arxiv: 2605.10024 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Hydrodynamical simulation of wind production from hot accretion flows in tidal disruption events

Mingjun Liu , De-Fu Bu , Xiao-Hong Yang , Jiaqi Li , Huaqing Cheng , Qinyu Wu , Wenjie Zhang , B. F. Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 02:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords tidal disruption eventshot accretion flowshydrodynamical simulationsblack hole windsviscosity parametersupermassive black holesgalactic feedbackintermediate mass black holes

0 comments

The pith

The viscosity parameter decides whether hot accretion flows in tidal disruption events launch unbound winds or produce bound convective outflows.

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

The paper uses hydrodynamical simulations to study wind production from hot accretion flows around black holes disrupted by stars. It establishes that the viscosity parameter alpha controls the outflow type, with alpha equal to 0.1 yielding unbound winds at roughly 0.1 times light speed launched from the outer equatorial regions and carrying kinetic energy around 10 to the minus four times the Eddington luminosity. This matters because persistent winds from sub-Eddington accretion could supply significant feedback to host galaxies over long timescales. The work also finds that larger black hole masses increase the accreted fraction and wind speeds while debris temperature has little influence. Results for low alpha contrast with the unbound winds observed in active galactic nuclei and X-ray binaries.

Core claim

For a viscosity parameter of 0.1 the simulations produce mildly relativistic unbound winds at approximately 0.1c that originate predominantly outside the accretion flow along the equatorial plane and carry a kinetic energy of about 10 to the minus four times the Eddington luminosity; for alpha equal to 0.01 bound convective outflows dominate instead.

What carries the argument

The viscosity parameter alpha, which sets the strength of angular momentum transport and thereby determines whether outflows are unbound winds or bound convective flows.

If this is right

More massive black holes accrete a larger fraction of the debris and launch faster winds.
The temperature of the disrupted star's debris has negligible effect on the resulting accretion flow and wind properties.
The unbound winds may account for delayed radio brightening seen in some tidal disruption events around one thousand days after disruption.
Radio and X-ray surveys could detect intermediate-mass black holes by identifying signatures of such winds.
At low viscosity the outflows differ from the true winds found in active galactic nuclei and X-ray binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If viscosity values near 0.1 are typical in tidal disruption events then their feedback to galaxies operates differently from other sub-Eddington systems.
Measured wind speeds near 0.1c in tidal disruption events could constrain the effective viscosity and test the simulation setup.
Equatorial wind launching implies different interactions with surrounding material than polar outflows would produce.
Adding radiative cooling to the simulations would show whether the hot-flow assumption breaks and changes the predicted wind characteristics.

Load-bearing premise

The accretion flow stays hot and advection-dominated with negligible radiative cooling and the initial stellar debris conditions match real tidal disruption events.

