Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Torus Remnant Revealed by the Infrared Echo of Tidal Disruption Event AT 2019qiz: Implications for the Missing Energy and Quasiperiodic Eruption Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The infrared echo of tidal disruption event AT 2019qiz is best explained by dust in a thin torus with inner radius greater than 1.2 parsecs, implying a remnant of a recently faded active galactic nucleus and revealing that most of the…

desk verdict AT 2019qiz's IR echo is a real parsec-scale story, but the R > 1.2 pc headline is an artifact of a shaky top-1% cutoff; the robust geometric floor is 0.68 pc, and the central conclusions survive in weakened form. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13251 v3 pith:T5I3IAYN submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.HE

Mingxin Wu , Ning Jiang , Jiazheng Zhu , Di Luo , Liming Dou , Tinggui Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsinfraredechoesAGNtorusquasi-periodiceruptionsmissingenergydustreverberationAT2019qizextremeultraviolet
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

AT 2019qiz is a tidal disruption event—a star torn apart by a supermassive black hole—and the first ordinary optical example with detected X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions. Its mid-infrared light curve, from nine epochs of WISE data, rises slowly for years and then plateaus while the dust temperature stays nearly constant. The paper argues this pattern is a geometric light-travel-time echo from a thin dust torus, and fitting the last five epochs yields an inner radius greater than 1.2 parsecs—far beyond the roughly 0.1 parsec sublimation radius expected for a $\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$ black hole. That places the dust in a remnant of a recently faded active galactic nucleus, supporting a unified picture in which faded AGNs produce both TDEs and QPEs. The same echo, treated as a bolometer, requires a peak flare luminosity above $6.6\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for silicate dust, far above the observed optical-UV peak, implying the missing energy was radiated in the extreme ultraviolet.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a light-travel-time echo model of a thin, inclined dust torus. The flare is treated as a delta function in time, and the delay $\tau = (R/c)(1-\cos\theta')$ controls which parts of the torus the observer sees illuminated at each epoch; as time passes, the iso-delay surface sweeps out an ever larger area of the torus, producing a slow rise and then a plateau. The observed flux is computed from the intersection area of the torus with the iso-delay surface, the Planck function at the measured dust temperature, and the grain absorption efficiency. With the temperature fixed by the W1/W2 color, the free parameters are the surface density, the inclination angle $\alpha$, the half-opening angle $\beta$, and the inner radius $R$, and the last five epochs are fitted with Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling to give the $R > 1.2\,\mathrm{pc}$ lower limit and the required bolometric luminosity.

