pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28928 · v1 · pith:KOSWXUK5new · submitted 2026-05-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Delayed Radio Flares in Tidal Disruption Events from Star-Disk Collision Outflows

Itai Linial , Brian D. Metzger , Andrei M. Beloborodov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 10:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventsradio flaresextreme mass ratio inspiralsaccretion disk outflowsblack hole transientsdelayed emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Collisions between a spreading TDE disk and a pre-existing EMRI star eject massive outflows years later, powering delayed radio flares.

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

The paper proposes that some tidal disruption events show radio emission rising only years after the initial flare because the viscously spreading accretion disk eventually reaches the orbit of a pre-existing star on an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral. Repeated collisions then drive outflows with speeds 0.02-0.1c and masses from 10^{-3} to 1 solar mass, carrying up to 10^{51} erg. These outflows interact with circumnuclear gas or earlier ejecta to produce the observed late radio re-brightening. The delay is set by the disk's viscous expansion time rather than by jet physics or viewing angle. The model also connects these events to systems that may exhibit quasi-periodic eruptions from the same collisions.

Core claim

Repeated star-disk collisions in TDE systems hosting an EMRI launch outflows with velocities comparable to the orbital speed, masses of 10^{-3} to 1 solar mass, and energies up to 10^{51} erg on timescales of years after the disruption; these outflows then produce radio emission through interaction with surrounding material.

What carries the argument

Viscous spreading of the initially compact TDE disk until it intercepts the EMRI orbit, triggering repeated collisions that eject disk or stellar material as outflows.

If this is right

  • Delayed radio flares can occur independently of jet launching delays or off-axis geometry.
  • Outflow properties depend on disk viscosity, EMRI orbital period, and collision efficiency.
  • Some systems may show both delayed radio flares and quasi-periodic eruptions powered by the same collisions.
  • Late radio emission arises from interaction with circumnuclear material or earlier TDE ejecta.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Late-time radio monitoring could serve as an indirect probe for EMRIs around supermassive black holes.
  • The model implies that not all QPE-hosting TDEs will produce bright delayed radio flares, depending on outflow mass and environment.
  • If the mechanism operates, radio light curves might exhibit modulations tied to the EMRI orbital period.

Load-bearing premise

A pre-existing EMRI sits at an orbital radius the TDE disk can reach within years, and the collisions efficiently eject the required massive outflows.