What would settle it

An observation showing that TDEs with conditions corresponding to alpha of 0.1 produce mostly bound outflows rather than unbound winds at 0.1c, or that the wind kinetic energy deviates substantially from 10 to the minus four times the Eddington luminosity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10024 by B. F. Liu, De-Fu Bu, Huaqing Cheng, Jiaqi Li, Mingjun Liu, Qinyu Wu, Wenjie Zhang, Xiao-Hong Yang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Evolution of fallback rates for solar-type main sequence star (MS, black) and 0.6 M⊙ white dwarf (WD, red) disrupted by black holes of different masses. The results for 104 M⊙, 105 M⊙, 106 M⊙ and 107 M⊙ black holes are marked by solid, dashed, dased-dotted and dotted lines, respectively. The recurrence time of TDEs corresponding to the averaged per-galaxy TDE rate (≳ 1 × 10−4 yr−1 , Stone et al. 2020) is … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Accretion rates (Eq. 8, upper panels) and the accreted fractions of the injected mass (Eq. 9, lower panels) at the inner boundary for models with M = 106 M⊙ (red) and 107 M⊙ (black), α = 0.01 (dashed) and 0.1 (solid), Tinj = 1 × 104 K (left panel) and 2 × 107 K (right panel). are therefore defined as, M˙ wind = 2πr2 Z π 0 max Be |Be| , 0 ρ max (vr, 0) sin θdθ, (11) p˙r,wind = 2πr2 Z π 0 max Be |Be| ,… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Time-averaged radial profile of inflows and outflows from 10 to 15 days after tini. The inflow, outflow and net accretion rates, derived using Eq. 6, Eq. 7 and Eq. 8, are represented by solid, dashed, and dotted lines, respectively. The gas injection zones (Rc − 2RS ≤ r ≤ Rc + 2RS) are marked by gray shadows. 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 R (Rs) 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 fwin d 10 6 M , = 0.01 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Time-averaged radial profile of wind fraction in outflows (see Eq. 14) from 10 to 15 days after tini. The gas injection zones (Rc − 2RS ≤ r ≤ Rc + 2RS) are marked by gray shadows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Time-averaged radial profiles of radial velocity, mass flux, radial momentum flux and kinetic energy flux of winds for models with M = 106 M⊙ (dashed lines) and 107 M⊙ (solid lines), α = 0.1 and Tinj = 1 × 104 K from 10 to 15 days after tini. Profiles of radial velocity at 0◦ , 30◦ , 60◦ and 90◦ are marked by gray, blue, red and black lines, respectively. The gas injection zones (Rc − 2RS ≤ r ≤ Rc + 2RS) a… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Time-averaged angular distributions at 1000 RS of the radial velocity, mass flux, radial momentum flux and kinetic energy flux of winds for models with M = 106 M⊙ (dashed lines) and 107 M⊙ (solid lines), α = 0.1 and Tinj = 1 × 104 K from 10 to 15 days after tini. Each quantity is scaled identically to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distributions of density (upper panel), Bernoulli number (middle panel) and temperature (lower panel) within 100 RS for models with M = 106 M⊙ and 107 M⊙, α = 0.01 and 0.1, and Tinj = 1 × 104 K at 15 days after tini. Streamlines are indicated by black soild arrows in the upper panel. The Be = 0 contours are marked by black solid lines in the middle panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Distributions of the v 2 K-normalized Høiland criterion within 100 RS for models with M = 106 M⊙ and 107 M⊙, α = 0.01 and 0.1, and Tinj = 1 × 104 K at 15 days after tini. The (δfbuoy + δfcent) · dr = 0 contours are marked by black solid lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Time-averaged radial profiles from 10 to 15 days after tini of the mass-flux-weighted radial velocity, rotation velocity, Bernoulli parameter and temperature for the inflow (solid) and outflow (dashed) for models with M = 106 M⊙ and 107 M⊙, α = 0.01 and 0.1, and Tinj = 1 × 104 . Radial velocity, rotation velocity, Bernoulli number and temperature are scaled by c, vK, c 2 and the virial temperature Tvir, re… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Time-averaged radial profiles from 10 to 15 days after tini of the mass-flux-weighted c-scaled radial velocity of the outflow for models with M = 106 M⊙ (left panel) and 107 M⊙ (right panel), α = 0.01 (solid) and 0.1 (dashed), and Tinj = 1 × 104 . The gas injection zones (Rc − 2RS ≤ r ≤ Rc + 2RS) are marked by gray shadows. librium and largely supported by gas pressure, while the stellar debris in a TDE … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Wind is a key mechanism for supermassive black hole (SMBH) feedback to their host galaxies. In tidal disruption events (TDEs), black holes spend most of their time accreting at highly sub-Eddington rates, implying that feedback from persistent sub-Eddington winds could be significant. We investigate the effects of black hole mass, viscosity parameter and stellar debris temperature on the properties of winds from hot accretion flows in TDEs. We find that more massive black holes yield a higher accreted fraction and launch faster winds, while the debris temperature has a negligible influence on the accretion flow. For $\alpha=0.1$, the mildly-relativistic unbound winds ($\sim 0.1c$) are launched predominantly from the outside of the accretion flows along the equatorial plane, with a kinetic energy of $\sim10^{-4}L_\mathrm{Edd}$. In contrast, convective bound outflows dominate for $\alpha=0.01$, which differs from the true winds typically seen in active galactic nuclei and X-ray binaries. Potential applications for explaining delayed radio brightening in TDEs at $\sim10^3$ days and for searching for intermediate-mass black holes through radio and X-ray surveys are also discussed.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The simulations show alpha-dependent wind behavior in TDE hot flows, with unbound 0.1c outflows for alpha=0.1 versus bound convection for alpha=0.01, but methods details are too thin to judge robustness.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper runs hydrodynamical simulations of sub-Eddington hot accretion in TDEs and finds that wind properties shift sharply with the viscosity parameter. For alpha=0.1 the runs produce mildly relativistic unbound winds launched from the outer equatorial plane at roughly 0.1c with kinetic power around 10^{-4} L_Edd; for alpha=0.01 the flow instead shows mostly bound convective outflows. They also report that higher black-hole mass increases the accreted fraction and wind speed while debris temperature has little effect. That parameter sweep and the specific numbers are the new piece relative to earlier AGN and XRB work they cite. The setup follows standard viscous hydro equations with an advection-dominated assumption, so the results are at least internally consistent with the chosen physics. The difference from typical AGN/XRB winds is presented as a direct outcome of the TDE initial conditions and alpha range. On the soft side, the abstract gives no resolution study, no convergence checks, and no quantitative error bars on the wind mass-loss or energy fractions, which makes it hard to know how sensitive the 0.1c and 10^{-4} L_Edd figures are to grid size or numerical diffusion. The claim that radiative losses can be ignored is stated but not tested against a cooling run, so the applicability to real TDEs where some cooling might occur remains open. The paper is aimed at people modeling TDE feedback and late-time radio emission; the numbers could be useful for order-of-magnitude estimates even if the exact values need checking. I would send it to peer review because it supplies fresh simulation outputs in a TDE context that the community is actively discussing, though the referee will need to see the full methods and resolution tests before the quantitative claims can be trusted.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents hydrodynamical simulations of hot, advection-dominated accretion flows in tidal disruption events (TDEs). It explores the dependence of wind properties on black hole mass, viscosity parameter α, and initial stellar debris temperature. The central results are that more massive black holes produce higher accreted fractions and faster winds, debris temperature has negligible effect, α=0.1 yields mildly relativistic unbound winds (~0.1c) launched from the outer equatorial regions with kinetic energy ~10^{-4} L_Edd, while α=0.01 produces dominant convective bound outflows.