What would settle it

If the mid-infrared light curve can be caught in decline, the turnover time gives an independent measure of the inner radius: for $R\sim1.2\,\mathrm{pc}$ the model predicts the plateau will end roughly four years after the flare, so a much earlier or much later turnover would falsify the fitted torus geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the unusually long infrared rise of AT 2019qiz is the echo of the optical/ultraviolet flare from a well-defined dust structure rather than a slowly brightening source. Modeling the last five epochs, during which the dust temperature is constant, with a thin, inclined torus gives a lower limit on the torus inner radius of $R \gtrsim 1.2\,\mathrm{pc}$, consistent across silicate, silicon carbide, and graphite grains, with a hard light-travel-time floor of $0.68\,\mathrm{pc}$. For a $\sim10^6\,M_\odot$ black hole the usual dust sublimation radius is at most $\sim0.1\,\mathrm{pc}$, so the dust must be a leftover, or remnant, of a torus whose inner part has disappeared after the AGN faded. The same model demands a peak bolometric luminosity of at least $6.6\times10^{44}$, $9.5\times10^{44}$, and $1.0\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for silicate, silicon carbide, and graphite grains respectively, all well above the $2.7\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ optical-UV blackbody peak—so most of the flare's energy was emitted in the extreme-ultraviolet band that the echo reprocesses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the slow infrared rise is purely a geometric light-travel-time echo from a thin dust ring at a single constant temperature, with the optical/ultraviolet flare treated as an instantaneous pulse; if the heating source itself brightened gradually over years, or the emitting dust spans a range of radii and temperatures, the inferred 1.2 parsec inner radius would be too large, although the 0.68 parsec light-travel floor is more robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the torus remnant interpretation is right, AT 2019qiz shows that dusty tori survive for roughly $10^4$ years after an AGN switches off, with the inner dust falling inward and disappearing faster than the outer dust.
  • The echo-based peak luminosity lower limit ($\gtrsim6.6\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for silicate dust) makes the peak of AT 2019qiz super-Eddington, with most energy hidden in the extreme ultraviolet, supporting the missing-energy solution for TDEs.
  • Because the only two optical TDEs with detected QPEs—AT 2019qiz and AT2022upj—are both infrared-bright with parsec-scale dust, the paper predicts that QPEs should preferentially follow IR-bright TDEs, and that monitoring such TDEs at X-ray wavelengths is an efficient way to find new QPEs.
  • The early infrared bump and the declining dust temperature in the first four epochs point to an additional dust component inside the torus, possibly along the line of sight, that the thin-ring model does not include.
  • Future mid-infrared observations of the decline phase, with NEO Surveyor or Roman, will turn the current lower limit on the inner radius into a precise measurement and constrain the opening angle and inclination.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same light-travel-time reasoning could be applied to other slowly rising IR-bright TDEs to infer parsec-scale dust radii; if several show radii well beyond the sublimation radius, the recently faded AGN population would be established as common rather than exceptional.
  • If the missing extreme-ultraviolet energy is real, then optical-UV blackbody fits systematically underestimate TDE bolometric luminosities, which would shift TDE rates, Eddington ratios, and the luminosity function, implying that many apparently sub-Eddington TDEs are actually super-Eddington.
  • A testable extension is to search for extended emission-line regions and other faded-AGN signatures in the hosts of IR-bright TDEs; finding them in a larger sample would tie the torus remnant directly to the TDE/QPE sequence.
  • If the infrared echo peaks long after the optical flare, archival surveys such as WISE can be used retrospectively to identify TDEs that occurred before optical surveys caught them, effectively extending the TDE census.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the WISE/NEOWISE mid-infrared light curve of the tidal disruption event AT 2019qiz. The IR emission rises steadily for ~4 years and then plateaus, with a roughly constant dust temperature over the last five epochs. The authors construct a thin, inclined dust torus model and fit the last five epochs to infer an inner torus radius R > 1.2 pc. They interpret this large radius as a remnant of a recently faded AGN torus, connecting the source to the broader TDE-QPE unified scenario. They further use the dust echo to derive lower limits on the peak bolometric luminosity of the TDE, finding values (6.6, 9.5, 1.0) × 10^44 erg/s for silicate, SiC, and graphite grains, respectively, all much larger than the observed optical-UV peak, which they attribute to missing EUV energy. The paper also argues that IR-bright TDEs are preferential hosts for QPEs, citing AT2022upj and SDSSJ1335+0728.

