arxiv: 2605.13799 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Tidal disruption of a low-mass star in an active galactic nucleus as the origin of the PS16dtm outburst

Marzena \'Sniegowska , Bo\.zena Czerny , Michal Zaja\v{c}ek , Valentina Rosa , Vladim\'ir Karas , Taj Jankovi\v{c} , Tanja Petrushevska , Dragana Ili\'c

show 2 more authors

Benny Trakhtenbrot Petr Kurf\"urst

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 17:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords tidal disruption eventactive galactic nucleusaccretion diskPS16dtmlight curve modelingspectral analysisnarrow-line Seyfert 1

0 comments

The pith

The PS16dtm outburst arises from tidal disruption of a low-mass star embedded in an AGN accretion disk and shielded by a gaseous envelope.

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

The paper analyzes the unusual double-peaked optical light curve and absent X-ray emission in the PS16dtm event within a narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy. Spectral and timing data are modeled using viscous flow evolution to interpret the outburst as the disruption of a roughly 0.3 solar mass main-sequence star or partial disruption of a low-mass giant. The star orbits circularly and counter-rotating within the existing accretion disk. At the viewing angle, a gaseous envelope hides the inner regions, explaining the lack of direct signatures. This scenario accounts for the event's peculiarities in an already accreting AGN.

Core claim

From spectral analysis before and during the event combined with numerical modeling of viscous luminosity evolution, the outburst is interpreted as the tidal disruption of a ~0.3 solar mass main-sequence star (or gradual partial disruption of a low-mass giant star) on a circular, likely counter-rotating orbit embedded in the AGN accretion disk, with the disrupted material and inner disk shielded from view by a gaseous envelope.

What carries the argument

Numerical code for the viscous evolution of the accretion flow combined with spectral modeling of the luminosity profile.

If this is right

The system is expected to return to its previous narrow-line Seyfert 1 state over time.
X-ray emission should reappear once the shielding gaseous envelope dissipates.
Further monitoring can constrain the orbital parameters and the star's properties.
The event demonstrates how tidal disruptions in active nuclei can produce atypical signatures due to embedding in the disk.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar embedded disruptions may explain other anomalous outbursts in AGN without requiring new black hole formation.
Such events could contribute to the growth of supermassive black holes through repeated stellar captures.
Multi-wavelength observations of returning X-rays would test the shielding mechanism directly.

Load-bearing premise

The star follows a circular counter-rotating orbit embedded in the accretion disk with a gaseous envelope that fully shields the inner regions from direct observation at the large viewing angle.

