pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24961 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Pair-Rich Corona of an Accreting Kerr Black Hole

Jonathan Zhang , Christopher Thompson
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords black hole coronapair productionKerr geometryX-ray polarizationCompton scatteringMonte Carlo simulationaccretion diskbinary black holes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Self-consistent pair creation concentrates a dense scattering corona near an accreting Kerr black hole.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs an iterative Monte Carlo model of the warm corona around a slowly accreting Kerr black hole that folds in Compton scattering, electron-positron pair production, and general-relativistic light bending and frame dragging. Soft photons are injected from the inner disk while the velocity dispersion of the charges is tuned so that the Compton amplification of the seed luminosity stays fixed. Pair creation by photon collisions then boosts the density of scattering particles, and the resulting cloud sits closer to the black hole than the original ion disk. The escaping X-rays, when viewed at different inclinations, show temperatures and Compton y-parameters that line up with the hardest spectra of black-hole binaries; the same radiation carries 4-10 percent linear polarization across the 2-8 keV band once a mild equatorial upflow is allowed. These results tie the observed hard X-ray emission directly to a pair-rich region whose location and polarization signature can be tested with current and upcoming instruments.

Core claim

A self-consistent Monte Carlo treatment that includes Compton scattering, photon-photon pair creation, and Kerr-metric ray tracing produces a pair-rich corona whose density peaks closer to the black hole than the assumed thick ion disk. The emergent spectra yield temperatures and Compton parameters that match fits to the hardest spectral state of binary black holes, while the polarization degree reaches 4-10 percent in the 2-8 keV band when a kinematic upflow of electrons and positrons from the equatorial plane is included.

What carries the argument

The iterative Monte Carlo procedure that self-consistently tracks Compton scattering, photon-photon pair creation, and general-relativistic lensing and frame-dragging while holding seed-luminosity amplification fixed.

If this is right

  • The self-consistent pair cloud sits closer to the black hole than the original ion disk.
  • The output spectra reproduce the temperature and Compton parameter values inferred from black-hole binary data in the hardest spectral state.
  • Linear polarization of the escaping X-rays rises to 4-10 percent across the 2-8 keV band once an equatorial e± upflow is permitted.
  • General-relativistic effects of lensing and frame dragging are folded into both the spectrum and the polarization pattern seen by a distant observer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Polarization measurements with future instruments could directly test whether a pair-rich zone exists near the horizon rather than a purely thermal electron corona.
  • The inward concentration of pairs may alter the expected reverberation lags between the corona and the disk, offering a timing signature distinguishable from other geometries.
  • Extending the same Monte Carlo framework to higher accretion rates or to spinning black holes with different inclinations would show how the pair fraction and polarization scale with mass supply and spin.

Load-bearing premise

The innermost ion disk is assumed to be geometrically thick and rarefied compared with the disk outside ten gravitational radii, and the velocity dispersion of the electrons and positrons is tuned to keep the Compton amplification of the seed luminosity constant.