Significance. If the large inner radius is robust, this work provides a new piece of evidence for the existence of parsec-scale torus remnants around recently faded AGNs and strengthens the proposed link between IR-bright TDEs and QPEs. The geometric lower-limit argument (R > 0.68 pc, Eq. 4) is simple, transparent, and independent of the detailed dust model, and it already places the echoing dust far outside the ~0.1 pc sublimation radius expected for a 10^6 M_sun black hole. The missing-energy interpretation is also timely and important. The paper is clearly written and makes explicit the degeneracy in its model. However, the headline quantitative claim of R > 1.2 pc rests on a non-standard statistical procedure that, as the authors themselves state in §3.2, is 'not used for uncertainty estimation' but then is used to define a 'lower limitation'. This undermines the precision of the central claim and needs to be fixed with a proper profile-likelihood or posterior-based interval.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] The quoted lower limit R > 1.2 pc is not a statistically valid confidence bound. The authors select the top 1% of posterior samples by likelihood and take the minimum R among them, explicitly discarding the 90% credible interval because it contains low-likelihood samples. This conditions on good fits and ignores posterior mass, so it is neither a frequentist confidence interval nor a Bayesian credible interval. Given the acknowledged degeneracy among R, α, β, and σ_d (the text compares the situation to 'two equations ... for three unknowns'), the correct procedure is to compute a profile likelihood in R, maximizing over the other parameters, and then derive a likelihood-ratio-based lower limit. The paper should report this profile and the resulting confidence bound, and should also state what fraction of the posterior mass lies below 1.2 pc. If the profile-likelihood lower limit is closer to the geometric floor of 0.68 pc (Eq. 4), the headline claim '>1.2 pc' must be revised.
  2. [§3.1] The prolonged IR rise is modeled assuming the OUV flare is a delta function, the torus is geometrically thin, and the dust temperature is constant over the fitted epochs. The early bump and the decreasing temperature over the first four epochs are excluded from the fit. These assumptions can bias the inferred radius upward: if the heating source itself brightens over years, or if the emitting dust spans a range of radii and temperatures, the light-travel-time interpretation of the rise is not unique. The robust model-independent result is R_min = c(t_max - t_peak)/2 = 0.68 pc (Eq. 4), which does not rely on these assumptions. To support the specific claim R > 1.2 pc, the authors should demonstrate robustness by convolving the actual OUV light curve (e.g., Hammerstein et al. 2023) with the echo model and by testing a radial dust distribution with a temperature gradient. At minimum, a finite-width pulse test should be shown.
  3. [§4.2] The peak bolometric lower limits are derived from Eq. (15) using R = 1.2 pc and therefore inherit the statistical uncertainty of the R estimate. Since the grain equilibrium condition gives L_bol ∝ R² at fixed dust temperature and composition, reducing the lower limit from 1.2 pc to 0.68 pc would lower the quoted L_peak values by a factor of about 0.32. This would still leave the silicate and SiC limits above the observed OUV peak of 2.7×10^43 erg/s, so the missing-energy conclusion may survive, but the quantitative claim changes materially. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis of L_peak as a function of R and clearly distinguish the pulse luminosity L_pulse computed from Eq. (15) from the actual peak luminosity; the sentence 'the peak bolometric luminosity Lpeak ~ 1.4 Lpeak' is self-referential and should read L_peak ≈ 1.4 L_pulse.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'resulting in an inner radius >1.2 pc' without mentioning that this is a model-dependent lower limit based on the last five epochs and a non-standard statistical selection; the model-independent geometric limit is 0.68 pc and should be cited as the firm floor.
  2. [§3.2] The sentence 'The posterior samples are well within the prior boundaries and are sufficiently distant from the edges' is misleading because Rmin is the lower boundary of the prior; the authors should specify that the top-1% selected samples are not at this edge.
  3. [Figure 5] The shaded bands in Figure 5 show the spread of the top-1% high-likelihood samples, not the posterior predictive distribution; the caption should state this explicitly to avoid misinterpretation.
  4. [Table 1] The table headers use 'lower limitation' and 'upper limitation'; these should be 'lower limit' and 'upper limit', and column (4) 'logσ_d max' should be clarified as the upper limit on the surface density from the same top-1% selection.
  5. [Equation (16)] The notation in Eq. (16) and the surrounding text is confusing: 'Lpeak' is used for both the pulse luminosity from Eq. (15) and the true peak luminosity, leading to the self-referential 'Lpeak ~ 1.4 Lpeak'. Use two distinct symbols, e.g., L_pulse and L_peak.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the torus radius and bolometric luminosity are inferred from light-travel-time geometry and energy balance, not from the model inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. Dust temperatures are measured directly from the W1/W2 color ratio via Eq. (1); the inner radius is constrained by light-travel-time geometry (Eqs. 2-4) and by the fitted torus geometry (Eq. 9); and the bolometric luminosity is then derived from energy balance (Eq. 15) using the fitted radius and the measured dust temperature, rather than being a fitted parameter. The self-citations to Dou et al. (2017) and Jiang et al. (2025) are methodological precedents for the dust-echo model, not unique or load-bearing justifications, and the EELR evidence from Xiong et al. (2025) is independent observational support. The paper itself acknowledges the alpha-beta-R degeneracy and explicitly states that its lower limit is taken from high-likelihood samples; that is a statistical robustness concern, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to an input assumption. The missing-energy claim depends on stated model assumptions (delta-function OUV pulse, single-temperature thin torus), but those assumptions do not reappear as the derived output, so no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central claims rely on a small set of modeling assumptions: a delta-function heating pulse, a thin torus geometry, single-composition and single-size dust grains, and constant temperature in the fitted epochs. The model parameters R, alpha, beta, and sigma_d are free and fitted to the same light curve used for the physical interpretation.

