Can Quasi-periodic Eruptions Produce Detectable High Energy Neutrinos?

Kai Wang; Zhi-Peng Ma

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Can Quasi-periodic Eruptions Produce Detectable High Energy Neutrinos?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper asks whether quasi-periodic eruptions from star–disk collisions can accelerate protons and emit detectable high-energy neutrinos, and calculates that they cannot with current instruments unless the source is within a few megaparse

desk verdict Solid, honest paper: QPEs are basically neutrino-quiet for IceCube, but the quoted fluences rest on a cooling-phase assumption the authors themselves flag as violated at characteristic parameters—still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03904 v1 pith:ZZZB2ST6 submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.HE

Zhi-peng Ma , Kai Wang This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords quasi-periodiceruptionshigh-energyneutrinosstar–diskcollisionsshockbreakoutprotonaccelerationIceCubediffuseneutrinobackgroundaccretiondisks

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 develops a method that turns observed QPE properties—peak luminosity, flare duration, and recurrence period—into constraints on the star's orbit and the accretion disk it crosses, without assuming a specific disk model. Feeding ten known QPE sources into this machinery, the authors compute neutrino production from proton–proton and proton–photon interactions during shock breakout. They find protons reach tens of TeV but the neutrino output is concentrated below roughly 10 TeV, with ten-year fluences of 7×10⁻⁷ to 1.5×10⁻⁴ GeV cm⁻². At these levels, IceCube and IceCube-Gen2 would expect only 10⁻⁷ to 10⁻³ muon-neutrino events per source over ten years; only a source closer than a few megaparsecs could yield about one event. If correct, individual QPEs are not detectable neutrino sources today, and the total QPE population contributes negligibly to the diffuse neutrino background.

What carries the argument

The engine is an observable-only inversion: Eqs. (7) and (8) convert a source's peak luminosity, flare duration, and recurrence period into the disk breakout height (hence disk scale height) and disk density, under the assumption that the flare is cooling emission from optically thick ejecta with electron-scattering opacity. A constraint pair, Eqs. (12) and (13), requires the breakout luminosity to stay below the observed peak and the breakout timescale to be shorter than the flare duration, which selects the allowed stellar orbital parameters: eccentricity factor fe, crossing angle θ⋆, and stellar radius R⋆. With disk density and breakout duration set, proton acceleration is treated as a co

What would settle it

A high-cadence, multi-band light curve of a bright QPE that separates the breakout spike from the cooling tail would settle it: the model requires breakout luminosity to stay below the observed peak and the breakout timescale to be shorter than the flare duration. If the breakout component carries most of the flare energy instead, Eqs. (7) and (8) no longer give the disk density, and the neutrino fluence re-scales by orders of magnitude in either direction; likewise, a single muon neutrino from any QPE beyond a few megaparsecs within ten years would overturn the null result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using only observed QPE luminosities, durations, and recurrence times, the authors derive the star's crossing speed, the disk scale height, and the disk density from a cooling-phase model of the flare ejecta. They then treat shock breakout as the site of proton acceleration, with neutrino production dominated by pp interactions plus subdominant pγ and pair-production losses during the short breakout dynamical timescale. Applying this to ten sources, they find maximum proton energies of several tens of TeV, neutrino production mostly below 10 TeV, and optimized ten-year neutrino fluences between 7.0×10⁻⁷ and 1.5×10⁻⁴ GeV cm⁻². The expected muon-neutrino counts for IceCube and IceCube-Gen2 are

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference chain rests on the assumption, stated in Section II A, that most observed QPE radiation is cooling-phase emission from optically thick, electron-scattering-dominated ejecta; the authors themselves note that breakout energy can rival cooling energy at characteristic parameters, and if breakout emission dominates, the inferred disk densities and neutrino fluences shift by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