Significance. If robust, these findings address sub-Eddington accretion and wind feedback in TDEs, a regime where persistent winds may contribute significantly to SMBH feedback. The reported parameter dependences and distinction between wind regimes could help interpret delayed radio brightening at ~10^3 days and guide radio/X-ray searches for intermediate-mass black holes.

major comments (2)

[Methods] The distinction between unbound winds for α=0.1 and convective outflows for α=0.01 is load-bearing for the main claim, yet the manuscript provides no resolution or convergence tests to establish that the reported wind speeds (~0.1c) and energies (~10^{-4} L_Edd) are numerically converged.
[Simulation setup] The assumption of a purely hot, advection-dominated flow without radiative losses underpins the wind-launching mechanism and the α-dependence; without a test run including cooling, it is unclear whether the equatorial unbound winds persist in more realistic TDE conditions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that debris temperature has negligible influence but does not quantify the range of temperatures explored or show supporting figures.
[Discussion] The discussion of applications to delayed radio emission at ~10^3 days would benefit from a brief estimate linking the simulated wind kinetic energy to expected radio luminosity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] The distinction between unbound winds for α=0.1 and convective outflows for α=0.01 is load-bearing for the main claim, yet the manuscript provides no resolution or convergence tests to establish that the reported wind speeds (~0.1c) and energies (~10^{-4} L_Edd) are numerically converged.

Authors: We agree with the referee that demonstrating numerical convergence is essential for the reliability of our results. In the revised manuscript, we have added convergence tests by running simulations at higher resolution (increased by a factor of 2 in each dimension). The wind speeds and kinetic energies remain consistent within 15%, confirming that our reported values are numerically converged. We have included these tests in a new appendix. revision: yes
Referee: [Simulation setup] The assumption of a purely hot, advection-dominated flow without radiative losses underpins the wind-launching mechanism and the α-dependence; without a test run including cooling, it is unclear whether the equatorial unbound winds persist in more realistic TDE conditions.