What would settle it

Detection or non-detection of X-ray emission as the system returns to the original NLS1 state would confirm or refute the shielding by the gaseous envelope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13799 by Benny Trakhtenbrot, Bo\.zena Czerny, Dragana Ili\'c, Marzena \'Sniegowska, Michal Zaja\v{c}ek, Petr Kurf\"urst, Taj Jankovi\v{c}, Tanja Petrushevska, Valentina Rosa, Vladim\'ir Karas.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Spectral decomposition of archival (MJD = 52933) SDSS spectrum of SDSS J015804.75−005221.8 taken before the PS16dtm event detection (MJD = 57612). Top panel: The overall spectrum (in black) and best-fit model (in blue). The model components include: continuum emission (orange), fitted host-galaxy contribution (purple), iron pseudo-continuum (cyan), and broad & narrow components of various emission lines (r… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Photometric evolution of PS16dtm and lightcurve generated by a discrete accretion event, double, triple, and quintuple accretion events. With orange circles, we mark ATLAS photometry o band with signal-to-noise > 3 and after excluding outliers identified with a robust 5-median absolute deviation cut. The detection of the event MJD = 57612 is defined as t = 0 and marked with a black dotted line. With blue d… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Rest-frame Swift/UVOT observations of PS16dtm from MJD = 57632, 57647, and 57774 without (filled circles) or with (open circles) host subtraction. Using dashed lines, we plot black-body SEDs with temperatures of 8900K (left), 8500k (middle), and 8000K (right). The host subtraction does not change the shape of the SED significantly. We discuss the visible excess at ∼ 3600Å in Section 4. to the fit. We used … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Rest-frame broad-band SED of the source from Swift (MJD = 57632) with (open circles) and without (filled circles) host subtraction. This spectrum is well fitted by a sum of a black body of the temperature 8,900 K (dashed line) and a contribution from the BLR (cyan). The Balmer edge well explains the excess at ∼ 3600 Å. nosity Lbol of 1044erg s−1 (Blanchard et al. 2017), and assuming the complete thermaliza… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Schematic view of the system. The central SMBH, accretion disc, BLR before the flare are shown in the upper zoom-in, and the BLR during the flare in the bottom zoom-in. In magenta, we mark the BLR, in blue, the obscurer through which we see the event. Using a green circle, we mark the location of the potential material deposits to the accretion disc. The orange and gray regions represent the torus and the … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Alignment, hydrodynamical drag, gravitational-wave inspiral, and orbital timescales (in years) as a function of the distance from the SMBH (in Schwarzschild radii) for a 0.3 M⊙ star. For the accretion-disc properties, we adopt the relative accretion rate of ˙m = 0.1. In addition, we depict the typical AGN lifetime (∼ 107 − 109 years, shaded red region), a single AGN episode (∼ 105 years; dash-dotted brown… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Standard accretion disc scale-height to stellar radius ratio as a function of distance from the SMBH (in Schwarzschild radii) for mainsequence stars with m⋆ = 0.3 M⊙ (solid) and m⋆ = 1 M⊙ (dashed) – left axis. When the star is disrupted at the corresponding tidal radius (highlighted by solid and dashed red vertical lines), its radius is thicker than the disc scale-height. In this figure, we also show the … view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Illustration of the likely sequence of dynamic processes taking place in the star-AGN accretion disc interaction. At the top, the star is initially moving on an inclined eccentric orbit (left) or is already embedded within the disc on a retrograde orbit by chance (right). The orbit gets aligned and circularized due to the hydrodynamic drag. The fate of the star then depends on the sense of its orbit: if i… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The event PS16dtm, which occured in the center of the Narrow Line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxy SDSS J015804.75-005221.8 (z = 0.080440), is one of the few candidates for a tidal disruption event in an already-acretting active galactic nucleus (AGN). We aim to shed light on the character of the tidal disruption event in this source since it exhibits unusual peculiarities, such as the double-peak optical/UV light curve and a low blackbody temperature with a lack of X-ray emission. We perform spectral analysis of the source before and during the event. We model the time evolution of the luminosity profile using a numerical code that describes the viscous evolution of the flow. From the combined spectral and timing studies, we interpret the event as the disruption of a $\sim 0.3 M_{\odot}$ main-sequence star, or gradual partial disruption of the low-mass giant star. The star is likely on a circular orbit, embedded in the accretion disc. The discussion of the evolution of the star rather suggests that the orbit is counter-rotating. We observe the system at a sufficiently large viewing angle that the actual disruption process is not directly observed. The disrupted star and inner disc are shielded from the observer by a gaseous envelope. Further observations of the system returning to the previous NLS1 state, particularly in the X-ray band, are needed to confirm the proposed scenario and to put constraints on the return to a regular NLS1 state.

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 paper fits PS16dtm to a low-mass star disruption on a counter-rotating orbit inside an AGN disk, with a shielding envelope added to hide the X-rays and inner emission.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors treat the double-peaked optical/UV flare in PS16dtm as the tidal disruption of a roughly 0.3 solar-mass star sitting inside the accretion disk of its NLS1 host. They use pre- and post-event spectra plus a standard viscous evolution code to track how the added material spreads and produces the observed light curve shape. The modeling reproduces the timing and the low temperature once they set a circular counter-rotating orbit and a large viewing angle. That part is straightforward and connects the data to an existing TDE-in-AGN picture without inventing new physics. The discussion of why the orbit is likely counter-rotating, based on how the star would evolve, is a small but useful detail. The soft spot is that the star mass, orbit sense, inclination, and especially the gaseous envelope's properties are chosen after the fact to match both the double peak and the missing X-rays. No separate spectral or timing feature confirms the envelope exists, and the paper does not show how other parameter combinations fail or how sensitive the fit is. The central interpretation stays plausible on the numbers they present, but it rests on post-hoc tuning rather than a clear prediction. This work is aimed at people who follow TDE candidates in active galaxies and AGN variability surveys. It is coherent enough and grounded in concrete modeling that it deserves a serious referee to check the viscous runs and the uniqueness of the solution.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper interprets the PS16dtm outburst in NLS1 galaxy SDSS J015804.75-005221.8 as the tidal disruption of a ~0.3 M⊙ main-sequence star (or partial disruption of a low-mass giant) on a circular counter-rotating orbit embedded in the AGN accretion disc. Spectral analysis before and during the event combined with numerical viscous evolution modeling of the flow is used to reproduce the double-peaked optical/UV light curve, low blackbody temperature, and absence of X-ray emission, with the inner regions shielded from the observer by a gaseous envelope at large viewing angle.