No known QPE source will produce a detectable neutrino signal for IceCube or IceCube-Gen2 over a ten-year exposure; the largest expected count is about 1.7×10⁻⁴ muon neutrinos.
Neutrino detection from QPEs becomes plausible only within a few megaparsecs—about 1.4 Mpc for IceCube and 4 Mpc for IceCube-Gen2 for an Ansky-like source.
QPE neutrinos would appear as a cumulative, decade-long signal peaking below 10 TeV, in contrast to TDE-associated neutrinos that peak near 100 TeV and arrive as short flares.
The QPE population's combined contribution to the TeV–PeV diffuse neutrino background is negligible, roughly 10⁻¹² to 10⁻¹⁰ GeV cm⁻² s⁻¹ sr⁻¹, far below the observed diffuse flux.
Improved sensitivity below about 1 TeV in next-generation detectors is the stated route to capturing the total neutrino signal from the QPE population.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: The neutrino-optimistic parameter choices imply every promising source has a highly eccentric orbit (fe < 1) and a large crossing angle (θ⋆ near 70°–89°). If future orbital modeling finds low eccentricity or near-planar crossings, that branch of parameter space—and the few-megaparsec detectability hope—would be disfavored without needing neutrino data.
Inference: A stacking analysis that co-adds neutrino fluences over all known QPEs would not push the expected count above roughly 10⁻³ events with current effective areas, but the paper's per-source fluence table makes the same stacking immediately testable for future sub-TeV instruments.
Inference: If the erupting companion is a stellar-mass black hole rather than a star, the interaction radius can scale inversely with relative velocity, so a slow encounter could boost the shock kinetic luminosity above the stellar case. The paper sketches this scaling but does not run it through the full neutrino calculation, leaving a concrete path toward a more optimistic outcome.
Inference: The predicted cutoff at tens of TeV and the spectral dip from pair-production losses are distinctive hadronic signatures. A future sub-TeV neutrino telescope that finds QPE-like flares in spatial and temporal coincidence with known sources could therefore discriminate the star–disk collision model from competing disk-instability or mass-transfer models, which do not naturally produce ha

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First: this is a clean application of the star–disk shock framework to ten observed QPE sources, and it gives the first systematic per-source optimized neutrino fluence estimates in this framework, as far as the cited literature shows. The main conclusion—that individual QPEs are essentially undetectable in neutrinos with IceCube today and contribute negligibly to the diffuse background—is probably right.

What's new is the parameter inversion: they use observed L_QPE, t_QPE, and P_QPE to constrain stellar motion parameters and disk density/height without assuming a specific disk model, then compute pp and pγ neutrino production with acceleration limited by cooling. The analytic chain from Eqs. (3)–(13) is internally consistent, and Table II parameters satisfy the stated constraints. They are not fitting any neutrino data, so there is no circularity problem.

The honest soft spot is one the authors themselves point out in Sec. II B. The inversion assumes most observed QPE emission is cooling-phase radiation from optically thick spherical ejecta (Sec. II A). But in that same section they note that the breakout luminosity exceeds the observed peak and the breakout energy is comparable to the cooling energy at characteristic parameters. The constraints they impose—L_bo ≤ L_QPE and t_dyn < t_QPE—do not enforce E_bo < E_cool. In Table II, t_dyn can be a large fraction of t_QPE (GSN 069: ~1500 s vs 3600 s). When breakout contributes substantially, equating L_QPE and t_QPE with the cooling phase is invalid, so the inferred rho_d and H, and therefore L_p and the neutrino fluence, can shift by large factors. The paper has no energy-budget check (E_bo < E_cool) and propagates no uncertainties. The grid search maximizes fluence, so the quoted range 7×10^-7 to 1.5×10^-4 GeV cm^-2 is a conditional estimate, not a tight prediction.

None of this breaks the central claim. Even an order-of-magnitude change in fluence leaves event rates far below one per source for IceCube; the distance needed for one event remains a few Mpc. The qualitative conclusion is robust, but the specific numbers should not be used for observational targeting without re-examining the cooling assumption.