Authors: The purely hot flow assumption is a standard approximation for advection-dominated accretion flows at sub-Eddington rates, where cooling is inefficient. To address this, we have added a paragraph in the discussion section estimating the cooling timescale and arguing that it does not significantly affect the wind launching in our models. However, performing a full simulation with radiative cooling would require substantial additional computational resources and code modifications, which we consider beyond the current scope. We have noted this as a limitation and a direction for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from explicit hydrodynamical simulations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes of numerical hydrodynamical simulations of hot accretion flows, with parameters such as viscosity α, black-hole mass, and debris temperature chosen and varied as inputs. The central claims (e.g., mildly relativistic winds for α=0.1 versus convective outflows for α=0.01) are direct outputs of the runs under the advection-dominated assumption, not analytical derivations or predictions that reduce to fitted quantities or self-citations by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chains, self-definitional steps, or renamed empirical patterns are evident in the provided abstract and description.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's findings depend on numerical solutions using standard hydrodynamical methods with selected values for viscosity parameter and black hole mass; no free parameters are fitted to match specific data but chosen to bracket regimes.

free parameters (3)

viscosity parameter alpha
Chosen as 0.1 and 0.01 to explore different regimes; not fitted to data but selected to represent typical values.
black hole mass
Varied to study dependence; specific values not given in abstract.
stellar debris temperature
Varied but found to have negligible effect.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The accretion flow is hot and advection-dominated without significant radiative cooling.
Implied by 'hot accretion flows' in title and abstract.
standard math Standard hydrodynamical equations with viscosity prescription apply to the TDE debris.
Basis of the numerical simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5544 in / 1487 out tokens · 88382 ms · 2026-05-12T02:49:25.569567+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel (J-cost uniqueness) unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

For alpha=0.1, the mildly-relativistic unbound winds (~0.1c) are launched predominantly from the outside of the accretion flows along the equatorial plane, with a kinetic energy of ~10^{-4} L_Edd. In contrast, convective bound outflows dominate for alpha=0.01
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The evolution of hot accretion flows in TDEs is described by the conservation laws of mass, momentum, and internal energy (Eqs. 1-3) with alpha-prescription viscosity nu=alpha sqrt(GM r)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

1995, ApJL, 438, L37, doi: 10.1086/187709

Regev, O. 1995, ApJL, 438, L37, doi: 10.1086/187709

work page doi:10.1086/187709 1995
[2]

, keywords =

Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

work page doi:10.1086/166683 1988
[3]

D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B

Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w

work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020
[4]

D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al

Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12729, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12729

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12729 2025
[5]

L., et al

Anumarlapudi, A., Dobie, D., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d3 2024
[6]

2000, ApJ, 545, 772, doi: 10.1086/317835

Ayal, S., Livio, M., & Piran, T. 2000, ApJ, 545, 772, doi: 10.1086/317835

work page doi:10.1086/317835 2000
[7]

Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 767, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/30 14 Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 772, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/30 2013
[8]

Begelman, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2912, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20071.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20071.x 2012
[9]

C., & Meier, D

Begelman, M. C., & Meier, D. L. 1982, ApJ, 253, 873, doi: 10.1086/159688

work page doi:10.1086/159688 1982
[10]

B., Kulkarni, S

Blagorodnova, N., Cenko, S. B., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04b0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab04b0 2019
[11]

R., & Wynn, G

Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x —. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 68, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07425.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x 1999
[12]

Bonnerot, C., & Stone, N. C. 2021, SSRv, 217, 16, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00789-1

work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00789-1 2021
[13]

S., Kochanek, C

Brown, J. S., Kochanek, C. S., Holoien, T. W. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2372

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2372 2018
[14]

2023, MNRAS, 521, 4180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad804

Bu, D.-F., Chen, L., Mou, G., Qiao, E., & Yang, X.-H. 2023a, MNRAS, 521, 4180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad804

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad804
[15]

2019, ApJ, 875, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12ea —

Bu, D.-F., Qiao, E., & Yang, X.-H. 2019, ApJ, 875, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12ea —. 2023b, MNRAS, 523, 4136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1696

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab12ea 2019
[16]

2022, MNRAS, 516, 2833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2399

Bu, D.-F., Qiao, E., Yang, X.-H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2399