What would settle it

A TDE with a confirmed delayed radio flare but no detectable periodicity or other signature of a stellar EMRI at the expected radius, or direct modeling showing collisions eject far less mass than needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28928 by Andrei M. Beloborodov, Brian D. Metzger, Itai Linial.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Shocked mass versus launch times of 9 TDEs exhibiting delayed radio flares (8 from Cendes et al. 2024 and the remaining one from Golay et al. 2025). Shocked masses Msh = 2Ek/v2 w were derived from the equipartition analysis of Cendes et al. (2024). Blue and red markers correspond to a range of assumptions on the microphysical equipartition parameters, with ϵe = ϵB = 0.1 (blue markers), and ϵe = 10−2 , ϵB =… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Key phases of the model, matched along the top by schematic lightcurves at different bands. The early optical/UV flare, decaying X-ray emission and prompt early radio flare on timescales ≲ yr are intrinsic to the TDE. Once the disk spreads to meet the orbit of a stellar EMRI, additional emission signatures may occur over longer timescales ≳ yrs from repeated disk-star collisions, including X-ray QPEs and d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: EMRI-disk collision-induced mass outflow rate relative to the local disk accretion rate, ξw ≡ m˙ w/m˙ d, as a function of EMRI orbital period. Different colors span a plausible range of values of f ⋆ ub and f d ub (the unbound fraction of the ablated star and shocked disk material, re￾spectively). Solid lines correspond to a constant viscosity, ν = 1019 cm2 s −1 , while dashed lines assume tv/Porb = 103 (M… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spreading disk surface density evolution, includ￾ing the effects of mass-loss from star-disk collisions. A nar￾row Gaussian ring of mass centered at r0 begins to viscously spread at time t = 0 (solid black line). Solid lines show the disk evolution in the presence of a weak sink term at a0 = 3r0 due to star-disk collisions (vertical black dashed line). The disk evolution in the absence of a sink term is sh… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Time evolution of the outflow ejection rate m˙ w for different values of the dimensionless mass-loss ef￾ficiency ξw (Eq. (8)) indicated in the legend. All models assume k = 1, corresponding to an outflow dominated by ejected disk material and negligible stellar ablation. Dashed lines show the estimated mass loss one obtains, neglecting the back reaction of collisional mass-loss on the disk evo￾lution … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Regimes of star-disk interaction outcomes, as a function of orbital period and the disk’s viscous time. Here we assume fd = 0.1, f ⋆ ub = 0.1, f d ub = 0.5, and m⋆ = mtde ⋆ = 0.5 M⊙. Below the solid black line, the ab￾lation time is shorter than the disk spreading time, and the EMRI is destroyed (and the disk survives). Below the dash-dotted line, the disk depletion time is shorter than tv and the disk is … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contours of peak 3 GHz radio flux (for d = 100 Mpc; solid blue), peak timescale (measured since the outflow was launched; dot-dashed magenta), and the time of peak flux (measured since the TDE; dashed black) of radio flares from EMRI-disk collisions, as a function of the EMRI orbital period Porb and ejecta mass mw. Thin gray lines show the ejecta kinetic energy log10(Ek/erg), while triangles on the left ma… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A growing fraction of tidal disruption events (TDEs) exhibit radio emission that rises only years after the optical or infrared flare, indicating delayed outflow activity. In some events the outflow is inferred to be slow ($\sim 0.02 \, c$) and massive ($\gtrsim 0.01-0.1 M_{\odot}$), challenging models such as delayed jets and disk state transitions. We propose a new mechanism for such delayed outflows: repeated collisions between a TDE accretion disk and a pre-existing stellar extreme-mass-ratio-inspiral (EMRI) orbiting the black hole. In this scenario, the delay reflects the viscous time required for the initially compact TDE disk to expand and intercept the EMRI orbit, rather than delayed jet launching or off-axis viewing effects. Once star-disk collisions commence, repeated impacts eject outflows with velocities comparable to the orbital speed, $v_{\rm w} \sim 0.02-0.1c$. We develop a time-dependent model for the coupled evolution of the spreading disk and EMRI-induced mass-loss, identifying regimes where the outflow is dominated by disk material or ablated stellar debris. Depending on disk viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency, masses $\sim (10^{-3}-1) \, \rm M_\odot$ can be launched with energies up to $10^{51} \rm \, erg$, years after the TDE. These outflows produce radio emission through interaction with circumnuclear material or earlier TDE ejecta, consistent with observed late-time radio re-brightening. This model predicts a connection between delayed radio flares and EMRI-hosting systems, potentially including those exhibiting quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) powered by star-disk collisions, though the conditions for bright radio flares may not always match those necessary for detectable QPEs.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that delayed radio flares in some TDEs arise from outflows produced by repeated collisions between a viscously spreading TDE accretion disk and a pre-existing stellar EMRI. The observed delay reflects the viscous time for the disk to expand and intercept the EMRI orbit; once collisions begin, they eject outflows with v_w ~0.02-0.1c, masses ~(10^{-3}-1) M_odot and energies up to 10^51 erg that produce radio emission via interaction with circumnuclear material. The model identifies disk- versus star-dominated outflow regimes and notes a possible connection to QPE-hosting systems.