Who this is for: people doing multi-messenger targeting of TDE/QPE systems, and modelers estimating sub-TeV neutrino source populations. It is a solid, incremental contribution that deserves a serious referee. A referee should ask for an energy-budget condition or a two-component light-curve fit, plus error bars on Table II. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytic model to assess neutrino emission from quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) in the star–disk collision scenario. From observed flare luminosity, duration, and recurrence period, the authors infer stellar velocity, disk scale height, and disk density under the assumption that the observed flare is cooling emission from optically thick spherical ejecta (Sec. II A). They then assume collisionless-shock acceleration after breakout and compute pp and pγ neutrino production, constrained by L_bo ≤ L_QPE and t_dyn < t_QPE (Secs. II B and III). Applying the model to ten QPE sources, the optimized 10-yr all-flavor neutrino fluence is 7×10^-7–1.5×10^-4 GeV cm^-2, with proton energies up to tens of TeV and neutrino spectra peaking below ~10 TeV. Expected IceCube/Gen2 event counts are 10^-7–10^-4, implying individual QPEs are undetectable unless closer than a few Mpc; the diffuse contribution is likewise negligible.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful quantitative negative result for a proposed multimessenger channel. The paper is transparent: it does not fit neutrino data; the parameters are constrained from EM observables; the analytic chain is internally consistent; and the optimization and detector-response calculations are clearly laid out. The central conclusion (QPEs are not currently detectable in neutrinos) is likely robust, but the quantitative fluence range relies on an assumption the authors themselves flag as challenged in Sec. II B. A revision that enforces the cooling-phase energy budget and tests the sensitivity to the breakout/cooling partition would make the claim solid.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II B; Eqs. (12)-(13) and Table II] The constraints L_bo ≤ L_QPE and t_dyn < t_QPE do not enforce the cooling-dominated assumption used to derive Eqs. (7) and (8). The text itself states that breakout energy is comparable to cooling energy at characteristic parameters, and for the optimized GSN 069 solution (Table II) t_dyn ≈ 1.4×10^3 s ≈ 0.4 t_QPE while L_bo ≈ 0.8 L_QPE, giving E_bo/E_cool ≈ 0.6–0.8. In this regime the observed L_QPE and t_QPE cannot be attributed exclusively to the cooling phase. Because H and ρ_d (Eqs. 7–8) determine L_kin and the pp opacity, the neutrino fluence in Eq. (19) is conditional on a partition that is not verified. Please impose E_bo < E_cool or perform a two-component light-curve decomposition and recompute Table II.
[Sec. IV; Eq. (19) and Table II] The reported fluences are called 'optimized', but they are maxima within the cooling-dominated branch, not robust upper limits. If a fraction f of the observed flare energy is emitted in the breakout rather than the cooling phase, Eqs. (7) and (8) scale as H ∝ f^3 and ρ_d ∝ f^-3 for fixed observed L_QPE and t_QPE; the shock kinetic luminosity and proton luminosity then change as f^-3, and the timescales in Sec. III shift accordingly. The constraints (12)–(13) do not determine f. A sensitivity scan over f (or over the breakout/cooling energy ratio) is needed to show that the no-detection conclusion and the quoted fluence interval are stable. Without this, the numerical range in Table II is a conditional estimate rather than a robust upper limit.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II A] Duplicate word: 'We note that that the ejecta mass...' should be 'We note that the ejecta mass...'.
[Table II] List L_kin, t_dyn, and E_bo/E_cool for each optimized solution so that the constraints (12)–(13) and the cooling-dominated condition can be checked by the reader.
[Sec. IV] The description of the grid search ('systematically decrease these parameters, one at a time') is under-specified; give the grid step, boundary treatment, and a statement that the maximum is global.
[Eq. (21)] The diffuse flux formula appears to be missing a 1/(4π) factor and the units are not stated. Although the conclusion of a negligible diffuse contribution is unlikely to change, the expression should be corrected or clarified.
[Fig. 2 and Sec. V] Labels in Fig. 2 (right) should be expanded in the caption; and the text in Sec. V describing 'low inclination angle' is confusing given that the optimized θ⋆ values in Table II are large—clarify the angle convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino fluence is a model-based inversion from EM observables, not a refit of neutrino data or a self-citation-driven conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Observed QPE properties (L_QPE, t_QPE, P_QPE) are used as inputs to invert for ejecta mass, breakout height, and disk density through Eqs. (3), (5), (7), and (8), under an explicitly stated cooling-dominated assumption. The neutrino fluence in Eq. (19) then depends on the inferred shock kinetic luminosity and on independently computed cooling timescales, with no neutrino data fit anywhere. The free parameters (θ*, f_e, R*) are chosen by an openly described maximization subject to the inequalities Eqs. (12) and (13), so the quoted fluence is a conditional upper envelope rather than a disguised input; this is transparent optimization, not circularity. The admitted tension in Sec. II B, where breakout luminosity/energy can be comparable to the cooling component, is a model-consistency limitation that could change the inferred disk densities, but it does not reduce the prediction to its inputs by construction. Self-citations are present ([79] in a list of other disk-neutrino source studies) but are not load-bearing for the central claim. The result is also checked against external benchmarks (IceCube/DeepCore effective areas and the diffuse neutrino background), further confirming that the central prediction has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a single-scenario model: star-disk collisions. It uses observed L_QPE, t_QPE, and P_QPE as inputs to fix disk properties, but leaves stellar orbital parameters free and optimized. The neutrino output further assumes collisionless-shock acceleration, a 10% proton loading, and a 10-year active lifetime. These are the unpaid ingredients; none are validated by data inside the paper.

