Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

The physical mechanism of radio-quiet turn-on changing-look active galactic nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A comparison of ADAF cooling timescales with 102 turn-on changing-look AGNs shows the inner accretion flow collapses fast enough to explain the observed turn-ons without large-scale magnetic fields.

desk verdict Useful new sample, but 'validates' overstates what a one-sided timescale comparison can show. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03324 v1 pith:73S3P2W6 submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Shuang-Liang Li , Xinwu Cao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords changing-lookAGNADAFaccretiondiskradiativecoolingmassrateblackholephysicsstatetransitionradio-quiet
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

Changing-look active galactic nuclei switch between spectral types on timescales far shorter than the viscous timescale of a standard thin accretion disk, and most of them are radio-quiet, so a large-scale magnetic field cannot be invoked to speed up the disk. This paper proposes that the bright state begins when the inner advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) collapses into a thin disk through radiative cooling, rather than being replaced by the outer thin disk through advection. To test this, the authors compile 102 turn-on CL AGNs and compare the ADAF cooling timescale with the observed interval between faint and bright spectroscopic states. They find that the cooling timescale is much shorter than the observed transition timescale in almost all objects, which they interpret as validation of the collapse mechanism. A sympathetic reader should care because, if right, the result resolves the radio-quiet CL AGN timescale problem without invoking magnetic fields and connects the phenomenon to the same state-transition physics seen in black hole X-ray binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ADAF cooling timescale $t_{\rm cool}=1/[(1-f_{\rm adv})f_\Omega\alpha\Omega_K]$, derived from the energy balance $q^+=q^-+q_{\rm adv}$ with $f_{\rm adv}\sim0.3$, $f_\Omega=0.9$, and the critical accretion rate $\dot{m}_{\rm crit}\sim\alpha^2$. The bright-state Eddington ratio is adopted as $\dot{m}_{\rm crit}$, and the transition radius $R_{\rm tr}$ is solved from the thin-disk temperature equation using the 5100 Å continuum, which fixes $\Omega_K$ at $R_{\rm tr}$. The mechanism works because the ADAF's radiative efficiency rises as the accretion rate approaches the critical value, so the inner flow cools and collapses into a thin disk on a timescale far shorter than the thin-disk viscous timescale.

What would settle it

Regularly monitor a set of turn-on CL AGNs so that the actual transition timescale is measured rather than bounded by two epochs; if a substantial fraction show $t_{\rm tran}$ shorter than the ADAF cooling timescale computed from their black hole mass and bright-state luminosity, the collapse mechanism would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an inner ADAF can collapse into an optically thick thin disk by radiative cooling fast enough to account for the observed turn-on timescales of radio-quiet changing-look AGNs. For a sample of 102 turn-on CL AGNs, the predicted cooling timescale $t_{\rm cool}=1/[(1-f_{\rm adv})f_\Omega\alpha\Omega_K]$ evaluated at the transition radius is much shorter than the observed timescale $t_{\rm tran}$ between the faint and bright states for almost all objects. The two exceptions, SDSSJ0225+0030 and SDSSJ1723+5504, are argued to require a large-scale magnetic field that drags the ADAF inward before it fully cools. The paper notes that $t_{\rm cool}<t_{\rm tran}$ is expected because most objects were observed only twice, making $t_{\rm tran}$ an upper limit on the actual transition time, and that taking the bright-state Eddington ratio as the critical rate also makes $t_{\rm cool}$ an underestimate. The result is presented as evidence that the inner ADAF collapses through radiative cooling, offering a magnetic-field-free explanation for radio-quiet CL AGN turn-ons.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison assumes that the bright-state Eddington ratio equals the critical mass accretion rate at which an ADAF collapses; if the true critical rate is lower, the calculated cooling time becomes longer and could exceed the observed turn-on interval.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the collapse mechanism is correct, radio-quiet turn-on CL AGNs require no large-scale magnetic field; their fast type changes follow simply from radiative cooling of the inner ADAF.
  • Because most of the sample objects were observed only twice, the observed $t_{\rm tran}$ values are upper limits, so the true transition timescales are even shorter and remain compatible with the computed cooling timescales.
  • The two outliers with $t_{\rm cool}>t_{\rm tran}$ can be understood as objects where magnetic outflows drag the ADAF inward before it has fully cooled, so the model does not exclude magnetic-field-driven cases.
  • The ADAF-to-thin-disk collapse connects CL AGN turn-ons to the low-hard to high-soft state transition in black hole X-ray binaries, supporting a scale-free view of accretion physics.
  • Higher-cadence spectroscopy that catches individual transitions would replace $t_{\rm tran}$ upper limits with actual timescales and provide a direct test of the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Quantitatively propagating the bias from using bright-state Eddington ratios as critical accretion rates would be a natural next step; the paper acknowledges the bias but does not estimate how much it inflates $\alpha$ and shrinks $t_{\rm cool}$.
  • The model predicts a relation between turn-on duration and black hole mass through $\Omega_K$ at the transition radius, which could be checked directly once precise transition times are measured for a larger sample.
  • By analogy with X-ray binary state transitions, a cooling collapse should be accompanied by a softening of the UV-to-X-ray spectral energy distribution during turn-on; searching archival light curves for such a signature would test whether the transition is truly cooling rather than advection-substitution.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the fast turn-on of radio-quiet changing-look AGNs is caused by the radiative collapse of an inner advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) into a thin disk, rather than by inward propagation of the outer thin disk. The authors compile 102 turn-on CL AGNs, estimate the ADAF cooling timescale t_cool at the transition radius R_tr using Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), and compare it with the observed interval t_tran between the faint-state and bright-state spectra. They find t_cool < t_tran for most objects and conclude that this "validates" their assumption that the inner ADAF can collapse within the observed timescale.

