Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a magnetized disk-instability model can explain both regular and stochastic quasi-periodic eruptions around supermassive black holes while keeping eruption peak temperatures nearly constant.

desk verdict A useful parameter study of the authors' own magnetized disk instability model, with a new threshold result and a plausible but unproven claim about stochastic QPE sources. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11100 v1 pith:SWOJHDZR submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Xin Pan , Shuang-Liang Li , Xinwu Cao , Bifang Liu , Weimin Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords quasi-periodiceruptionsdiskinstabilitymagneticfieldsaccretiondiskssupermassiveblackholesradiationpressurerecurrencetimeX-raytransients
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 argues that quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) from supermassive black holes can be explained by a single magnetized disk-instability mechanism operating in two sharply different regimes. Below critical values of the accretion rate ($\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$) and magnetic field parameter ($\beta_{1,\rm crit}$), eruption periods respond only weakly to perturbations, which matches regular repeaters like GSN 069. Above those thresholds, small changes in either quantity are amplified into large period shifts, which matches chaotic sources like eRO-QPE1. Peak eruption temperature stays nearly constant across the whole parameter space because it is set by the inner edge of the unstable zone, explaining why observed temperatures cluster near 0.1–0.2 keV despite large luminosity changes. If correct, the model unifies regular and stochastic QPE populations in one physical picture and ties them naturally to tidal disruption events.

What carries the argument

The engine is the thermal and secular radiation-pressure instability of a standard accretion disk, magnetically confined so the unstable region is a thin one-zone belt (about $0.1\,R_s$) just outside the ISCO. The critical thresholds come from the pressure ratio $\beta_2 = P_{\rm gas}/(P_{\rm gas}+P_{\rm rad})$: when the outer edge of the unstable zone sits where viscous torque dominance gives way to magnetic torque dominance, the zone width $\Delta R$ becomes highly sensitive to $\dot{M}$ and $\beta_1$, and the recurrence time inherits that sensitivity. Peak temperature, by contrast, is set by conditions at the inner edge of the unstable zone, which remain almost fixed, decoupling the thermal behavior from the timing behavior.