free parameters (4)

per-source stellar motion parameters (theta*, fe, R*) = theta* ~ 70-89 deg, fe ~ 0.15-1.3, R* ~ 1e11-6e11 cm (Table II)
Free variables chosen by grid search to maximize neutrino fluence subject to constraints (12) and (13); not independently measured.
proton luminosity fraction Lp/Lkin = 0.1
Assumed in Eq. (19); fluence scales linearly with this choice, which is uncertain by at least an order of magnitude.
magnetic field energy fraction epsilon_B = 0.01
Representative shocked-medium value from SNRs and GRB fits; controls Ep,max via t_acc and synchrotron cooling.
QPE active lifetime tau_QPE = 10 yr
Adopted based on uncertain observed QPE lifetimes; total fluence is integrated over this duration.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption QPE flares are produced by a stellar-mass object crossing a TDE-formed accretion disk (star-disk collision model).
Central premise of the paper; if disk-instability or mass-transfer models are correct, the shock acceleration picture does not apply. Invoked in Section I and Fig. 1.
domain assumption The star crosses the disk twice per orbit, so P_QPE = P_orb/2.
Used in Eq. (1) to convert recurrence period into stellar velocity; taken from prior QPE studies (Ref. 25).
domain assumption After shock breakout the shock becomes collisionless and accelerates protons; before breakout acceleration is suppressed.
Required for the existence of non-thermal protons; cited to Refs. 60-61, but not demonstrated for QPE disk-edge conditions.
domain assumption Most observed QPE radiation is emitted in the cooling phase of spherical, optically thick ejecta with Thomson opacity and a radiation-mediated shock compression ratio of 7.
Basis for Eqs. (3)-(8) that determine Mej, Hbo, and rho_d; the authors note in Section II B that breakout energy is comparable, challenging this assumption.
domain assumption The disk scale height equals the breakout height, H ~ Hbo.
Used to set disk geometry and the swept-up gas mass; stated in Section II A without an independent disk model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Quasi-periodic Eruptions Produce Detectable High Energy Neutrinos?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZZB2ST6

@misc{pith2026250903904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Quasi-periodic Eruptions Produce Detectable High Energy Neutrinos?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZZB2ST6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03904}
}

abstract

Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are a class of X-ray flaring phenomena that occur at the centers of galactic nuclei and are likely to arise from repeated interactions between a star and an accretion disk. This work investigates whether such disk-crossing events can accelerate protons and generate detectable high-energy neutrinos. Based on observed QPE luminosities, recurrence periods, and flare durations, the stellar motion parameters and the disk properties are evaluated. We consider proton acceleration during the breakout phase and evaluate neutrino production, accounting for both $pp$ and $p\gamma$ interactions. Applying the method to ten observed QPE sources, we estimate the neutrino fluence accumulated over a 10-year observation period and compute the corresponding detection numbers for IceCube and IceCube-Gen2. Our analysis indicates that protons can be accelerated up to several tens of TeV, and neutrino production is mostly confined below $\sim 10~\mathrm{TeV}$. The resulting optimized neutrino fluence spans from $ 7.0 \times 10^{-7} $ to $1.5 \times 10^{-4}~\mathrm{GeV~cm^{-2}}$ for these ten QPE sources. We find that the expected neutrino detection number for a single QPE source is low, and the expected neutrino detection number would approach unity only for the most promising QPE source occurring at a distance closer than a few Mpc. Next-generation neutrino telescopes with better detection sensitivities at $\lesssim \rm TeV$ can significantly improve the capture capacity of the cumulative neutrino signal from the QPE population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03904 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** shows the neutrino energy fluence accumulated over 10-year QPE duration—for various combinations of fe and θ⋆, assuming Mbh = 106M⊙, DL = 100 Mpc, R⋆ = 1011 cm, LQPE = 1042 erg s−1 , tQPE = 0.5 h, and PQPE = 10 h. To satisfy Eqs. (12) and (13), it is necessary that fe < 1 in all cases, corresponding to a high orbital eccentricity of the star. In general, for fixed fe, a larger θ⋆ yields a higher neutrino fluence, a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The optimized all-flavor neutrino fluence from ten QPE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Estimated contribution to the diffuse neutrino background. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