What would settle it

X-ray polarimetry of black-hole binaries in the hard state that measures a polarization degree well below 4 percent or well above 10 percent in the 2-8 keV band, or timing and reflection data that place the bulk of the scattering corona farther out than a few gravitational radii, would challenge the model's central prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24961 by Christopher Thompson, Jonathan Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Changes in spectra, mid-plane density n±, and Xspec fits as a function of seed luminosity. Orange and green curves show increasing seed luminosity compared to default model a50_plunge (blue). The equilibrium density shows moderate increase in response to increasing seed luminosity. Top left: spectra for observers at observer-disk inclination i = 75◦ . Top right: radial n± profile at the mid-plane. Spec￾tra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: latitudinal profile of the total pair density 2np and the input electron-ion density nd as mea￾sured at the ISCO. Bottom panel: radial profile of the two density fields as measured at the mid-plane. Purple (orange) curves show models with high (moderate) BH spin. 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 log 2(r/M) + 1 a50_plunge a90 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 100 101 102 l = σTUZdθ/me 100 101 102 R = UZ(ω ≥ me)/2npme view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radiation compactness l and ratio R of pho￾ton energy density to pair rest-energy density, for models a50_plunge (top half of panels) and a90 (bottom half). Dashed white curves mark the ISCO and outer boundary of the coronal disk. Left column: bolometric compactness (Equation (1)). Right column: R evaluated for hard pho￾ton energy density. Model a50_plunge includes heating and photon emission inside the IS… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Polarization degree (top row), average number of scatterings (middle row), and polarization angle (bottom row) as a function of detected photon energy, for eight different observer-disk inclinations. Data is presented for three models: a50_plunge (left), a90 (middle) and a90_nodisk (right). Polarization angles are shown with respect to basis {ϕ, ˆ −ˆθ}. a50_plunge a90 10−2 δ 2 − 8 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 In… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Band-averaged 2−8 keV polarization degree (top) and angle (bottom) for models a50_plunge and a90. poles are typically scattered backward in the disk frame and experience a net Doppler redshift. The seed keV X-rays are taken to be unpolarized at emission. Then, as Compton scattering does not gener￾ate circular polarization, the polarization of the escaping X-rays is defined by the linear polarization degree… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: also shows the polarization data for both out￾flow models. Similarly to the case without outflow, the 2−8 keV polarization signal is insensitive to the BH spin. However, the polarization degree is significantly boosted even by a modest outflow velocity (βO,D ≤ 0.5 − 0.6); the spike in polarization angle observed near the equator 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 log2(r/M) + 1 a90_flow a50_flow 2 1 0 1 2 r/rISCO 1016 1017 … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial profile of BL-frame four-velocity and ZAMO-frame three-velocity components within the mid￾plane. Purple (orange) curves show flows around BHs with spin a/M = 0.9 (a/M = 0.5). Outside the ISCO, the flow is taken to be nearly circular; inside, the infalling flow is fixed by the constants of motion {E, Lz}. Under the assumption of motion with constant θ, fluid geodesics are constructed that smoothly tr… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Polarization and spectral data for photon scat￾tering in a Cartesian box, which can be compared with the independent transport model of Poutanen et al. (2023). First row: polarization degree for 2 − 8 keV photons as a function of observer-disk inclination, for peak outflow velocity β0 = 0 (solid) and 0.4 (dashed). Second row: polarization degree as a function of photon energy, for observers with 30◦ (blue… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: distribution of high energy photons from model a90, in the ϕ−averaged computational grid. White dashed curves: ISCO and outer boundary of the coronal disk (rcorona ≡ 4rISCO). High-energy photons reach maximum density in the innermost layer of grid cells, with a secondary peak outside rISCO where the input electron-ion density peaks. High-energy photons are rarest in the cold, outer disk, in which tr… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Flowchart of the iterative MC process used to determine a self-consistent corona. After the BH, disk, and MC parameters are fixed, the random e ± velocity magnitude |δβd| is iterated upon in order to match the amplification A; then a larger MC simulation records the photon distribution and pair density field. This process repeats until convergence in the e ± density is achieved (Section 5.2). 5.1. Photon … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top: comparison of converged e ± density (or￾ange) with projected equilibrium value (blue), both averaged over spherical shells (left) and over latitudinal bands out to a radius rcorona (right). Bottom: percent difference between the two curves in each panel. Comparisons are presented for model a90. with it the equilibrium density neq, equivalent to taking ∆tZ → ∞: dnp dtZ − neq(neq + nd)⟨σann∆v⟩γ −1 d,Z … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect of adjusting the input electron-ion density on the converged e ± distribution. Orange and green curves vary one parameter of the electron-ion profile away from the default choice (blue curves) in models a90 (top row) and a50_plunge (bottom row). Orange: larger disk scale height. Green: lower input optical depth. Left column: radial dis￾tribution at the mid-plane. Right column: latitude distribu￾tio… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: 2−100 keV luminosity (top) and fitted 10−100 keV photon index (bottom) as a function of observer-disk in￾clination. Purple curves: high BH spin (model a90). Orange curves: moderate BH spin (model a50_plunge). Scattering by the cold, outer disk (aspect ratio marked by dashed grey lines) suppresses the luminosity for equatorial observers, and softens the spectrum. τ± is derived from the fitted parameters us… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Parameters of the Comptonization model fitted to MC spectral data using the COMPPS package and assum￾ing a slab geometry. Purple lines: high BH spin (model a90). Orange lines: moderate BH spin (model a50_plunge). Top row: fitted e ± temperature is compared with the local temperature derived from the converged random e ± veloc￾ity |δβD| (dashed lines; Equation 55). Second row: ratio of COMPSS temperature p… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Average height of last scattering of escaping photons in model a90, measured in terms of the polar angle θLS and as a function of detected frequency. Colors label the observer-disk inclination. Observers near the BH equator preferentially see photons scattered at greater heights, due to occultation by the outer, cold disk. distribution shown in view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Density of last scattering events in model a90, for