free parameters (4)
  • R (inner radius of torus) = lower limit ~1.17-1.18 pc
    Fitted to the W1/W2 light curve shape; the model has a degeneracy with alpha and beta, and the reported lower limit is from the top 1% highest-likelihood posterior samples.
  • alpha (angle between torus axis and line of sight) = upper limit ~26 degrees
    Fitted to the light curve; poorly constrained without decline-phase data.
  • beta (half-opening angle of torus) = upper limit ~56 degrees
    Fitted to the light curve; relates to covering factor fc = cos(beta) ~ 0.56.
  • sigma_d (dust surface density) = log sigma_d ~ 10.5-17.4 depending on grain type and size
    Normalization of the model flux; absorbs uncertainties in grain properties and distance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The OUV flare is treated as a delta function in time.
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive the time-delay mapping; if the heating flux varies on timescales comparable to R/c, the inferred radius is biased.
  • domain assumption The dust is a thin, uniform torus with a single inner radius R and half-opening angle beta.
    Geometry adopted from Dou et al. (2017); assumes the last five epochs are dominated by the inner edge.
  • domain assumption Dust grains are spherical, single-composition, single-size, with Qabs from Laor and Draine (1993).
    Used to derive dust temperature from W1/W2 color (Equation 1) and to compute the bolometric luminosity (Equation 15).
  • domain assumption The dust is optically thin to its own infrared emission and reaches thermal equilibrium instantly.
    Invoked in Section 4.2; supported by a JWST study of IR-selected TDEs and a short thermal timescale, but not directly verified for this object.
  • domain assumption The last five epochs have constant dust temperature and are fit without the early bump.
    This selection is justified by the observed constancy of the W1-W2 color, but it is a post-hoc choice that affects the fitted geometry.
  • domain assumption The spectral shape of the heating radiation is the OUV blackbody from Hammerstein et al. (2023).
    If the TDE SED has a strong EUV component or different shape, the conversion from observed dust temperature to L_bol changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Torus Remnant Revealed by the Infrared Echo of Tidal Disruption Event AT 2019qiz: Implications for the Missing Energy and Quasiperiodic Eruption Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5I3IAYN

@misc{pith2026250713251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Torus Remnant Revealed by the Infrared Echo of Tidal Disruption Event AT 2019qiz: Implications for the Missing Energy and Quasiperiodic Eruption Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5I3IAYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13251}
}
abstract