Significance. If the central interpretation holds, the work offers a concrete model for a rare TDE embedded in an active AGN disc, using numerical viscous evolution to connect the observed light-curve morphology to disc-star interaction. This could inform studies of accretion-state changes in NLS1 galaxies and the role of embedded stellar disruptions. The numerical modeling of viscous flow evolution is a clear strength that grounds the timing analysis.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The parameters for the disrupted star mass (~0.3 M⊙), circular counter-rotating orbit, and gaseous envelope are selected to reproduce the double-peaked light curve and X-ray non-detection, yet no error bars, alternative orbit configurations, or quantitative envelope column-density constraints from the spectra are reported; this makes the shielding explanation load-bearing but post-hoc.
[Discussion] The weakest assumption (gaseous envelope fully shielding the inner disc at the adopted viewing angle) is invoked to reconcile the viscous model with absent X-rays and direct TDE signatures, but no independent spectral feature (e.g., absorption lines or continuum shape) or timing prediction is provided to verify the envelope's existence or covering fraction.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states the star is 'likely on a circular orbit' and 'the discussion of the evolution of the star rather suggests' counter-rotation; these should be tied to specific figures or model outputs showing why prograde or eccentric orbits are disfavored.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the robustness of our interpretation of PS16dtm. We address each major point below, indicating revisions that will strengthen the manuscript by providing additional context on parameter choices and the envelope assumption.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The parameters for the disrupted star mass (~0.3 M⊙), circular counter-rotating orbit, and gaseous envelope are selected to reproduce the double-peaked light curve and X-ray non-detection, yet no error bars, alternative orbit configurations, or quantitative envelope column-density constraints from the spectra are reported; this makes the shielding explanation load-bearing but post-hoc.

Authors: We agree that the specific parameter values were tuned to match the observed double-peaked light curve and X-ray non-detection. The ~0.3 M⊙ mass follows from matching the peak luminosity and viscous timescale in our numerical models for a circular orbit embedded in the disc. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph discussing the explored parameter space, including approximate uncertainties derived from varying the mass by ±0.1 M⊙ and the resulting changes in light-curve shape. We will also briefly compare prograde versus counter-rotating cases, noting that the latter better reproduces the observed timing without requiring unphysically high viscosities. For the envelope we will extract rough column-density limits from the existing spectral fits by examining the UV continuum slope and absence of strong emission lines, thereby grounding the shielding argument more directly in the data rather than leaving it purely post-hoc. revision: yes
Referee: [Discussion] The weakest assumption (gaseous envelope fully shielding the inner disc at the adopted viewing angle) is invoked to reconcile the viscous model with absent X-rays and direct TDE signatures, but no independent spectral feature (e.g., absorption lines or continuum shape) or timing prediction is provided to verify the envelope's existence or covering fraction.

Authors: The envelope is required to explain why neither X-ray emission from the inner disc nor classic TDE spectral features are observed, consistent with a large viewing angle through the AGN disc. We acknowledge that independent verification would be valuable. In the revised discussion we will re-examine the pre- and post-event spectra for any subtle continuum curvature or weak absorption that could be attributed to the envelope, and we will add explicit timing predictions for the expected return of X-ray emission once the envelope disperses. These predictions will be tied to the viscous evolution timescale already modeled. If the current spectra yield only upper limits rather than positive detections, we will state this limitation clearly and frame the envelope as a testable hypothesis for future multi-wavelength monitoring. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Orbital parameters and shielding envelope fitted to match double-peak light curve and X-ray non-detection

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"From the combined spectral and timing studies, we interpret the event as the disruption of a ∼0.3 M⊙ main-sequence star, or gradual partial disruption of the low-mass giant star. The star is likely on a circular orbit, embedded in the accretion disc. ... We observe the system at a sufficiently large viewing angle that the actual disruption process is not directly observed. The disrupted star and inner disc are shielded from the observer by a gaseous envelope."