What would settle it

Measure the period scatter of the known QPE sources and compare it with independently estimated accretion rates and magnetic field parameters: if a source with high period dispersion sits clearly below both critical thresholds, the stable/unstable classification fails; alternatively, a disk simulation that evolves the unstable-zone width self-consistently and shows the sharp thresholds vanishing would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a radiation-pressure disk instability confined by a large-scale magnetic field to a narrow belt near the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) has two response regimes separated by critical thresholds in accretion rate and magnetic field parameter. In the stable regime the recurrence time is almost independent of $\dot{M}$ and $\beta_1$; in the unstable regime the recurrence time changes sharply with either quantity, because the outer boundary of the unstable zone crosses a transition where angular momentum transport switches from viscous-torque dominance to magnetic-torque dominance. The same model yields nearly constant peak temperatures, because outburst temperature is governed by the inner boundary of the unstable zone rather than the outer boundary. The authors locate regular sources like GSN 069 in the stable regime and erratic sources like eRO-QPE1 in the unstable regime, and interpret long-term period and temperature evolution, including the disappearance and reappearance of GSN 069's eruptions, within this framework.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one-zone treatment of the unstable region, with a fixed width $\Delta R$ during each eruption, correctly captures the physics that sets the critical thresholds; the paper itself notes that this simplification fails to reproduce the observed light-curve shapes and the luminosity-temperature hysteresis loop, so a fuller treatment could shift or erase the threshold behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Regular QPE sources such as GSN 069 occupy the stable regime, where even 30 percent changes in accretion rate or magnetic parameter leave the period nearly unchanged.
  • Stochastic sources such as eRO-QPE1 occupy the unstable regime, where small perturbations in $\dot{M}$ or $\beta_1$ are amplified into large, erratic period variations.
  • Eruption peak temperatures should stay near a fixed value even when outburst amplitudes and recurrence times vary widely, matching the narrow $\sim 0.1$–$0.2$ keV range seen in observations.
  • In the tidal-disruption-event picture, short-period QPEs appear only after the accretion rate decays to roughly $0.1\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ with a magnetic field strong enough to confine the unstable zone; weakly magnetized TDEs should instead show longer-term UV/optical variability.
  • After a rebrightening that raises both $\dot{M}$ and $\beta_1$, the model predicts the period can lengthen by a factor of several, enough to hide eruptions inside a finite observing window, as proposed for GSN 069 between 2014 and 2018.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The stable/unstable dichotomy predicts that in the growing QPE sample, sources with low period scatter should cluster below the inferred thresholds and high-scatter sources above them; finding a high-scatter source with clearly sub-threshold parameters would push the model toward modification.
  • A numerical disk model that lets the unstable-zone width evolve during eruptions rather than holding it fixed is the cleanest check of whether the thresholds survive; such a model should also reproduce the observed counter-clockwise hysteresis loop in the luminosity-temperature plane.
  • Because the model makes peak temperature nearly independent of both parameters, new QPE detections from upcoming X-ray surveys should again show peak temperatures near 0.1–0.2 keV regardless of period or amplitude; a source with similar timing but clearly different peak temperature would require extra physics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the magnetically confined disk-instability model of Pan et al. (2022, 2023) to study two observational properties of quasi-periodic eruptions: recurrence-time dispersion and peak temperature. Using the one-zone model of the unstable region, the authors compute the recurrence time and peak temperature as functions of accretion rate and the magnetic field parameter for a fiducial black hole, and repeat the calculation for shorter-period parameter sets. They identify critical values (Mdot_crit, beta1_crit) separating a stable regime with weak period dependence from an unstable regime with strong period dependence, and they report that peak temperature stays approximately constant across the same parameter space. They then argue that the stable regime explains regular QPE sources such as GSN 069, while the unstable regime explains the stochastic recurrence behavior of eRO-QPE1.