[1]

Miniutti, M

G. Miniutti, M. Giustini, R. Arcodia, R. D. Saxton, J. Chakraborty, A. Read, and E. Kara, Astronomy & Astro- physics 674, L1 (2023)

2023
[2]

Giustini, G

M. Giustini, G. Miniutti, and R. D. Saxton, Astronomy & As- trophysics 636, L2 (2020)

2020
[3]

Chakraborty, E

J. Chakraborty, E. Kara, M. Masterson, M. Giustini, G. Mini- utti, and R. Saxton, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L40 (2021)

2021
[5]

Quintin, N

E. Quintin, N. A. Webb, S. Guillot, G. Miniutti, E. Kammoun, M. Giustini, R. Arcodia, G. Soucail, N. Clerc, R. Amato, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 675, A152 (2023)

2023
[6]

Nicholl, D

M. Nicholl, D. Pasham, A. Mummery, M. Guolo, K. Gen- dreau, G. Dewangan, E. Ferrara, R. Remillard, C. Bonnerot, J. Chakraborty, et al., Nature 634, 804 (2024)

2024
[7]

van Velzen, N

S. van Velzen, N. C. Stone, B. D. Metzger, S. Gezari, T. M. Brown, and A. S. Fruchter, The Astrophysical Journal 878, 82 (2019)

2019
[8]

Mummery, S

A. Mummery, S. van Velzen, E. Nathan, A. Ingram, E. Ham- merstein, L. Fraser-Taliente, and S. Balbus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 2452 (2024)

2024
[9]

Pan, S.-L

X. Pan, S.-L. Li, X. Cao, G. Miniutti, and M. Gu, The Astro- physical Journal Letters 928, L18 (2022)

2022

Show all 91 references

[10]

Pan, S.-L

X. Pan, S.-L. Li, and X. Cao, The Astrophysical Journal 952, 32 (2023)

2023
[11]

K. Kaur, N. C. Stone, and S. Gilbaum, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524, 1269 (2023)

2023
[12]

´Sniegowska, M

M. ´Sniegowska, M. Grzedzielski, B. Czerny, and A. Janiuk, As- tronomy & Astrophysics 672, A19 (2023)

2023
[13]

Raj and C

A. Raj and C. Nixon, The Astrophysical Journal909, 82 (2021)

2021
[14]

King, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 493, L120 (2020)

A. King, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 493, L120 (2020)

2020
[15]

Z. Zhao, Y . Wang, Y . Zou, F. Wang, and Z. Dai, Astronomy & Astrophysics 661, A55 (2022)

2022
[16]

J. H. Krolik and I. Linial, The Astrophysical Journal 941, 24 (2022)

2022
[17]

Zalamea, K

I. Zalamea, K. Menou, and A. M. Beloborodov, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 409, L25 (2010)

2010
[18]

Lu and E

W. Lu and E. Quataert, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 524, 6247 (2023)

2023
[19]

M. Wang, J. Yin, Y . Ma, and Q. Wu, The Astrophysical Journal 933, 225 (2022)

2022
[20]

B. D. Metzger, N. C. Stone, and S. Gilbaum, The Astrophysical Journal 926, 101 (2022)

2022
[21]

L. Dai, S. V . Fuerst, and R. Blandford, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 402, 1614 (2010)

2010
[22]

J. Xian, F. Zhang, L. Dou, J. He, and X. Shu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 921, L32 (2021)

2021
[23]

Sukov ´a, M

P. Sukov ´a, M. Zaja ˇcek, V . Witzany, and V . Karas, The Astro- physical Journal 917, 43 (2021)

2021
[24]

Franchini, M

A. Franchini, M. Bonetti, A. Lupi, G. Miniutti, E. Bortolas, M. Giustini, M. Dotti, A. Sesana, R. Arcodia, and T. Ryu, As- tronomy & Astrophysics 675, A100 (2023)

2023
[25]