The mass, circular counter-rotating orbit, viewing angle, and gaseous envelope are chosen to reproduce the double-peaked light curve (via the viscous code) and to account for the lack of X-ray emission and direct disruption features. These are not outputs of the model but inputs tuned to the observations, rendering the shielding explanation a fit rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper models the light curve with a standard viscous evolution code but selects the star mass (~0.3 M⊙), circular counter-rotating embedded orbit, large viewing angle, and gaseous envelope specifically to reproduce the observed double-peaked optical/UV profile while explaining the absence of X-rays and direct TDE signatures. These elements are not independently derived or predicted by the model equations; they are adjusted post-hoc to fit the same spectral and timing data used to define the scenario. This creates partial circularity in the central interpretation without reducing the entire derivation to tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model relies on standard thin-disk viscous evolution equations plus several fitted geometric and stellar parameters chosen to match the light curve; the gaseous envelope is introduced without independent observational confirmation.

free parameters (3)

disrupted star mass = 0.3 M_sun
Set to approximately 0.3 solar masses to reproduce the observed luminosity and light-curve shape
orbital inclination / viewing angle
Chosen sufficiently large so that the envelope shields the inner disk and disruption site
envelope optical depth and extent
Adjusted to suppress X-ray emission and lower the observed blackbody temperature

axioms (2)

standard math The accretion flow follows standard viscous evolution equations for a thin disk
Invoked when using the numerical code to model time-dependent luminosity after disruption
domain assumption Tidal disruption of a star embedded in an AGN disk produces a double-peaked light curve when viewed at large inclination through an envelope
Core interpretive step linking the numerical model to the observed double-peak morphology

invented entities (1)

gaseous envelope no independent evidence
purpose: Shields the disrupted star and inner disk from direct observation, explaining lack of X-rays and low temperature
Postulated to reconcile the model with the observed properties at the chosen viewing angle

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5640 in / 1738 out tokens · 97174 ms · 2026-05-14T17:30:09.662134+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.

We model the time evolution of the luminosity profile using a numerical code that describes the viscous evolution of the flow... G_Ṁ(τ) = (2μ²)^μ / Γ(μ) τ^−(1+μ) exp(−2μ²/τ)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking (D=3 forcing) unclear

?

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

The disrupted star and inner disc are shielded from the observer by a gaseous envelope... R_obsc = 4.7×10^15 cm or 15800 R_Schw

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

114 extracted references · 114 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

2014, ApJ, 793, 38

Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 38

work page 2014
[2]

J., Zurek, W

Armitage, P. J., Zurek, W. H., & Davies, M. B. 1996, ApJ, 470, 237

work page 1996
[3]

1994, ApJ, 423, 581

Artymowicz, P. 1994, ApJ, 423, 581

work page 1994
[4]

1995, ApJ, 455, L119

Baldwin, J., Ferland, G., Korista, K., & Verner, D. 1995, ApJ, 455, L119

work page 1995
[5]

2024, ApJ, 977, 279

Bao, D.-W., Guo, W.-J., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 279

work page 2024
[6]

K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al

Blanchard, P. K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 106

work page 2017
[7]

Carroll, B. W. & Ostlie, D. A. 2017, An introduction to modern astrophysics, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

work page 2017
[8]

D., et al

Cendes, Y ., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185

work page 2024
[9]

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[10]

H., & Saban, D

Chan, C.-H., Piran, T., Krolik, J. H., & Saban, D. 2019, ApJ, 881, 113

work page 2019
[11]

2023, Rev

Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 59, 327

work page 2023
[12]

2025, MNRAS, 540, 871

Clark, P., Callow, J., Graur, O., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 871

work page 2025
[13]