photons detected with energy 2 keV ≤ ω ≤ 8 keV (left column) and ω ≥ 200 keV (right column). The value in each cell is normalized by the maximum cell value. First two rows: observer positioned near the pole (marked by the red arrow), corresponding to an observer-disk inclination i = 35◦ . Last two rows: observer position near the BH equator (inclination … view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Spectropolarimetric data from model a90, for observers near the pole (left) and BH equator (right) as a function of detected photon energy. Results are further split (dark/light) into photons that have/have not reflected off the outer, cold disk. Red curves/points show the effect of removing the cold disk (model a90_nodisk). polarization with photon energy in the range 100 − 200 keV, even though reflected… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: shows the effect on the X-ray spectrum and the fractional change in e ± density, δn± n± ≡ n±,a50_plungeII − n±,a50_plunge n±,a50_plunge . (56) The centroid of the pair cloud shifts outward as the seed photon emission is pushed beyond the ISCO. The seed thermal peak survives more prominently in model a50_plungeII for observers of all orientations; this is because the non-thermal spectral tail forms farther… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Poloidal slice of the computational MC grid for grid disk thickness θd,grid = 0.2, Nr = 32, and Nθ = 64. The grid is uniformly divided in azimuth (∆ϕ = 2π/Nϕ). The division of cells in the θ-direction is calibrated to the density profile in Equation (7), now choosing a scale height θd,grid = 0.2 to accommodate the peaking of the e ± profile at the mid-plane. The cell width is adjusted to give a uniform co… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Comparison of the scattering optical depth to the absorption optical depth for pair-creating photons. Top: Average optical depths to scattering (solid, Equation 38) and absorption (dashed, Equation C21). The optical depths are only integrated along parts of the trajectory where the photon energy exceeds Ecut, in order to highlight the conditions encountered by pair￾creating photons. Different choices of E… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We build a self-consistent model of a warm scattering corona near an accreting black hole in Kerr geometry, in the regime of slow ($\sim 0.01$ Eddington) mass accretion. An iterative Monte Carlo procedure is developed that incorporates self-consistently the effects of Compton scattering and electron-positron pair creation, as well as general relativistic lensing and frame dragging effects. Soft thermal photons are seeded in the inner disk and the velocity dispersion of the electrons and positrons adjusted to yield a fixed seed luminosity amplification through Compton scattering. A simple kinematic prescription is also added for bulk outflow. Pair creation by photon collisions raises significantly the density of scattering charges in and around the innermost ion disk, which is assumed to be geometrically thick and rarefied compared with the disk outside 10 gravitational radii. The self-consistent pair cloud is concentrated closer to the BH. The spectrum and polarization of the escaping X-rays are recorded as a function of the observer's orientation. The temperature and Compton parameter measured from the output spectra using the compPS package are consistent with fits to binary BH data in the hardest spectral state; the polarization degree rises to $4-10\%$ through the 2-8 keV band with allowance for $e^\pm$ upflow from the BH equator.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an iterative Monte Carlo model of a warm scattering corona around a slowly accreting Kerr black hole (~0.01 Eddington). It incorporates Compton scattering, electron-positron pair creation, general-relativistic lensing and frame-dragging, and a simple kinematic bulk outflow. Soft seed photons originate from the inner disk; the velocity dispersion of e± is adjusted to enforce a fixed luminosity amplification. The innermost ion disk is taken to be geometrically thick and rarefied inside ~10 r_g. Pair creation increases the scattering charge density, concentrating the pair cloud closer to the black hole. Output spectra and polarization (4–10% in 2–8 keV) are shown to be consistent with hard-state black-hole binary observations when fitted with compPS.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a physically motivated, GR-aware framework for the origin of hard X-ray emission and polarization in accreting black holes. The explicit treatment of pair production and its feedback on the corona location is a clear advance over purely phenomenological corona models. The reported consistency with observed temperatures, Compton y-parameters, and polarization degrees provides a concrete link to data that could be tested with IXPE and future missions. The Monte Carlo implementation itself is a reusable technical contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [model description / iterative Monte Carlo procedure] Abstract and model-description section: the velocity dispersion of electrons and positrons is explicitly adjusted to enforce a fixed seed-luminosity amplification. This choice sets the effective temperature and Compton y-parameter by construction rather than solving the local heating–cooling balance or accretion-power budget, undermining the claim that the pair density and its radial concentration are fully self-determined from the physics.
  2. [disk geometry assumption] Abstract and § on disk structure: the innermost ion disk is assumed to be geometrically thick and rarefied inside ~10 r_g with no sensitivity study or physical justification provided. Because this assumption directly controls where seed photons are injected and where pairs can accumulate, the reported concentration of the pair cloud closer to the black hole is not robust to plausible variations in the disk geometry.
  3. [spectral and polarization results] Results section on spectral fitting: while the output spectra are stated to be consistent with compPS fits to hard-state data, no quantitative comparison (e.g., residuals, parameter uncertainties, or direct comparison to analytic Comptonization limits) is shown. Without such validation, the claimed agreement remains qualitative and does not yet demonstrate that the Monte Carlo implementation reproduces known limits.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods] Notation for the Compton y-parameter and optical depth should be defined explicitly at first use; the current text leaves the reader to infer their precise definitions from the Monte Carlo output.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the polarization curves should state the exact energy bands and observer inclinations used; the 4–10% range is quoted without specifying which viewing angles produce the upper and lower bounds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the detailed comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and model-description section: the velocity dispersion of electrons and positrons is explicitly adjusted to enforce a fixed seed-luminosity amplification. This choice sets the effective temperature and Compton y-parameter by construction rather than solving the local heating–cooling balance or accretion-power budget, undermining the claim that the pair density and its radial concentration are fully self-determined from the physics.