Significance. If established, the proposed mechanism would provide an explanation for rapid CL AGN transitions without invoking strong large-scale magnetic fields, which is attractive for radio-quiet objects. The paper's strengths are its simple analytic estimate, the compilation of a sizable sample of turn-on CL AGNs, and the transparency of the underlying assumptions. However, the central claim is overstated: because t_tran is an upper limit derived from typically two epochs, the inequality t_cool < t_tran is only a necessary consistency condition, not a validation. The paper itself acknowledges this limitation in Section 5, but the abstract and Section 4 retain the stronger language. The work is a useful plausibility argument, but its conclusions need to be reframed and some ambiguities in the radius and parameter choices resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4; Section 5] The conclusion that the comparison "validates our assumption" is not supported by the data. Since most objects have only two spectroscopic observations, t_tran is an upper limit on the actual transition timescale; a model with t_cool < t_tran is not ruled out, but this inequality cannot confirm the model. This is explicitly acknowledged in Section 5 ("the main caveat of this manuscript is that most of the objects only have two spectral observations"), yet the abstract and Section 4 still use "validates" and "confirms". Please reframe the claim as a consistency or viability test, or provide a quantitative argument showing that the distribution of t_cool relative to t_tran is informative despite the upper-limit nature of t_tran (e.g., using the multi-epoch subsample from Panda & Śniegowska in Figure 2).
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The estimation of R_tr is ambiguous and appears internally inconsistent. The text states that the temperature at the transition radius should be larger than the 5100 Å temperature (~5700 K), implying R_tr is smaller than the 5100 Å emitting radius. It then says R_tr can be estimated by solving Eq. (5), but does not specify the value of T_eff used. If Eq. (5) is solved with T_eff = 5700 K, the resulting radius is the 5100 Å continuum radius, not the transition radius; since t_cool increases with R, this choice would make t_cool an upper limit, which should be stated explicitly. If a different T_eff is intended, its value and physical motivation must be given.
  3. [Section 5] The discussion of the assumption that the bright-state Eddington ratio equals the critical rate contains an incorrect inference. Section 5 states that adopting λ_Edd,bright as mdot_crit is an upper limit that leads to a larger α and a smaller t_cool. However, combining Eq. (4) with Eq. (5) shows that for fixed black hole mass, α ∝ λ^(1/2) (from mdot_crit ≈ α^2) and Ω_K ∝ λ^(-1/2) (because R_tr ∝ λ^(1/3) follows from Eq. (5) with fixed T_eff), so t_cool ∝ 1/(α Ω_K) is nearly independent of the assumed λ. The text as written is misleading, and the authors should either correct this statement or present a sensitivity calculation showing how t_cool depends on the assumed critical rate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] There are several typos in this section: "compered" should be "compared", "ADFA" should be "ADAF", and "the the" appears twice in the first paragraph.
  2. [Table 1 caption] In the Notes, "Observational timescale fo CL AGNs" should read "for CL AGNs".
  3. [Section 2] The values of λ_Edd in Table 1 appear to be logarithms (e.g., -1.99); this should be stated explicitly in the table caption or in the text.
  4. [Section 4 and Figure 1] In Figure 1, the red solid line is labeled as t_tran = t_cool, but the text says most points have t_cool < t_tran; a brief statement in the caption clarifying that points below the line satisfy this inequality would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: t_cool is derived algebraically from standard ADAF equations and compared with an independent observational interval t_tran, with the paper's own Section 5 caveat noted.