Linial and B

I. Linial and B. D. Metzger, The Astrophysical Journal 957, 34 (2023)

2023
[26]

Linial and B

I. Linial and B. D. Metzger, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 963, L1 (2024)

2024
[27]

I. Vurm, I. Linial, and B. D. Metzger, The Astrophysical Journal 983, 40 (2025)

2025
[28]

Nicholl, D

M. Nicholl, D. R. Pasham, A. Mummery, M. Guolo, K. Gen- dreau, G. C. Dewangan, E. C. Ferrara, R. Remillard, C. Bon- nerot, J. Chakraborty, A. Hajela, V . S. Dhillon, A. F. Gillan, J. Greenwood, M. E. Huber, A. Janiuk, G. Salvesen, S. van Velzen, A. Aamer, K. D. Alexander, C. R...

2024 arXiv
[29]

Bykov, M

S. Bykov, M. Gilfanov, R. Sunyaev, and P. Medvedev, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16908 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[30]

Chakraborty, E

J. Chakraborty, E. Kara, R. Arcodia, J. Buchner, M. Gius- tini, L. Hern ´andez-Garc´ıa, I. Linial, M. Masterson, G. Mini- utti, A. Mummery, C. Panagiotou, E. Quintin, and P. S ´anchez- S´aez, The Astrophysical Journal Letter 983, L39 (2025), arXiv:2503.19013 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[31]

Jiang and Z

N. Jiang and Z. Pan, The Astrophysical Journal Letter 983, L18 (2025), arXiv:2503.17609 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[32]

C. Zhou, L. Huang, K. Guo, Y .-P. Li, and Z. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103031 (2024)

2024
[33]

C. Zhou, Z. Pan, and N. Jiang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.11078 (2025), arXiv:2504.11078 [astro-ph.HE]

2025
[34]

Wang and R.-Y

X.-Y . Wang and R.-Y . Liu, Physical Review D 93, 083005 (2016)

2016
[35]

Zheng, R.-Y

J.-H. Zheng, R.-Y . Liu, and X.-Y . Wang, The Astrophysical Journal 954, 17 (2023)

2023
[36]

Yang, J.-H

Q.-R. Yang, J.-H. Zheng, R.-Y . Liu, and X.-Y . Wang, The As- trophysical Journal Letters 970, L8 (2024)

2024
[37]

H.-J. Wu, G. Mou, K. Wang, W. Wang, and Z. Li, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514, 4406 (2022)

2022
[38]

Murase, S

K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, B. T. Zhang, F. Oikonomou, and M. Petropoulou, The Astrophysical Journal 902, 108 (2020)

2020
[39]

Waxman and A

E. Waxman and A. Loeb, Physical Review Letters 87, 071101 (2001)

2001
[40]

N. Kaaz, S. L. Schrøder, J. J. Andrews, A. Antoni, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The Astrophysical Journal 944, 44 (2023)

2023
[41]

Murase, T

K. Murase, T. A. Thompson, B. C. Lacki, and J. F. Beacom, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cos- mology 84, 043003 (2011)

2011
[42]

Tagawa and Z

H. Tagawa and Z. Haiman, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 526, 69 (2023)

2023
[43]

M. Wang, Y . Ma, Q. Wu, and N. Jiang, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 960, 69 (2024), arXiv:2311.07040 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[44]

X. Fan, Q. Wu, J. Wu, X. Lei, M. Wang, and F. Li, The Astro- physical Journal 966, 222 (2024)

2024
[45]

Nayakshin, J

S. Nayakshin, J. Cuadra, and R. Sunyaev, Astronomy & Astro- physics 413, 173 (2004)

2004
[46]

Levinson and E

A. Levinson and E. Nakar, Physics Reports 866, 1 (2020)

2020
[47]

Chen and Z.-G

K. Chen and Z.-G. Dai, The Astrophysical Journal 961, 206 (2024)

2024
[48]

Svirski, E

G. Svirski, E. Nakar, and R. Sari, The Astrophysical Journal 759, 108 (2012)

2012
[49]

R. A. Chevalier, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 258, July 15, 1982, p. 790-797. Research supported by the University of 9 Virginia 258, 790 (1982)

1982
[50]

Tagawa, S

H. Tagawa, S. Kimura, Z. Haiman, R. Perna, and I. Bartos, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18392 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[51]