    Authors: We agree that the velocity dispersion is tuned to achieve a prescribed amplification, thereby setting the effective temperature and Compton y-parameter to match typical observed values. This approach is adopted to focus on the self-consistent treatment of pair production and its impact on the corona structure at fixed luminosity, rather than attempting to model the unknown heating mechanism explicitly. The pair density and its concentration near the black hole are nevertheless determined self-consistently through the Monte Carlo simulation of photon collisions and pair creation. We will revise the model description to make this distinction clearer and to note the approximation involved. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Abstract and § on disk structure: the innermost ion disk is assumed to be geometrically thick and rarefied inside ~10 r_g with no sensitivity study or physical justification provided. Because this assumption directly controls where seed photons are injected and where pairs can accumulate, the reported concentration of the pair cloud closer to the black hole is not robust to plausible variations in the disk geometry.

    Authors: The assumption of a geometrically thick and rarefied inner disk within approximately 10 gravitational radii is based on standard truncated-disk models for the hard state of black-hole binaries. We will add a short paragraph in the revised manuscript providing physical justification with references to the literature on disk truncation and include a brief sensitivity analysis varying the truncation radius to confirm that the qualitative concentration of the pair cloud persists. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Results section on spectral fitting: while the output spectra are stated to be consistent with compPS fits to hard-state data, no quantitative comparison (e.g., residuals, parameter uncertainties, or direct comparison to analytic Comptonization limits) is shown. Without such validation, the claimed agreement remains qualitative and does not yet demonstrate that the Monte Carlo implementation reproduces known limits.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current presentation of the spectral results is qualitative. In the revised version, we will add a quantitative comparison, including best-fit compPS parameters, residuals, and a discussion of how the Monte Carlo spectra align with analytic Comptonization expectations to better validate the implementation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Velocity dispersion tuned to fixed amplification, so pair cloud concentration depends on input choice

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Soft thermal photons are seeded in the inner disk and the velocity dispersion of the electrons and positrons adjusted to yield a fixed seed luminosity amplification through Compton scattering."

    The dispersion is adjusted to enforce a specific fixed amplification factor. This directly controls the Compton y-parameter and pair-production threshold, so the self-consistent pair cloud density and its concentration closer to the BH are influenced by this input choice rather than being fully determined by the iterative solution alone.

full rationale

The iterative Monte Carlo for Compton scattering, pair creation, and GR effects is self-contained and follows standard physics. However, the velocity dispersion is explicitly adjusted to enforce a fixed seed luminosity amplification, which sets the effective temperature and y-parameter by construction. This makes the pair density, cloud concentration closer to the BH, and resulting polarization partly determined by the tuning rather than emerging solely from energy balance or accretion power. The consistency with compPS fits to hard-state data is then a post-hoc check. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or other load-bearing reductions to inputs are present. This is a single minor fitted-input step, so overall circularity remains low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QED processes for Compton scattering and pair production, plus domain assumptions about the inner disk structure and a kinematic outflow prescription; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • accretion rate
    Fixed at ~0.01 Eddington to define the slow-accretion regime under study.
  • electron/positron velocity dispersion
    Adjusted iteratively to enforce a chosen seed luminosity amplification factor.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Standard Compton scattering and photon-photon pair creation cross sections from QED
    Invoked throughout the Monte Carlo photon tracking.
  • domain assumption Kerr metric for spacetime around the spinning black hole
    Used for lensing, frame dragging, and photon trajectories.
  • ad hoc to paper Innermost ion disk is geometrically thick and rarefied inside ~10 gravitational radii
    Stated explicitly as the setup for the pair-rich region.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5522 in / 1652 out tokens · 49468 ms · 2026-05-08T01:28:33.667543+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Press , W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347, doi: 10.1086/151796