full rationale

The derivation of t_cool is self-contained. Equations (1)-(4) are algebraic: defining q+ = q- + qadv, t_cool ~ u/q-, q+ = (3/2) f_Omega alpha P Omega_K, and u ~ 3P/2 gives t_cool = 1/[(1-fadv) f_Omega alpha Omega_K]; no use of t_tran appears in this chain. The transition radius is obtained from Eq. (5) by setting T_eff at 5100 Angstroms, which links R_tr to M and Mdot but not to t_tran. The bright-state Eddington ratio is adopted as mdot_crit (Section 2), and mdot_crit ~ alpha^2 is taken from the external, standard ADAF literature (Narayan & Yi 1995), not from the authors' own prior work; no load-bearing self-citation occurs. The comparison quantity t_tran = (MJD2 - MJD1)/(1+z) is an independent observational interval, so t_cool < t_tran is not an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Moreover, since alpha ~ sqrt(mdot_crit) and Omega_K at R_tr ~ mdot_crit^{-1/2} from Eq. (5) with fixed T_eff, t_cool is nearly independent of the adopted critical rate, so the choice lambda_Edd,bright is not a fitted input that forces the result. Section 5 explicitly notes that for most objects t_tran is an upper limit because only two epochs exist, and that adopting lambda_Edd,bright as mdot_crit is also an upper limit; these caveats weaken the word 'validates' in the abstract, but they are limitations of evidential strength, not circular reductions. The central claim therefore has independent content, and no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central calculation rests on standard ADAF energy-balance equations plus several paper-specific choices: f_adv = 0.3, f_Omega = 0.9, a 5700 K transition radius, and the identification of the bright-state Eddington ratio with the critical mass accretion rate (which also sets alpha). These choices are not fitted to t_tran, but they are conventional or ad hoc and directly set the magnitude of t_cool. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • f_adv, advected energy fraction = 0.3 (assumed)
    Chosen as typical when the critical accretion rate is adopted; t_cool is inversely proportional to (1 - f_adv), so this choice directly sets the timescale scale (Section 2).
  • f_Omega = Omega / Omega_K = 0.9 (assumed)
    Sub-Keplerian angular velocity of the ADAF; authors note a Keplerian value changes t_cool by only 10 percent (Section 2).
  • alpha viscosity parameter = implied sqrt(mdot_crit) = sqrt(lambda_bright), not explicitly stated
    The paper never writes an alpha value, but Section 5 states that using the bright-state Eddington ratio as the critical rate gives a larger alpha and smaller t_cool, implying alpha is set by alpha^2 = mdot_crit. This is the main coupling between observed luminosity and the computed timescale.
  • transition temperature T_eff at R_tr = 5700 K (5100 Angstrom)
    Used in Eq. (5) to set the transition radius; this temperature choice is conventional but not derived for ADAF collapse.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Energy equation of an ADAF, q+ = q- + q_adv, with t_cool = u / q- (Narayan & Yi 1995).
    Basis of Eqs. (1)-(4), Section 2.
  • standard math Viscous heating rate q+ = (3/2) f_Omega alpha P Omega_K.
    Eq. (3), standard alpha-disk and ADAF formula.
  • domain assumption The critical mass accretion rate is mdot_crit ~ alpha^2.
    Adopted from Narayan & Yi (1995), Section 2; used to tie alpha to mdot_crit.
  • domain assumption The 5100 Angstrom continuum is emitted at the transition radius R_tr with effective temperature about 5700 K.
    Needed to solve Eq. (5) for R_tr; an idealized single-temperature mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The bright-state Eddington ratio equals the critical mass accretion rate.
    Section 2: "we adopt the value of Eddington ratio lambda_Edd at bright state as mdot_crit"; this is a paper-specific assumption because the true critical rate is unknown.
  • domain assumption Most CL AGNs are radio-quiet and therefore lack a large-scale magnetic field that could shorten the viscous timescale.
    Motivates the need for a non-magnetic mechanism (Introduction).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The physical mechanism of radio-quiet turn-on changing-look active galactic nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73S3P2W6

@misc{pith2026250703324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The physical mechanism of radio-quiet turn-on changing-look active galactic nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73S3P2W6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03324}
}
abstract