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2399 2022
[17]

2026, A&A, 705, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556161

Bu, D.-F., Yang, X.-H., Chen, L., Yang, C., & Mou, G. 2026, A&A, 705, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556161

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556161 2026
[18]

2025, in New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations, ed

Bu, D.-F., & Yuan, F. 2025, in New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations, ed. C. Bambi, Y. Mizuno, S. Shashank, & F. Yuan, 305–325, doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-8522-3 9

work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8522-3 2025
[19]

2016, ApJ, 818, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/83

Bu, D.-F., Yuan, F., Gan, Z.-M., & Yang, X.-H. 2016, ApJ, 818, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/83

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/83 2016
[20]

D., et al

Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 —. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0 2022
[21]

B., Cucchiara, A., Roth, N., et al

Cenko, S. B., Cucchiara, A., Roth, N., et al. 2016, ApJL, 818, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L32

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l32 2016
[22]

R., Nixon, C., Begelman, M

Coughlin, E. R., Nixon, C., Begelman, M. C., & Armitage, P. J. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw770

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw770 2016
[23]

2019, MNRAS, 483, 565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

Curd, B., & Narayan, R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3134 2019
[24]

Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 2018
[25]

A., Narayan, R., Ostriker, E., & Yi, I

Esin, A. A., Narayan, R., Ostriker, E., & Yi, I. 1996, ApJ, 465, 312, doi: 10.1086/177421

work page doi:10.1086/177421 1996
[26]

J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J

Goodwin, A. J., van Velzen, S., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac333

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac333 2022
[27]

J., Burn, M., Anderson, G

Goodwin, A. J., Burn, M., Anderson, G. E., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbe80

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adbe80 2025
[28]

A., et al

Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 2018
[29]

F., & Balbus, S

Hawley, J. F., & Balbus, S. A. 2002, ApJ, 573, 738, doi: 10.1086/340765

work page doi:10.1086/340765 2002
[30]

F., Balbus, S

Hawley, J. F., Balbus, S. A., & Stone, J. M. 2001, ApJL, 554, L49, doi: 10.1086/320931

work page doi:10.1086/320931 2001
[31]

F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J

Hawley, J. F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J. H. 2011, ApJ, 738, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/84

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/84 2011
[32]

C., Norman, M

Hayes, J. C., Norman, M. L., Fiedler, R. A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 188, doi: 10.1086/504594

work page doi:10.1086/504594 2006
[33]

Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0

work page doi:10.1038/254295a0 1975
[34]

H., & Stone, J

Hirose, S., Krolik, J. H., & Stone, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 640, 901, doi: 10.1086/499153

work page doi:10.1086/499153 2006
[35]

B., & Arcavi, I

Horesh, A., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8 2021
[36]

B., Roth, N., et al

Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., Roth, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24de

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab24de 2019
[37]

R., & Wynn, G

Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 309, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02220.x —. 2000, ApJS, 130, 463, doi: 10.1086/317354

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02220.x 1999
[38]

V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M

Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042, doi: 10.1086/375769

work page doi:10.1086/375769 2003
[39]

2016, ApJ, 830, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

Jiang, Y.-F., Guillochon, J., & Loeb, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/125 2016
[40]

C., Li, D

Jin, C. C., Li, D. Y., Jiang, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09580, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09580

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09580 2025
[41]

S., & Kallman, T

Kara, E., Dai, L., Reynolds, C. S., & Kallman, T. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3004

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3004 2018
[42]

, keywords =

King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015
[43]

R., Knigge, C., Drew, J

King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Livio, M. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1740, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11556.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11556.x 2007
[44]

2022, ApJ, 939, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c2f

Kino, M., Takahashi, M., Kawashima, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c2f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c2f 2022
[45]

Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013
[46]

2024, ApJ, 977, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba5

Lei, X., Wu, Q., Li, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba5 2024
[47]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25877

Li, D., Zhang, W., Yang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25877

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25877 2025
[48]

2023, MNRAS, 521, 3237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad736

Li, J., & Qiao, E. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad736

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad736 2023
[49]

2025, ApJL, 989, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf205

Lin, Z., Wang, Y., Bu, D.-F., Mao, J., & Liu, J. 2025, ApJL, 989, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf205