Significance. If the claimed threshold dichotomy is robust, it would offer a single physical framework for both regular and irregular QPE recurrence patterns and would decouple timing from thermal behavior, which is an attractive and falsifiable feature. The numerical computations in Section 3 are straightforward and the thresholds are derived from the model equations rather than fitted directly to period data; the internal correspondence between Mdot_crit and beta1_crit is a useful consistency test. However, the strongest explanatory claims—that the unstable regime produces stochastic behavior and that specific sources occupy specific regimes—are currently extrapolations from static sensitivity curves, and the source assignments rely on unmeasured parameters. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that the underlying one-zone fixed-width approximation fails to reproduce light-curve shapes and hysteresis, which weakens the quantitative reliability of the threshold locations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and §4 (point 1)] The central claim that the unstable regime 'naturally explain[s] the highly dispersed periodicity' of eRO-QPE1 is not established. What is computed is a quasi-static sensitivity: Figures 1 and 4 show that Trec depends steeply on Mdot and beta1 to the right of the thresholds. To turn this into stochastic behavior one must specify what perturbs Mdot and beta1, with what amplitude and timescale, and show that the resulting Trec sequence statistically matches the observed eRO-QPE1 recurrences, including the erratic post-2022 behavior. No perturbation process, no fluctuation amplitude, and no statistical comparison (e.g., a KS test on recurrence times) are provided. The assignment of GSN 069 to the stable regime and eRO-QPE1 to the unstable regime is post hoc because neither Mdot nor beta1 is independently measured for these sources; the paper simply asserts 'moderately small beta1' for GSN 069 and 'high beta1, low Mdot' for eRO-QPE1.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (5)–(6), and §4] The thresholds and regime boundaries are computed within the one-zone approximation with a fixed unstable-zone width Delta R during each eruption. The paper itself states in Section 4 that this fixed-Delta R treatment prevents the model from reproducing the observed hysteresis loops and that the light-curve profiles have the wrong rise/decay asymmetry. Because the rapid Delta R response is identified in Section 3.1 as the driver of the Mdot_crit and beta1_crit transitions, a more complete treatment that lets Delta R evolve could change the threshold locations and slopes, and hence the stable/unstable classification of real sources. The authors should quantify how robust the thresholds are to relaxing the fixed-Delta R assumption, or at least explicitly frame the thresholds as provisional within the toy model.
  3. [§3.2, Figures 7 and 8] The claim that peak temperatures are 'nearly constant across the parameter space' is stronger than what Figures 7 and 8 show. In Figure 7, Tpeak varies by a substantial fraction of the plotted 0–0.15 keV ordinate range as Mdot changes, and Figure 8 shows a monotonic increase of Tpeak with beta1. The abstract and Section 5 state 'nearly constant' and 'relative stability,' but no quantitative tolerance or comparison with the observed ~0.1–0.2 keV scatter is given. The authors should define what 'stable' means quantitatively (e.g., a specified percentile range or a comparison with the observed temperature dispersion) and report the actual range of Tpeak across the parameter space.
  4. [§4, GSN 069 and eRO-QPE1 discussion] The interpretative discussion is largely unconstrained by independent measurements. For example, the claim that GSN 069's period stability during 2018–2020 'implies moderately small beta1' and the claim that eRO-QPE1 'most likely occupies the high beta1, low Mdot parameter space' are based on the model's regime structure, not on external constraints on the magnetic field strength or accretion rate. A reader cannot distinguish these statements from a circular use of the model. At minimum, the authors should state explicitly which observable, if any, could independently anchor Mdot and beta1 for a given source, or acknowledge that the source assignments are illustrative rather than tested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There are grammatical errors in the abstract: 'In our previous work, we developed... and successfully reproduced' should be 'In our previous work, we developed... and successfully reproduced,' and 'simultaneously accounting' should be 'simultaneously accounts.'
  2. [§2] The parameter C0 = 0.508/(1+beta1) is introduced in Appendix A without derivation; a sentence explaining its origin in the magnetic field configuration would help reproducibility.
  3. [Figures 1 and 4] The 'yellow diamonds' marking the critical values are not defined in the captions; please state whether they are computed from the model or simply located by inspection.
  4. [§3.1] The sentence 'a 10% reduction in accretion rate triggers approximately 50% contraction of the unstable region where magnetic torques govern angular momentum transport' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the 10% is relative to the fiducial value and whether the 50% refers to the width Delta R or to the radial extent of the magnetically dominated part.
  5. [§4] The discussion of the 2014 non-detection of GSN 069 uses a simultaneous 30% increase in Mdot and beta1 to produce a ~360% period increase, but the Appendix argues that coupled perturbations produce only linear period modulation. The relationship between these two statements should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The regular/stochastic explanation hinges on post-hoc parameter placement; thresholds themselves are computed independently.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Discussion), 'As an example of applying our model to the long-term evolution of QPEs...' and Section 5 (Conclusion)]
    "The observed period stability during 2018-2020 despite moderate ⁐dot{M} variations implies moderately small β1 values in GSN 069, permitting stability across a broad range of accretion rates. ... Our Figure 1 indicates eRO-QPE1 most likely occupies the high β1, low ⁐dot{M} parameter space where QPE periods remain highly sensitive to perturbations across nearly all accretion rates."