It is suggested that the variation of mass accretion rate in accretion disk may be responsible for the occurrence of most changing-look active galactic nuclei (CL AGNs). However, the viscous timescale of a thin disk is far longer than the observed timescale of CL AGNs. Though this problem can be resolved by introducing the large-scale magnetic field, the mechanism for radio-quiet CL AGNs with weak/absent large-scale magnetic field remains a mystery. In this work, we assume that the thin accretion disk is collapsed from the inner advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) instead of substituting by the outer thin disk through advection. This idea is tested by comparing the cooling timescale ($t_{\rm cool}$) of an ADAF with the observed timescale ($t_{\rm tran}$) of turn-on CL AGNs. We compile a sample of 102 turn-on CL AGNs from the archived data and calculate the cooling timescale of an ADAF with the critical mass accretion rate based on some conventional assumptions. It is found that $t_{\rm cool}$ is much shorter than $t_{\rm tran}$ in most of the CL AGNs, which validates our assumption though $t_{\rm cool}$ is not consistent with $t_{\rm tran}$ ($t_{\rm cool}<t_{\rm tran}$). However, this is reasonable since most of the CL AGNs were observed only two times, indicating that the observed timescale $t_{\rm tran}$ is the maximum value because the changing-look can indeed happen before the second observation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the observed timescale ttran of CL AGNs with the cooling timescale tcool of an ADAF, where the solid red line represent ttran = tcool. 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION For most of radio-quiet CL AGNs where the large-scale magnetic field is absent or very weak, the viscous timescale of a thin disk would be too long compered with the observed timescale. Therefore, it is possible that, instead of being replaced … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as figure 1, but for the objects picked up from Panda & Śniegowska (2024) only. We investigate the cooling timescale of an ADAF and compare it with the turn-on CL AGNs only in this work. For turn-on CL AGNs, we can only focus on the collapse of an ADAF and the formation of a thin disk through radiative cooling. While for AGNs in bright state, the accretion process can be well described by a disk-corona model (L… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1993, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    arXiv 1993

  2. [2]

    Cao, X., & Spruit, H. C. 2013, ApJ, 765, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/149

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/149 2013

  3. [3]

    Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly213

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly213 2019

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07335

    Dong, Q., Zhang, Z.-X., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Zheng, Y.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07335

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07335 2024

  5. [5]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L33

    Elitzur, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L33

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/l33 2012

  6. [6]

    A., McClintock, J

    Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865, doi: 10.1086/304829 7

    doi:10.1086/304829 1997

  7. [7]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a6

    Feng, J., Cao, X., Li, J.-w., & Gu, W.-M. 2021, ApJ, 916, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a6 2021

  8. [8]

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

    2002

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Goodrich, R. W. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 342, 224, doi: 10.1086/167586

    1989 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Pulgarin-Duque, L., Anderson, S

    Green, P. J., Pulgarin-Duque, L., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac743f Hutsemékers, D., González, B. A., Marin, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834633

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Li, S.-L., & Begelman, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 786, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/6

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, A&A, 602, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630079

    Lusso, E., & Risaliti, G. 2017, A&A, 602, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630079

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5256

    Lyu, B., Wu, Q., Yan, Z., Yu, W., & Liu, H. 2022, ApJ, 927, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5256

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Green, P

    MacLeod, C. L., Green, P. J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05e2

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed

    Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed. M. A

    1998

  9. [17]

    Björnsson, & J

    Abramowicz, G. Björnsson, & J. E. Pringle, 148–182, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803141

    doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 —

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 —. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe766

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2021, ApJ, 910, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe766

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJS, 272, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f

    Panda, S., & Śniegowska, M. 2024, ApJS, 272, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Komossa, S., Kollatschny, W., et al

    Parker, M. L., Komossa, S., Kollatschny, W., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 1927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1449

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Qiao, E., & Liu, B. F. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty652

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P., Ford, K

    Ross, N. P., Ford, K. E. S., Graham, M., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2002

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Seyfert, C. K. 1943, The Astrophysical Journal, 97, 28, doi: 10.1086/144488

    1943 doi

  19. [27]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  20. [28]

    2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

    Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    Sniegowska, M., Czerny, B., Bon, E., & Bon, N. 2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Osterbrock, D

    Tran, H. D., Osterbrock, D. E., & Martel, A. 1992, The Astronomical Journal, 104, 2072, doi: 10.1086/116382

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    W., & Wei, J

    Wang, J., Xu, D. W., & Wei, J. Y. 2020, ApJ, 901, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa48

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf839

    Wu, W.-B., & Gu, W.-M. 2023, ApJ, 958, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf839

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Wu, X.-B., et al

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., Wu, X.-B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    Yang, Q., Wu, X.-B., Fan, X., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    J., MacLeod, C

    Yang, Q., Green, P. J., MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdedd

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.