    work page doi:10.1086/151796 1972

  2. [2]

    Belloni, T. M. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Belloni, Vol. 794, 53, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 2010

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1999, ApJL, 510, L123, doi: 10.1086/311810 —. 2017, ApJ, 850, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f

    work page doi:10.1086/311810 1999

  4. [4]

    B., Lifshitz, E

    Berestetskii, V. B., Lifshitz, E. M., & Pitaevskii, V. B. 1971, Relativistic quantum theory. Pt.1

    1971

  5. [5]

    Breit, G., & Wheeler, J. A. 1934, Physical Review, 46, 1087, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.46.1087

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.46.1087 1934

  6. [6]

    J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R

    Burke, M. J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2514 2017

  7. [7]

    Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields,

    Carter, B. 1968, Physical Review, 174, 1559, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.174.1559 1968

  8. [8]

    C., & Rees, M

    Celotti, A., Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/255.3.419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/255.3.419 1992

  9. [9]

    Chan, H.-S., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag424

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag424 2026

  10. [10]

    A., & Stark, R

    Connors, P. A., & Stark, R. F. 1977, Nature, 269, 128, doi: 10.1038/269128a0

    work page doi:10.1038/269128a0 1977

  11. [11]

    S., & Blandford, R

    Coppi, P. S., & Blandford, R. D. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/245.3.453

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/245.3.453 1990

  12. [12]

    Leung, P. K. 2009, ApJS, 184, 387, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/387

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/387 2009

  13. [13]

    Done, C., & Fabian, A. C. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 81, doi: 10.1093/mnras/240.1.81

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/240.1.81 1989

  14. [14]

    B., Wilms, J., & Begelman, M

    Dove, J. B., Wilms, J., & Begelman, M. C. 1997a, ApJ, 487, 747, doi: 10.1086/304632

    work page doi:10.1086/304632

  15. [15]

    B., Wilms, J., Maisack, M., & Begelman, M

    Dove, J. B., Wilms, J., Maisack, M., & Begelman, M. C. 1997b, ApJ, 487, 759, doi: 10.1086/304647

    work page doi:10.1086/304647

  16. [16]

    A., Miller, J

    Draghis, P. A., Miller, J. M., Kara, E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2276

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2276 2025

  17. [17]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf859

    Ewing, M., Parra, M., Mastroserio, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf859

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf859 2025

  18. [18]

    C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1218

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1218 2015

  19. [19]

    D., Li, T

    Farris, B. D., Li, T. K., Liu, Y. T., & Shapiro, S. L. 2008, PhRvD, 78, 024023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.024023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.024023 2008

  20. [20]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a5

    Fishbach, M., & Kalogera, V. 2022, ApJL, 929, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a5 2022

  21. [21]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/29 Grošelj, D., Hakobyan, H., Beloborodov, A. M., Sironi, L., & Philippov, A. 2024, PhRvL, 132, 085202, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.085202 31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/1/29 2014

  22. [22]

    W., Fabian, A

    Guilbert, P. W., Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1983, MNRAS, 205, 593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/205.3.593

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/205.3.593 1983

  23. [23]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 507, doi: 10.1086/173020

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507, doi: 10.1086/173020

    work page doi:10.1086/173020 1993

  24. [24]

    Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., & Takahashi, H. R. 2023, ApJ, 949, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc94a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc94a 2023

  25. [25]

    2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    Krawczynski, H., Muleri, F., Dovčiak, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 650, doi: 10.1126/science.add5399

    work page doi:10.1126/science.add5399 2022

  26. [26]

    Lightman, A. P. 1982, ApJ, 253, 842, doi: 10.1086/159686

    work page doi:10.1086/159686 1982

  27. [27]

    Liska, M. T. P., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., Porth, O., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJL, 935, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db 2022

  28. [28]