Significance. If the result holds, the work supplies a concrete alternative to delayed-jet or disk-state-transition explanations for the slow, massive outflows inferred from late-time radio re-brightenings in TDEs. It directly links a subset of radio-loud TDEs to EMRI systems and offers a unified picture connecting delayed radio flares to the same star-disk collisions that may power QPEs, thereby generating falsifiable multi-wavelength predictions for future observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph describing the delay mechanism and collision outcomes): the outflow masses, velocities, and energies are stated to depend on disk viscosity, orbital period, and an unspecified collision efficiency; these parameters can be adjusted to reproduce the observed delays and radio-inferred masses, rendering the quantitative predictions adjustable rather than derived.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the ejection efficiency, unbound fraction, and velocity distribution from star-disk impacts are tied directly to orbital speed and collision efficiency without derivation from first-principles hydrodynamics or citation of impact simulations; this step is load-bearing for the claimed outflow properties (v_w ~0.02-0.1c, masses 10^{-3}-1 M_odot, energies ~10^51 erg) that are required to match the radio data.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the model presupposes a pre-existing EMRI at an orbital radius reachable by the viscously spreading TDE disk on a timescale of years, yet provides no occurrence-rate estimate, dynamical capture argument, or population synthesis to support the required EMRI abundance and orbital distribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and acknowledge limitations of the model.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph describing the delay mechanism and collision outcomes): the outflow masses, velocities, and energies are stated to depend on disk viscosity, orbital period, and an unspecified collision efficiency; these parameters can be adjusted to reproduce the observed delays and radio-inferred masses, rendering the quantitative predictions adjustable rather than derived.

    Authors: We agree that the outflow properties in the model are functions of disk viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency. This parametric dependence is inherent to a semi-analytic framework that identifies physical regimes rather than providing unique numerical predictions. The manuscript explores how outcomes vary across plausible ranges of these quantities to match observed delays and radio properties. We will revise the abstract to explicitly state the parameter dependence and the explored ranges, clarifying that the model supplies a mechanism and scaling relations rather than fixed values. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the ejection efficiency, unbound fraction, and velocity distribution from star-disk impacts are tied directly to orbital speed and collision efficiency without derivation from first-principles hydrodynamics or citation of impact simulations; this step is load-bearing for the claimed outflow properties (v_w ~0.02-0.1c, masses 10^{-3}-1 M_odot, energies ~10^51 erg) that are required to match the radio data.

    Authors: The outflow velocity is taken to be comparable to the local orbital speed on energetic grounds, with the ejected mass fraction parameterized by a collision efficiency. This is a simplified treatment that does not derive the unbound fraction or velocity distribution from first-principles hydrodynamics. We will expand the methods section to discuss the physical motivation for these assumptions, cite available literature on star-disk and star-star impact simulations where relevant, and explicitly note the limitations of the approximation as a first exploration of the mechanism. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the model presupposes a pre-existing EMRI at an orbital radius reachable by the viscously spreading TDE disk on a timescale of years, yet provides no occurrence-rate estimate, dynamical capture argument, or population synthesis to support the required EMRI abundance and orbital distribution.

    Authors: The model assumes an EMRI at radii reachable within years, motivated by the existence of QPEs and theoretical expectations for stellar capture in galactic nuclei. A dedicated occurrence-rate calculation or population synthesis lies outside the scope of this work, which focuses on the time-dependent dynamics and radio signatures once collisions occur. We will add a short paragraph in the introduction referencing existing studies on EMRI formation channels and capture rates to better frame the assumption. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Outflow masses/velocities set by adjustable collision efficiency and viscosity rather than derived

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Depending on disk viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency, masses ∼(10^{-3}-1) M_⊙ can be launched with energies up to 10^{51} erg, years after the TDE. These outflows produce radio emission through interaction with circumnuclear material or earlier TDE ejecta, consistent with observed late-time radio re-brightening."