& Zahn, J.-P

Collin, S. & Zahn, J.-P. 1999, A&A, 344, 433

work page 1999
[14]

2016, MNRAS, 462, 1256

Cracco, V ., Ciroi, S., Berton, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1256

work page 2016
[15]

2016, ApJ, 832, 15

Czerny, B., Du, P., Wang, J.-M., & Karas, V . 2016, ApJ, 832, 15

work page 2016
[16]

Czerny, B., Kunneriath, D., Karas, V ., & Das, T. K. 2013, A&A, 555, A97

work page 2013
[17]

J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A

Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A. S. 2021, ApJ, 916, 48

work page 2021
[18]

J., Djorgovski, S

Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 106

work page 2011
[19]

2017, ApJ, 840, L6

Du, P., Wang, J.-M., & Zhang, Z.-X. 2017, ApJ, 840, L6

work page 2017
[20]

J., Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., et al

Ferland, G. J., Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, L82

work page 2009
[21]

J., et al

Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 56

work page 2021
[22]

2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

work page 2004
[23]

2021, ARA&A, 59, 21

Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21

work page 2021
[24]

2012, Nature, 485, 217

Gezari, S., Chornock, R., Rest, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 217

work page 2012
[25]

2009, ApJ, 692, 1075

Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075

work page 2009
[26]

Goodrich, R. W. 1989, ApJ, 342, 224 GRA VITY+Collaboration, Abd El Dayem, K., Aimar, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A99 GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bourdarot, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A167

work page 1989
[27]

Greene, J. E. & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122

work page 2005
[28]

Greene, J. E. & Ho, L. C. 2007, ApJ, 667, 131

work page 2007
[29]

2025, A&A, 702, L8

Gu, Y ., Li, X., Cheng, X.-Q., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, L8

work page 2025
[30]

2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

Guo, H., Shen, Y ., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

work page 2018
[31]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20148

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

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

A Systematic Search for Active Galactic Nucleus Flares in ZTF Data Release 23

He, L., Liu, Z.-Y ., Niu, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.20232

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[33]

Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295

work page 1975
[34]

T., Holoien, T

Hinkle, J. T., Holoien, T. W. S., Shappee, B. J., & Auchettl, K. 2021, ApJ, 910, 83

work page 2021
[35]

T., Shappee, B

Hinkle, J. T., Shappee, B. J., Auchettl, K., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadt0074

work page 2025
[36]

B., Hinkle, J

Hoogendam, W. B., Hinkle, J. T., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4501 Ili´c, D., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., La Mura, G., Ciroi, S., & Rafanelli, P. 2012, A&A, 543, A142 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

work page 2024
[37]

Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJ, 980, L17

work page 2025
[38]

2017, ApJ, 850, 63

Jiang, N., Wang, T., Yan, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 63

work page 2017
[39]

2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 865

Kankare, E., Kotak, R., Mattila, S., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 865

work page 2017
[40]

& Šubr, L

Karas, V . & Šubr, L. 2001, A&A, 376, 686

work page 2001
[41]

& Šubr, L

Karas, V . & Šubr, L. 2007, A&A, 470, 11

work page 2007
[42]

1998, Black-hole accretion disks

Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 1998, Black-hole accretion disks

work page 1998
[43]

& Stone, N

Kaur, K. & Stone, N. C. 2025, ApJ, 979, 172

work page 2025
[44]

R., & Chua, A

Kejriwal, S., Witzany, V ., Zajaˇcek, M., Pasham, D. R., & Chua, A. J. K. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2143

work page 2024
[45]

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

Kennedy, G. F., Meiron, Y ., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 240

work page 2016
[46]

2001, MNRAS, 327, 799 Krtiˇcka, J., Benáˇcek, J., Budaj, J., et al

Kotov, O., Churazov, E., & Gilfanov, M. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 799 Krtiˇcka, J., Benáˇcek, J., Budaj, J., et al. 2024, Space Sci. Rev., 220, 24

work page 2001
[47]

R., Harrison, F

Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608 Kurfürst, P., Bless, G., Fišák, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.15428 Kurfürst, P., Pejcha, O., & Krtiˇcka, J. 2020, A&A, 642, A214

work page arXiv 2021
[48]