C. Zhou, Y . Zeng, and Z. Pan, The Astrophysical Journal 985, 242 (2025)

2025
[52]

Mabey, T

P. Mabey, T. Michel, B. Albertazzi, E. Falize, N. Charpentier, and M. Koenig, Physics of Plasmas 27 (2020)

2020
[53]

Miniutti, R

G. Miniutti, R. Saxton, M. Giustini, K. Alexander, R. Fender, I. Heywood, I. Monageng, M. Coriat, A. Tzioumis, A. Read, et al., Nature 573, 381 (2019)

2019
[54]

Arcodia, A

R. Arcodia, A. Merloni, K. Nandra, J. Buchner, M. Salvato, D. Pasham, R. Remillard, J. Comparat, G. Lamer, G. Ponti, et al., Nature 592, 704 (2021)

2021
[55]

X. Chen, Y . Qiu, S. Li, and F. Liu, The Astrophysical Journal 930, 122 (2022)

2022
[56]

Arcodia, Z

R. Arcodia, Z. Liu, A. Merloni, A. Malyali, A. Rau, J. Chakraborty, A. Goodwin, D. Buckley, J. Brink, M. Gro- madzki, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 684, A64 (2024)

2024
[57]

Hern ´andez-Garc´ıa, J

L. Hern ´andez-Garc´ıa, J. Chakraborty, P. S ´anchez-S´aez, C. Ricci, J. Cuadra, B. McKernan, K. S. Ford, P. Ar ´evalo, A. Rau, R. Arcodia, et al., Nature Astronomy , 1 (2025)

2025
[58]

S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, and I. Bartos, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 916, 111 (2021)

2021
[59]

Waxman and A

E. Waxman and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071101 (2001)

2001
[60]

Murase, T

K. Murase, T. A. Thompson, and E. O. Ofek, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 440, 2528 (2014)

2014
[61]

Murase, Physical Review D 109, 103020 (2024)

K. Murase, Physical Review D 109, 103020 (2024)

2024
[62]

Blandford and D

R. Blandford and D. Eichler, Physics Reports 154, 1 (1987)

1987
[63]

Malkov and L

M. Malkov and L. O. Drury, Reports on Progress in Physics64, 429 (2001)

2001
[64]

S. P. Reynolds, B. J. Williams, K. J. Borkowski, and K. S. Long, The Astrophysical Journal 917, 55 (2021)

2021
[65]

Panaitescu and P

A. Panaitescu and P. Kumar, The Astrophysical Journal 560, L49 (2001)

2001
[66]

Particle, Phys

D. Particle, Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004)

2004
[67]

Stecker, Physical Review Letters 21, 1016 (1968)

F. Stecker, Physical Review Letters 21, 1016 (1968)

1968
[68]

Murase, Physical Review D 76, 123001 (2007)

K. Murase, Physical Review D 76, 123001 (2007)

2007
[69]

Patrignani, Particle Data Group, K

C. Patrignani, Particle Data Group, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, C. Amsler, M. Antonelli, D. M. Asner, H. Baer, S. Baner- jee, R. M. Barnett, T. Basaglia, C. W. Bauer, J. J. Beatty, V . I. Belousov, J. Beringer, S. Bethke, H. Bichsel, O. Biebel, E. Blucher, G. Brooijmans, O. Buchmuel...

2016
[70]

M. J. Chodorowski, A. A. Zdziarski, and M. Sikora, Astrophys- ical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 400, no. 1, p. 181-
[71]

Murase, D

K. Murase, D. Guetta, and M. Ahlers, Physical Review Letters 116, 071101 (2016)

2016
[72]

Stepney and P

S. Stepney and P. W. Guilbert, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 204, 1269 (1983)

1983
[73]

P. B. Denton and I. Tamborra, The Astrophysical Journal 855, 37 (2018)

2018
[74]

Wang and Z.-G

X.-Y . Wang and Z.-G. Dai, The Astrophysical Journal691, L67 (2009)

2009
[75]

Murase, Physical Review D 78, 101302 (2008)

K. Murase, Physical Review D 78, 101302 (2008)

2008
[76]

Arcodia, A

R. Arcodia, A. Merloni, J. Buchner, P. Baldini, G. Ponti, A. Rau, Z. Liu, K. Nandra, and M. Salvato, Astronomy & As- trophysics 684, L14 (2024)