    M., et al

    Malzac, J., Beloborodov, A. M., & Poutanen, J. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 417, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04450.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04450.x 2001

  29. [29]

    1996, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 48, 403, doi: 10.1016/0969-806X(95)00472-A

    Matt, G., Feroci, M., Rapisarda, M., & Costa, E. 1996, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 48, 403, doi: 10.1016/0969-806X(95)00472-A

    work page doi:10.1016/0969-806x(95)00472-a 1996

  30. [30]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Mehlhaff, J. M., Chen, A. Y., Luepker, M., & Yuan, Y. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22168, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22168

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22168 2026

  31. [31]

    2022, PhRvL, 129, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.161101 Nättilä, J

    Mummery, A., & Balbus, S. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.161101 Nättilä, J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7026, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-51257-1

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.161101 2022

  32. [32]

    C., Krolik, J

    Noble, S. C., Krolik, J. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2010, ApJ, 711, 959, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/959

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/2/959 2010

  33. [33]

    2019, PhRvL, 122, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035101 Podgorný, J., Svoboda, J., Dovčiak, M., et al

    Parfrey, K., Philippov, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035101 Podgorný, J., Svoboda, J., Dovčiak, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450566

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.035101 2019

  34. [34]

    1996, ApJ, 470, 249, doi: 10.1086/177865

    Poutanen, J., & Svensson, R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 249, doi: 10.1086/177865

    work page doi:10.1086/177865 1996

  35. [35]

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2023, ApJL, 949, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd33e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd33e 2023

  36. [36]

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2018, A&A, 614, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732345

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732345 2018

  37. [37]

    2009, ApJL, 690, L97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/L97

    Poutanen, J., & Vurm, I. 2009, ApJL, 690, L97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/L97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/2/l97 2009

  38. [38]

    2019, ApJL, 870, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf97b

    Qin, Y., Marchant, P., Fragos, T., Meynet, G., & Kalogera, V. 2019, ApJL, 870, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf97b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf97b 2019

  39. [39]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022 2021

  40. [40]

    R., Dolence, J

    Ryan, B. R., Dolence, J. C., & Gammie, C. F. 2015, ApJ, 807, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/31 2015

  41. [41]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  42. [42]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2013, ApJ, 777, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/11 2013

  43. [43]

    2021, A&A, 652, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141214

    Sen, K., Xu, X.-T., Langer, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141214

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141214 2021

  44. [44]

    L., Lightman, A

    Shapiro, S. L., Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1976, ApJ, 204, 187, doi: 10.1086/154162 Sądowski, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw913

    work page doi:10.1086/154162 1976

  45. [45]

    W., & Blaes, O

    Socrates, A., Davis, S. W., & Blaes, O. 2004, ApJ, 601, 405, doi: 10.1086/380301

    work page doi:10.1086/380301 2004

  46. [46]

    Squire, J., Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 39, doi: 10.33232/001c.136467

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.136467 2025

  47. [47]

    E., Begelman, M

    Stern, B. E., Begelman, M. C., Sikora, M., & Svensson, R. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.2.291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/272.2.291 1995

  48. [48]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1980, A&A, 86, 121

    1980

  49. [49]

    , year = 1982, month = jul, volume = 258, pages =

    Svensson, R. 1982, ApJ, 258, 335, doi: 10.1086/160082 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    work page doi:10.1086/160082 1982

  50. [50]

    , year = 1994, month = oct, volume =

    Thompson, C. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.3.480

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/270.3.480 1994

  51. [51]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt124

    Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., & Vurm, I. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt124 2013

  52. [52]

    Walker, R

    Walker, M., & Penrose, R. 1970, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 18, 265, doi: 10.1007/BF01649445 Wardziński, G., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 183, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03297.x

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01649445 1970

  53. [53]

    J., Mullen, P

    White, C. J., Mullen, P. D., Jiang, Y.-F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cf 2023

  54. [54]

    2020, ApJL, 889, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab665e

    Yan, Z., Xie, F.-G., & Zhang, W. 2020, ApJL, 889, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab665e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab665e 2020

  55. [55]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba11

    You, B., Dong, Y., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acba11 2023

  56. [56]

    Y., & Luepker, M

    Yuan, Y., Chen, A. Y., & Luepker, M. 2025, ApJ, 985, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce79 2025

  57. [57]

    A., Chand, S., Banerjee, S., et al

    Zdziarski, A. A., Chand, S., Banerjee, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad43ed

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad43ed 2024