    The source placement that drives the claimed explanation is inferred from the very behavior being explained. GSN 069 is assigned to the stable regime because its periods are stable, and eRO-QPE1 to the unstable regime because its periods are erratic; the paper then 'successfully explains' the regular/stochastic dichotomy as a consequence of these assignments. No independent measurement of Mdot or beta1 for these sources is provided, so the model prediction reduces to a restatement of the chosen parameter placement. The thresholds themselves are computed from the model equations and are not circular, which is why this is only partial circularity.

full rationale

The central threshold analysis is not circular: Trec and Tpeak are computed from the stated one-zone disk equations by varying Mdot and beta1, and the thresholds (Mdot_crit, beta1_crit) emerge from the model rather than being fit to period data. The Tpeak stability result is a genuine model output and is compared to observations without tuning. The main circular element is the source application: GSN 069 is placed in the stable regime and eRO-QPE1 in the unstable regime using the very period behaviors the model is claimed to explain, with beta1 and Mdot for these sources inferred post hoc ('implies moderately small beta1', 'most likely occupies high beta1, low Mdot'). No independent measurement of these parameters is provided, so the 'successful explanation' of regular vs stochastic sources is largely a restatement of the chosen parameter assignment. The model is inherited from the authors' prior work (Pan et al. 2022), but that is an ordinary research continuation, not a circularity, since the prior equations are stated and the new threshold calculation is carried out here. The stochastic claim also goes beyond what is computed—sensitivity to perturbations is not a stochastic process—but that is an overclaim rather than a circular reduction.

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

The ledger lists the hand-picked model parameters and structural assumptions the central claim rests on. The paper itself is an extension of prior work by the same authors, so the key physical ingredients (magnetic field confinement, one-zone treatment) are carried over as assumptions. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • viscosity parameter alpha = 0.1
    Fixed at a fiducial value from prior work; the central thresholds depend on it but it is not derived in this paper.
  • viscous torque parameter mu = 0.15 (fiducial), 0.1 for eRO-QPE2-like models
    Controls whether viscous torque depends on total pressure; instability requires mu < 0.56. Chosen from prior work.
  • ISCO torque condition f = 0.9
    Boundary condition at the ISCO; chosen by hand following prior work.
  • black hole spin a = 0.98
    Chosen in the fiducial model; affects ISCO position and disk structure.
  • black hole mass M = 1e6 Msun fiducial; 1e5 and 4e5 Msun for short-period cases
    Set to match QPE host masses; input not fitted here.
  • magnetic torque normalization C0 = 0.508/(1+beta1)
    Assumed in the Appendix; determines magnetic torque strength and is carried from prior work.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The inner disk is radiation-pressure dominated and subject to thermal and secular instability (Shakura-Sunyaev instability criterion mu < 0.56).
    Basis of the limit-cycle model; invoked in Section 2 and Discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper A large-scale magnetic field confines the unstable region to a narrow belt of width ~0.1 Rs near the ISCO, and the one-zone approximation with fixed Delta R describes its evolution.
    Required to obtain QPE timescales; the paper acknowledges this is a simplified treatment (Sections 2 and 4).
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic torque Tm = C0 P R with C0 = 0.508/(1+beta1), and the angular momentum equations as given in Pan et al. 2022.
    The specific form of magnetic torque is assumed and carried over from prior work; the Appendix's perturbation analysis relies on it.
  • domain assumption Perturbations in Mdot and beta1 can be treated as independent in the scenarios considered; coupled perturbations yield negligible period modulation and are not the focus.
    Appendix A derives conditions for independence; the main results assume independent variations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disk Instability Model for Quasi-Periodic Eruptions: Investigating Period Dispersion and Peak Temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWOJHDZR

@misc{pith2026250711100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disk Instability Model for Quasi-Periodic Eruptions: Investigating Period Dispersion and Peak Temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWOJHDZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11100}
}
abstract

Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are a class of X-ray repeating burst phenomena discovered in recent years. Many models have been proposed to study this phenomenon, there remains significant debate regarding the physical origin of QPEs. In our previous work, we developed a disk instability model with a large-scale magnetic field and successfully reproduced the light curves and spectral characteristics of several QPE sources. We further investigate the model in this work, aiming to explain two key observational features: the dispersion in eruption periods and the peak temperatures during eruptions. The model reveals critical thresholds ($\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, $\beta_{1,\rm crit}$) that separate systems into stable regimes with minimal period variations and unstable regimes where periods are highly sensitive to accretion rate and magnetic field parameter, while peak temperatures remain nearly constant across the parameter space. This framework successfully explains both the regular eruptions observed in sources like GSN 069 and the stochastic behavior in sources like eRO-QPE1, and simultaneously accounting for the observed temperature stability during long-term QPEs evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Recurrence time as functions of accretion rate. The red line shows the fiducial model with β1 = 40, and the black line corresponds to β1 = 30. The yellow diamonds mark critical values M˙ crit in this relation: when M < ˙ M˙ crit recurrence time shows weak dependence on M˙ ; when M >˙ M˙ crit recurrence time become strongly M˙ depen￾dent. configurations (the similar behavior at both β1 = 30 and β1 = 40 in [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ratio of gas pressure to the sum of gas and radiation pressures, β2, as a function of radius. The red line shows the fiducial model (M˙ = 0.1M˙ Edd), while the green and black lines represent cases with modified accretion rates: M˙ = 0.09M˙ Edd and M˙ = 0.08M˙ Edd, respectively. The horizontal dashed line indicates the instability criterion (µ = 0.15), and the regions below this line are radiation pressure domin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The peak temperature of eruptions as a function of magnetic field parameter, where the fiducial parameters are adopted. Tpeak shows only a weak positive dependence on β1 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Numerically calculated ratio of radial velocities driven by viscous torque to magnetic torque as a function of radius, obtained using the model described in Section 2 with fiducial parameters. Here, we consider perturbations of three fundamental disk quantities: magnet…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  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]

    2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Ponti, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243259 2022

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  4. [4]

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

    Arcodia, R., Baldini, P., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.17138

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.17138 2025

  5. [5]

    Medvedev, P. S. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 30, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf686

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf686 2025

  6. [6]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 De Colle, F., Guillochon, J., Naiman, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 De Colle, F., Guillochon, J., Naiman, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 760, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/103

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

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

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    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

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 9

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 9

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

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

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, A&A, 692, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., Arcodia, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12762, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12762

    Guo, W., & Shen, R.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12762, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12762

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20148

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., Ingram, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20148

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    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 Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc456

    Jiang, N., & Pan, Z. 2025, ApJL, 983, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc456

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

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

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

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

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    Kosec, P., Kara, E., Brenneman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0372-1

    Lawrence, A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 102, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0372-1

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

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

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10096

    2025 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

    doi

  18. [26]

    2023b, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

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

    doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  27. [35]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/175.3.613

    1976 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Ferland, G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    W., Wang, S

    Shu, X. W., Wang, S. S., Dou, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 857, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaba17

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575 ´Sniegowska, M., Grz¸ edzielski, M., Czerny, B., & Janiuk, A

    Sniegowska, M., Czerny, B., Bon, E., & Bon, N. 2020, A&A, 641, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038575 ´Sniegowska, M., Grz¸ edzielski, M., Czerny, B., & Janiuk, A. 2023, A&A, 672, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    Arcodia, R. 2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Zabludoff, A

    Wevers, T., French, K. D., Zabludoff, A. I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/79

    Wu, Q., Czerny, B., Grzedzielski, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/79

    2016 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]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05517, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05517

    Xu, W.-L., Wang, H.-H., Chen, Y.-G., Li, Y.-Z., & Lei, W.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05517, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05517

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Z., & Quataert, E

    Yao, P. Z., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10611, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10611

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07362, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07362

    Yuan, W., Dai, L., Feng, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07362, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07362

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    2024b, PhRvD, 110, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019 10 APPENDIX A

    Zhou, C., Zhong, B., Zeng, Y., Huang, L., & Pan, Z. 2024b, PhRvD, 110, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019 10 APPENDIX A. DEPENDENCE BETWEEN ˙M AND β1 PERTURBATIONS The modeled variations in recurrence time and peak temperature with respect to accretion rate and magnetic ...

    doi

Pith tools

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