2024
[77]

R. Naab, E. Ganster, and Z. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00191 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[78]

J.-P. Zhu, K. Wang, and B. Zhang, The Astrophysical Journal Letter 917, L28 (2021)

2021
[79]

Ma and K

Z.-P. Ma and K. Wang, The Astrophysical Journal 970, 127 (2024)

2024
[80]

Zhou, J.-P

Z.-H. Zhou, J.-P. Zhu, and K. Wang, The Astrophysical Journal 951, 74 (2023)

2023
[81]

Zhou and K

Z.-H. Zhou and K. Wang, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 958, L12 (2023)

2023
[82]

Aartsen, M

M. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, C. Alispach, K. Andeen, T. Anderson, I. Ansseau, et al., Physical review letters 124, 051103 (2020)

2020
[83]

Aartsen, M

M. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Altmann, K. Andeen, T. Anderson, I. Ansseau, et al., The European Physical Journal C 77, 1 (2017)

2017
[84]

H. Sun, B. Zhang, and Z. Li, The Astrophysical Journal 812, 33 (2015)

2015
[85]

Stein, S

R. Stein, S. v. Velzen, M. Kowalski, A. Franckowiak, S. Gezari, J. C. Miller-Jones, S. Frederick, I. Sfaradi, M. F. Bietenholz, A. Horesh, et al., Nature Astronomy 5, 510 (2021)

2021
[86]

Reusch, R

S. Reusch, R. Stein, M. Kowalski, S. Van Velzen, A. Franck- owiak, C. Lunardini, K. Murase, W. Winter, J. C. Miller-Jones, M. M. Kasliwal, et al. , Physical review letters 128, 221101 (2022)

2022
[87]

van Velzen, R

S. van Velzen, R. Stein, M. Gilfanov, M. Kowalski, K. Hayasaki, S. Reusch, Y . Yao, S. Garrappa, A. Franckowiak, S. Gezari, et al. , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 529, 2559 (2024)

2024
[88]

Winter and C

W. Winter and C. Lunardini, The Astrophysical Journal948, 42 (2023)

2023
[89]

M. G. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, 10 M. Ahrens, D. Altmann, T. Anderson, G. Anton, C. Arguelles, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5106 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[90]

B. Katz, R. Budnik, and E. Waxman, The Astrophysical Journal 716, 781 (2010)

2010
[91]

Margiotta, K

A. Margiotta, K. Collaboration, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment766, 83 (2014)

2014
[92]

M. G. Aartsen, R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, C. Alispach, P. Allison, N. Amin, et al., Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48, 060501 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Miniutti, M

G. Miniutti, M. Giustini, R. Arcodia, R. D. Saxton, J. Chakraborty, A. Read, and E. Kara, Astronomy & Astro- physics 674, L1 (2023)

2023

[2] [2]

Giustini, G

M. Giustini, G. Miniutti, and R. D. Saxton, Astronomy & As- trophysics 636, L2 (2020)

2020

[3] [3]

Chakraborty, E

J. Chakraborty, E. Kara, M. Masterson, M. Giustini, G. Mini- utti, and R. Saxton, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L40 (2021)

2021

[4] [5]

Quintin, N

E. Quintin, N. A. Webb, S. Guillot, G. Miniutti, E. Kammoun, M. Giustini, R. Arcodia, G. Soucail, N. Clerc, R. Amato, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 675, A152 (2023)

2023

[5] [6]

Nicholl, D

M. Nicholl, D. Pasham, A. Mummery, M. Guolo, K. Gen- dreau, G. Dewangan, E. Ferrara, R. Remillard, C. Bonnerot, J. Chakraborty, et al., Nature 634, 804 (2024)

2024

[6] [7]

van Velzen, N

S. van Velzen, N. C. Stone, B. D. Metzger, S. Gezari, T. M. Brown, and A. S. Fruchter, The Astrophysical Journal 878, 82 (2019)

2019

[7] [8]

Mummery, S

A. Mummery, S. van Velzen, E. Nathan, A. Ingram, E. Ham- merstein, L. Fraser-Taliente, and S. Balbus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 2452 (2024)

2024

[8] [9]

Pan, S.-L

X. Pan, S.-L. Li, X. Cao, G. Miniutti, and M. Gu, The Astro- physical Journal Letters 928, L18 (2022)

2022