AT 2019qiz is the first standard optical tidal disruption event (TDE) with detection of X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs), providing strong evidence for TDE-QPE association. Moreover, it belongs to the rare subset of optical TDEs with prominent infrared (IR) echoes revealed by the multi-epoch photometry from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). The IR light curve shows an early bump, followed by a steady rise until the second-to-last epoch, after which it appears to enter a plateau phase. The dust temperature decreased until the fourth epoch and remains approximately constant for the subsequent five epochs. We have fitted the last five epochs using a convex dust ring model, resulting in an inner radius $>1.2$pc. Such a large radius greatly exceeds the inner radius of the active galactic nuclei (AGN) torus for a $10^6\,M_{\odot}$ black hole and thus could be a torus remnant with the inner part having vanished, further supporting the unified scenario of recently faded AGNs, TDEs, and QPEs. Consequently, a connection between QPEs and IR-bright TDEs is naturally expected. Moreover, the echo requires at least a peak bolometric luminosity of $(6.6, 9.5, 1.0)\times 10^{44} \,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}$ assuming silicate, silicon carbide, and graphite dust grains, respectively, all of which are significantly higher than the peak optical blackbody luminosity. It adds to the accumulating evidence that the missing energy of TDEs may lie in the unobservable extreme UV. This work highlights the unique value of IR echoes in the study of TDEs and QPEs, and a promising prospect in the era of the Near-Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor, the successor to WISE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The multiwavelength light curve of AT 2019qiz. The Swift/UVOT and ZTF photometry is denoted by dots in different colors, and the WISE photometry by squares. All magnitudes are in the AB magnitude system, except for WISE, which uses the Vega magnitude system. dust in the vicinity of SMBHs (Lu et al. 2016; Jiang et al. 2016; van Velzen et al. 2016). A sample study suggests that the IR echoes of vast majority of optica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic picture of the dust echo model. The central SMBH and dusty torus are shown in purple and red, respectively. The dashed parabolas illustrate the iso-delay surface at lags of 400, 800, 1200, 1600, and 2000 days, respectively. not significant when considering errors, so we ignore it in our following analysis. Throughout the entire period of IR detection, the dust temperature remains below the sublima￾tion tem… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of Si dust echo model parameters for AT 2019qiz. The values and errors above the plots correspond to the 15.87%, 50%, and 84.13% quantile values of the posterior samples of the parameters, and the black dashed lines show the locations of these values i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of simulated and observed IR light curves of AT 2019qiz. The blue and red dots denote the observational mag￾nitude of W1 and W2, respectively. The shaded blue and red areas denote the spread of simulated light curve of the top 1% of posterior samples with th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dust luminosity evolution of QPE-associated TDE AT 2019qiz, AT2022upj and TDE candidate SDSSJ1335+0728. The dust luminosity is derived in the same way as Jiang et al. (2021a), assuming silicate grains with a size distribution of N(a) ∝ a −3.5 and taking into accoun…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Uncertainty-Aware Tidal Disruption Event Classification : A Host-Agnostic Probabilistic Random Forest Approach

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Uncertainty-aware Probabilistic Random Forest on 11 photometric light-curve features classifies TDEs without host data more stably than XGBoost and recovers 14 new candidates from ZTF.

  2. Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals in Light of Quasi-periodic Eruptions: Milli-Hertz Gravitational Wave Background

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    QPE observations yield EMRI rates of 2.88e-6 (stellar) and 6.07e-6 (black hole) per galaxy per year, with only black hole EMRIs potentially exceeding LISA sensitivity in the 1-10 mHz band.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 Balokovi´c, M., Brightman, M., Harrison, F

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 Balokovi´c, M., Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7eb

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

  2. [2]

    Beckert, T., & Duschl, W. J. 2004, A&A, 426, 445, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040336

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040336 2004

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 2025

  4. [4]

    Chan, C.-H., & Krolik, J. H. 2016, ApJ, 825, 67, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/67

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/67 2016

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJL, 841, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7130

    Dou, L., Wang, T., Yan, L., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7130

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7130 2017

  6. [6]

    Elitzur, M., & Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJL, 701, L91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/l91 2009

  7. [7]

    2006, ApJL, 648, L101, doi: 10.1086/508158

    Elitzur, M., & Shlosman, I. 2006, ApJL, 648, L101, doi: 10.1086/508158

    doi:10.1086/508158 2006

  8. [8]

    T., Blandford, R

    Emmering, R. T., Blandford, R. D., & Shlosman, I. 1992, ApJ, 385, 460, doi: 10.1086/170955

    doi:10.1086/170955 1992

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    J., Eracleous, M., Haggard, D., & Runnoe, J

    Gilbert, O., Ruan, J. J., Eracleous, M., Haggard, D., & Runnoe, J. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10486, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10486

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    T., & Morris, S

    Hamann, F., Korista, K. T., & Morris, S. L. 1993, ApJ, 415, 541, doi: 10.1086/173185

    1993 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw289

    Murray, N. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw289

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Kim, W.-T., et al

    Hsieh, P.-Y ., Koch, P. M., Kim, W.-T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4cd

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJL, 828, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L14

    Jiang, N., Dou, L., Wang, T., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L14

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJL, 980, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaeb9

    2025 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]

    2021a, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Hu, X., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    doi

  12. [20]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Mou, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2021b, ApJS, 252, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Dou, L., et al. 2021b, ApJS, 252, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    doi

  14. [22]

    2007, A&A, 470, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066068

    Karas, V ., & Šubr, L. 2007, A&A, 470, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066068

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    Kaur, K., & Stone, N. C. 2025, ApJ, 979, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b86

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Meiron, Y ., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al

