, J. E., & Ricci, T. V. 2013, ApJL, 762, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L29

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 2077, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19859.x

    Miglio, A., Brogaard, K., Stello, D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2077, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19859.x

    2012

  40. [48]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    Blandford, R. D. 2019, Nature, 570, 83, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1242-z

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & B¨ oker, T. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244166

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 1011, doi: 10.1086/503273

    Paumard, T., Genzel, R., Martins, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1011, doi: 10.1086/503273

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    V., & Tremaine, S

    Peiris, H. V., & Tremaine, S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 237, doi: 10.1086/378638

    2003 doi

  46. [54]

    O., et al

    Peng, S., Li, Z., Sjouwerman, L. O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdddd

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 4857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2172

    Ploeckinger, S., & Schaye, J. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2172

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2004, ApJ, 613, 322, doi: 10.1086/422973

    Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 613, 322, doi: 10.1086/422973

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Carpenter, K

    Rau, G., Nielsen, K. E., Carpenter, K. G., & Airapetian, V. 2018, ApJ, 869, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf0a0

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

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

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1146 —. 2020a, MNRAS, 492, 3272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3605

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    M., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., White, C. J., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2020b, ApJL, 896, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9532

    doi

  52. [60]

    C., Naoz, S., Sari, R., & Linial, I

    Rose, S. C., Naoz, S., Sari, R., & Linial, I. 2023, ApJ, 955, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acee75

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    C., Girardi, L., et al

    Rosenfield, P., Johnson, L. C., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/131

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    Russell, C. M. P., Wang, Q. D., & Cuadra, J. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2584

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    P., Fabricius, M., Bender, R., et al

    Saglia, R. P., Fabricius, M., Bender, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912805

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2014, ApJ, 782, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/103

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    Shi, F., Li, Z., Yuan, F., & Zhu, B. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789

    Shi, F., Zhu, B., Li, Z., & Yuan, F. 2022, ApJ, 926, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2345

    Su, Z., Li, Z., Hou, M., Zhang, M., & Cheng, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2345

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    J., et al

    Sullivan, M., Le Borgne, D., Pritchet, C. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 868, doi: 10.1086/506137

    2006 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Lagioia, E

    Tailo, M., Milone, A. P., Lagioia, E. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab568

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    1995, AJ, 110, 628, doi: 10.1086/117548

    Tremaine, S. 1995, AJ, 110, 628, doi: 10.1086/117548

    1995 doi

  63. [71]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  64. [72]

    J., B¨ oker, T., Charlot, S., et al

    Walcher, C. J., B¨ oker, T., Charlot, S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 692, doi: 10.1086/505166

    2006 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Nowak, M

    Wang, Q. D., Nowak, M. A., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 981, doi: 10.1126/science.1240755

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    N., & Madigan, A.-M

    Wernke, H. N., & Madigan, A.-M. 2019, ApJ, 880, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2711 M31 nucleus 15

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    E., Harper, G

    Wood, B. E., Harper, G. M., & M¨ uller, H.-R. 2024, ApJ, 967, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad401f

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    O., Yuan, F., & Shen, Z.-Q

    Yang, Y., Li, Z., Sjouwerman, L. O., Yuan, F., & Shen, Z.-Q. 2017, ApJ, 845, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8265

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3474

    Yao, Z., & Gan, Z. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3474

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    P., Ciotti, L., & Zhu, B

    Yoon, D., Yuan, F., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., & Zhu, B. 2019, ApJ, 885, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e8

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    Yuan, F., Gan, Z., Narayan, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

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

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    D., Foster, A

    Zhang, S., Wang, Q. D., Foster, A. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a0f

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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