    The quoted statement shows that the model outputs (masses, energies, velocities ~ orbital speed) are produced by choosing the listed parameters to achieve consistency with the target observations; the radio-emission match is therefore achieved by construction once the efficiency and viscosity are selected to fit the delays and outflow scales.

full rationale

The paper develops a time-dependent model coupling disk spreading to EMRI-induced mass loss and states that outflow properties depend on viscosity, orbital period, and collision efficiency. These parameters are not derived from first-principles hydrodynamics within the paper but are instead varied to produce masses, velocities, and energies matching the observed delayed radio flares. This constitutes a moderate instance of fitted inputs presented as explanatory predictions, without reducing the central mechanism to pure self-definition or self-citation. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is evident from the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard viscous disk evolution and impact ejection physics but introduces three adjustable parameters to set the delay and ejected mass; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • disk viscosity
    Controls the viscous spreading timescale that sets the delay before collisions begin.
  • orbital period
    Determines collision frequency and the radial location of the EMRI.
  • collision efficiency
    Sets the fraction of material ejected per impact and whether disk or stellar debris dominates the outflow.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption TDE accretion disks spread viscously outward on timescales of years
    Invoked to produce the observed delay without additional jet physics.
  • domain assumption Star-disk collisions eject material at speeds comparable to the local orbital velocity
    Used to obtain v_w ~ 0.02-0.1c and the quoted mass and energy ranges.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5877 in / 1529 out tokens · 50402 ms · 2026-06-29T10:32:20.031472+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

106 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    D., Wieringa, M

    Alexander, K. D., Wieringa, M. H., Berger, E., Saxton, R. D., & Komossa, S. 2017, ApJ, 837, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192 2017

  4. [4]

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

    Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab 2026

  5. [5]

    2005, PhR, 419, 65, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002

    Alexander, T. 2005, PhR, 419, 65, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002 2005

  6. [6]

    Alush, Y., & Stone, N. C. 2025, ApJ, 993, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf217

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf217 2025

  7. [7]

    W., Perley, D

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 430, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  8. [8]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

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

  9. [9]

    2024a, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    Arcodia, R., Linial, I., Miniutti, G., et al. 2024a, A&A, 690, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

  10. [10]

    2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

  11. [11]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b

    Arcodia, R., Baldini, P., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b 2025

  12. [12]

    2026, A&A, 706, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 Barniol Duran, R., & Piran, T

    Baldini, P., Rau, A., Merloni, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 Barniol Duran, R., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 770, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/146

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 2026

  13. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    Beniamini, P., Piran, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1950 2023

  14. [14]

    G., et al

    Berger, E., Zauderer, A., Pooley, G. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  15. [15]

    S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B

    Bloom, J. S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 203, doi: 10.1126/science.1207150

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1207150 2011

  16. [16]

    M., & Lodato, G

    Bonnerot, C., Rossi, E. M., & Lodato, G. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 464, 2816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2547 2017

  17. [17]

    C., Levan, A

    Brown, G. C., Levan, A. J., Stanway, E. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1520

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1520 2015

  18. [18]

    N., et al

    Burrows, D. N., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 421, doi: 10.1038/nature10374

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10374 2011

  19. [19]

    Medvedev, P. S. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 30, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf686

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf686 2025

  20. [20]

    K., Lee, H

    Cannizzo, J. K., Lee, H. M., & Goodman, J. 1990, ApJ, 351, 38, doi: 10.1086/168442

    work page doi:10.1086/168442 1990

  21. [21]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/91 2014

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    B., Krimm, H

    Cenko, S. B., Krimm, H. A., Horesh, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77 20

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/77 2012

  24. [24]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  25. [25]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 2041

  26. [26]

    2025b, ApJ, 984, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

    Chakraborty, J., Kosec, P., Kara, E., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 984, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

  27. [27]

    A., Arcodia, R., et al

    Chakraborty, J., Rappaport, S. A., Arcodia, R., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1001, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae548b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae548b 2026

  28. [28]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´ nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 2007

  29. [29]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 2023

  30. [30]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 2021

  31. [31]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2017, ApJL, 851, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2 2017

  32. [32]

    Giannios, D., & Metzger, B. D. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2102, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x 2011

  33. [33]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 2020

  34. [34]

    W., Berger, E., Cendes, Y., et al

    Golay, W. W., Berger, E., Cendes, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16756, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.16756