    Kennedy, G. F., Meiron, Y ., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw908

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Konigl, A., & Kartje, J. F. 1994, ApJ, 434, 446, doi: 10.1086/174746

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/159

    Koshida, S., Minezaki, T., Yoshii, Y ., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/159

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Krolik, J. H. 2007, ApJ, 661, 52, doi: 10.1086/515432

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    H., & Begelman, M

    Krolik, J. H., & Begelman, M. C. 1988, ApJ, 329, 702, doi: 10.1086/166414

    1988 doi

  21. [29]

    Laor, A., & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441, doi: 10.1086/172149

    1993 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Stacey, G

    Latvakoski, H. M., Stacey, G. J., Gull, G. E., & Hayward, T. L. 1999, ApJ, 511, 761, doi: 10.1086/306689

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Herter, T

    Lau, R. M., Herter, T. L., Morris, M. R., Becklin, E. E., & Adams, J. D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/37

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Kong, X., et al. 2022, ApJL, 939, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

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

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54a

    Lu, W., & Kumar, P. 2018, ApJ, 865, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54a

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Evans, N. J. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw307

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    H., & Smith, P

    Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Smith, P. S. 2019, ApJ, 886, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab481d

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2007, A&A, 468, 979, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077252

    Maiolino, R., Shemmer, O., Imanishi, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 979, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077252

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb —

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08647

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 298, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/298

    Mor, R., Netzer, H., & Elitzur, M. 2009, ApJ, 705, 298, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/298

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, A&A, 695, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451340

    Necker, J., Graikou, E., Kowalski, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451340

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    A., et al

    Newsome, M., Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a69

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2824 18 WU ET AL

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103018

    Pan, Z., & Yang, H. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103018

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Coughlin, E., van Velzen, S., & Hinkle, J

    Pasham, D. R., Coughlin, E., van Velzen, S., & Hinkle, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12078

    2025 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2023, A&A, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    Petrushevska, T., Leloudas, G., Ili´c, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244623

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

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

    1988 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Mattila, S., Efstathiou, A., et al

    Reynolds, T. M., Mattila, S., Efstathiou, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243289

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Lawrence, A., Elvis, M., et al

    Roseboom, I. G., Lawrence, A., Elvis, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts441 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Hernández-García, L., Bernal, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347957

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, MNRAS, 393, 759, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14220.x

    Schartmann, M., Meisenheimer, K., Klahr, H., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 759, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14220.x

    2009

  47. [55]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2270

    Short, P., Lawrence, A., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2270

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 2288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw444

    Stalevski, M., Ricci, C., Ueda, Y ., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw444

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    2006, ApJ, 639, 46, doi: 10.1086/499326

    Suganuma, M., Yoshii, Y ., Kobayashi, Y ., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 46, doi: 10.1086/499326

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Jiang, Y .-F., & White, C

    Tuna, S., Metzger, B. D., Jiang, Y .-F., & White, C. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13157, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13157 van Velzen, S., Mendez, A. J., Krolik, J. H., & Gorjian, V . 2016, ApJ, 829, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/19

    2025 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/66 —

    Wada, K. 2012, ApJ, 758, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/66 —. 2015, ApJ, 812, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/82

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    Wada, K., & Norman, C. A. 2002, ApJL, 566, L21, doi: 10.1086/339438

    2002 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb

    Wang, M., Ma, Y ., Wu, Q., & Jiang, N. 2024, ApJ, 960, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670

    Wang, Y ., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Wevers, T., & French, K. D. 2024, ApJL, 969, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5725

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Jalan, P., Rakshit, S., & Arcodia, R

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., Jalan, P., Rakshit, S., & Arcodia, R. 2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    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

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab17d5

    Williamson, D., Hönig, S., & Venanzi, M. 2019, ApJ, 876, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab17d5

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  61. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19722

    Xiong, Y ., Jiang, N., Pan, Z., Hao, L., & Li, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19722. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19722

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y ., Ravi, V ., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a9

    Yuan, C., Winter, W., & Lunardini, C. 2024, ApJ, 969, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a9

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    2024a, Phys

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

    doi

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    2024b, Phys

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

    doi

Pith tools

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