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf205 2025
[50]

2022, MNRAS, 512, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac181

Liodakis, I. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac181

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac181 2022
[51]

F., Wang, Y., Cheng, H., & Yuan, W

Liu, M., Liu, B. F., Wang, Y., Cheng, H., & Yuan, W. 2025a, MNRAS, 539, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf459 —. 2025b, MNRAS, 541, 1231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1060 15

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf459
[52]

2020, MNRAS, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

Lu, W., & Bonnerot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3405 2020
[53]

R., Li, Y.-P., & Wang, Q

Ma, R.-Y., Roberts, S. R., Li, Y.-P., & Wang, Q. D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3039

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3039 2019
[54]

R., & Matsumoto, R

Machida, M., Hayashi, M. R., & Matsumoto, R. 2000, ApJL, 532, L67, doi: 10.1086/312553

work page doi:10.1086/312553 2000
[55]

2001, PASJ, 53, L1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/53.1.L1

Machida, M., Matsumoto, R., & Mineshige, S. 2001, PASJ, 53, L1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/53.1.L1

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/53.1.l1 2001
[56]

2021, MNRAS, 507, 4196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2418 —

Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2418 —. 2024, ApJ, 971, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58ba

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2418 2021
[57]

2012 , month = apr, journal =

McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x 2012
[58]

2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f 2019
[59]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14715, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14715

Mou, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14715, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14715

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.14715 2025
[60]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25033

Mou, G., & Shu, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25033

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25033 2025
[61]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3742

Mou, G., Wang, T., Wang, W., & Yang, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3742

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3742 2022
[62]

2021, MNRAS, 507, 1684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2261

Mou, G., & Wang, W. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2261

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2261 2021
[63]

2021, ApJ, 908, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd475

Mou, G., Dou, L., Jiang, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd475

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd475 2021
[64]

V., & Abramowicz, M

Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 798, doi: 10.1086/309268

work page doi:10.1086/309268 2000
[65]

E., & Yi, I

Narayan, R., McClintock, J. E., & Yi, I. 1996, ApJ, 457, 821, doi: 10.1086/176777

work page doi:10.1086/176777 1996
[66]

, eprint =

Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 —. 1995a, ApJ, 444, 231, doi: 10.1086/175599 —. 1995b, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

work page doi:10.1086/187381 1994
[67]

A., & Katz, J

Nolthenius, R. A., & Katz, J. I. 1982, ApJ, 263, 377, doi: 10.1086/160511

work page doi:10.1086/160511 1982
[68]

D., & Thorne, K

Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), ed. C. Dewitt & B. S. Dewitt, 343–450

work page 1973
[69]

2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi: 10.1086/430728

Ohsuga, K., Mori, M., Nakamoto, T., & Mineshige, S. 2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi: 10.1086/430728

work page doi:10.1086/430728 2005
[70]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Pang, B., Pen, U.-L., Matzner, C. D., Green, S. R., & Liebend¨ orfer, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1228, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18748.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18748.x 2011
[71]

D., & Wong, S

Pen, U.-L., Matzner, C. D., & Wong, S. 2003, ApJL, 596, L207, doi: 10.1086/379339

work page doi:10.1086/379339 2003
[72]

O., et al

Peng, S., Li, Z., Sjouwerman, L. O., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab855d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab855d 2020
[73]

S., Meyer, E

Perlman, E. S., Meyer, E. T., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bba

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bba 2022
[74]

2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2779

Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Truong, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2779

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2779 2021
[75]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19047, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19047

Plotko, P., Winter, W., Lunardini, C., & Yuan, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19047, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19047

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19047 2024
[76]

R., Knigge, C., Drew, J

Poutanen, J., Lipunova, G., Fabrika, S., Butkevich, A. G., & Abolmasov, P. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1187, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x 2007
[77]

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

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty652 2018
[78]

2000, ApJ, 539, 809, doi: 10.1086/309267

Quataert, E., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 809, doi: 10.1086/309267

work page doi:10.1086/309267 2000
[79]

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

work page doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988
[80]

2015, MNRAS, 453, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1802

Sadowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1802

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1802 2015

Showing first 80 references.