Leighly, K. M. & Casebeer, D. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 373, The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. L. C. Ho & J.-W. Wang, 365

work page 2007
[49]

2015, MNRAS, 451, 1341

Li, G., Naoz, S., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1341

work page 2015
[50]

& Metzger, B

Linial, I. & Metzger, B. D. 2024, ApJ, 973, 101 Article number, page 16 of 17 M. ´Sniegowska et al.: Tidal disruption in an active galactic nucleus

work page 2024
[51]

& Quataert, E

Linial, I. & Quataert, E. 2024, ApJ, 974, 67

work page 2024
[52]

2020, ApJ, 894, 93

Liu, Z., Li, D., Liu, H.-Y ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 93

work page 2020
[53]

& Pringle, J

Lynden-Bell, D. & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603

work page 1974
[54]

2023, ApJ, 953, 32

Makrygianni, L., Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 32

work page 2023
[55]

2004, MNRAS, 351, 169 Márquez, I., Masegosa, J., González-Martin, O., et al

Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169 Márquez, I., Masegosa, J., González-Martin, O., et al. 2017, Frontiers in Astron- omy and Space Sciences, 4, 34 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 5

work page 2004
[56]

2015, MNRAS, 452, 69

Merloni, A., Dwelly, T., Salvato, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 69

work page 2015
[57]

& Wood, J

Mineshige, S. & Wood, J. H. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 259

work page 1989
[58]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28380

Mondek, M., Zajaˇcek, M., Best, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28380

work page arXiv 2026
[59]

2021, ApJ, 908, 197 Müller, A

Mou, G., Dou, L., Jiang, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 197 Müller, A. L., Naddaf, M.-H., Zajaˇcek, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 39

work page 2021
[60]

& Balbus, S

Mummery, A. & Balbus, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5655

work page 2020
[61]

H., & Martin, P

Murdin, P., Clark, D. H., & Martin, P. G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 135

work page 1980
[62]

2000, ApJ, 536, 663 Navarro Navarro, N

Narayan, R. 2000, ApJ, 536, 663 Navarro Navarro, N. & Piran, T. 2025, ApJ, 983, 177

work page 2000
[63]

Netzer, H., Elitzur, M., & Ferland, G. J. 1985, ApJ, 299, 752

work page 1985
[64]

2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & Böker, T. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

work page 2020
[65]

& Done, C

Noda, H. & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898

work page 2018
[66]

E., et al

Olejak, A., Stegmann, J., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, L11

work page 2025
[67]

G., et al

Onori, F., Cannizzaro, G., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 76

work page 2022
[68]

Osterbrock, D. E. 1981, ApJ, 249, 462

work page 1981
[69]

Osterbrock, D. E. & Pogge, R. W. 1985, ApJ, 297, 166

work page 1985
[70]

Ostriker, E. C. 1999, ApJ, 513, 252

work page 1999
[71]

L., Czerny, B., et al

Pandey, A., Martínez-Aldama, M. L., Czerny, B., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 36

work page 2025
[72]

R., Zajaˇcek, M., Nixon, C

Pasham, D. R., Zajaˇcek, M., Nixon, C. J., et al. 2024b, Nature, 630, 325 Peißker, F., Eckart, A., Zajaˇcek, M., Ali, B., & Parsa, M. 2020, ApJ, 899, 50

work page 2020
[73]

Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224

work page 1964
[74]

2023, A&A, 669, A140

Petrushevska, T., Leloudas, G., Ili´c, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A140

work page 2023
[75]

& Landry, S

Pineault, S. & Landry, S. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 557

work page 1994
[76]

Prasad, C., Wang, Y ., Perna, R., Ford, K. E. S., & McKernan, B. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1409

work page 2024
[77]

S., Chand, H., & Zhang, X.-G

Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., Chand, H., & Zhang, X.-G. 2017, ApJS, 229, 39

work page 2017
[78]

Rauch, K. P. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 628

work page 1995
[79]

Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523

work page 1988
[80]

2020, ApJ, 898, L1

Ricci, C., Kara, E., Loewenstein, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, L1

work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.