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16756 2025

  35. [35]

    J., Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., & van Velzen, S. 2025a, PASA, 42, e130, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10083

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10083 2025

  36. [36]

    J., & Mummery, A

    Goodwin, A. J., & Mummery, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.14838, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.14838

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14838 2026

  37. [37]

    J., Alexander, K

    Goodwin, A. J., Alexander, K. D., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1258

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1258 2023

  38. [38]

    J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Goodwin, A. J., Mummery, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 981, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb0b1

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo, M., Gezari, S., Yao, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f 2024

  40. [40]

    2025a, ApJ, 985, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac —

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., Wevers, T., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 985, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac —. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcbac

  41. [41]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb620 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb620 2025

  42. [42]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    work page doi:10.1038/331687a0 1988

  43. [43]

    B., & Arcavi, I

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

  44. [44]

    2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    Horesh, A., Sfaradi, I., Fender, R., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 920, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe 2041

  45. [45]

    F., Goodwin, A., Price, D

    Hu, F. F., Goodwin, A., Price, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeb79

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adeb79 2025

  46. [46]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    Huang, X., Linial, I., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca 2025

  47. [47]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff 2019

  48. [48]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw056

    Kawamuro, T., Ueda, Y., Shidatsu, M., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw056

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psw056 2016

  49. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020 2020

  50. [50]

    Kochanek, C. S. 1994, ApJ, 422, 508, doi: 10.1086/173745

    work page doi:10.1086/173745 1994

  51. [51]

    Krolik, J., Piran, T., Svirski, G., & Cheng, R. M. 2016, ApJ, 827, 127, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/127

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/127 2016

  52. [52]

    T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J

    Lam, A. T.-L., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083006, doi: 10.1103/m2tv-l3z8

    work page doi:10.1103/m2tv-l3z8 2025

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    Levan, A. J., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 199, doi: 10.1126/science.1207143

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1207143 2011

  55. [55]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b —. 2024, ApJ, 973, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b 2023

  56. [56]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, ApJ, 991, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa0e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa0e 2025

  57. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67cf

    Linial, I., & Quataert, E. 2024, ApJ, 974, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67cf 2024

  58. [58]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1041 —

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1041 —. 2022, ApJ, 940, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfd —. 2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1041 2017

  59. [59]

    Lu, W., Matsumoto, T., & Matzner, C. D. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1770

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1770 2024

  60. [60]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 1974

  61. [61]

    1999, MNRAS, 309, 447, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    Magorrian, J., & Tremaine, S. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 447, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x 1999

  62. [62]

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

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb 2024

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    2018, Science, 361, 482, doi: 10.1126/science.aao4669

    Mattila, S., P´ erez-Torres, M., Efstathiou, A., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 482, doi: 10.1126/science.aao4669

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aao4669 2018

  65. [65]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJL, 937, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba 2022

  66. [66]

    D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P

    Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3528, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20273.x 2012

  67. [67]

    Cunha, J

    Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x 2008

  68. [68]

    D., & Stone, N

    Metzger, B. D., & Stone, N. C. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1394 21

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1394 2016

  69. [69]

    D., Williams, P

    Metzger, B. D., Williams, P. K. G., & Berger, E. 2015, ApJ, 806, 224, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/224

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/224 2015

  70. [70]

    M., et al

    Middleton, M., G´ urpide, A., Kwan, T. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf052 2025

  71. [71]

    D., & Aloy, M

    Mimica, P., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., & Aloy, M. A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv825

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv825 2015

  72. [72]

    2023, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244512 2023

  73. [73]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x 2019

  74. [74]

    2024a, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 —

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3001

  75. [75]

    2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10365 2011

  76. [76]

    R., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2824 2020

  77. [77]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6 2024

  78. [78]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf 2022

  79. [79]

    R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al

    Pasham, D. R., Lucchini, M., Laskar, T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 88, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01820-x 2023

  80. [80]

    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

Showing first 80 references.