Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 183 references

AT 2019ijn is a luminous optical flare plus a delayed, years-long radio afterglow powered by a narrow relativistic jet seen off-axis, most naturally a jetted tidal disruption by a 10^4–10^6 solar-mass black hole.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 00:46 UTC pith:UGC6EFRT

load-bearing objection Solid multi-wavelength discovery of an extreme radio+optical transient; the off-axis jet is a good working model but not uniquely required by the data, so the TDE preference is reasonable rather than locked in. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10047 v1 pith:UGC6EFRT submitted 2026-07-11 astro-ph.HE

A spectacular multi-wavelength transient associated with an off-axis relativistic jet

Delina Levine , Gregg Hallinan , Jean J. Somalwar , Dillon Z. Dong , Ehud Nakar , Kenta Hotokezaka , Vikram Ravi , Assaf Horesh
show 5 more authors
Jessie M. Miller Casey Law Steven T. Myers Stella K. Ocker Daniel D. Kelson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventoff-axis jetradio transientintermediate-mass black holemulti-wavelength transientVLASSAT 2019ijn
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper identifies AT 2019ijn as a multi-wavelength transient whose optical and radio properties do not match any known core-collapse stellar explosion. An optical flare rose in about seven rest-frame days, reached roughly 10^44 erg/s, and declined slowly for more than a month; a year later an energetic radio source appeared and has remained detectable for more than six years. The multi-epoch radio spectra cannot be fit by a spherical blast wave but are reproduced by a single narrow jet carrying about 2×10^52 erg and viewed well off its axis. The host is a star-forming dwarf galaxy at z=0.273 that can host a black hole of intermediate mass. The authors therefore attribute the event to black-hole accretion—favoring a jetted tidal disruption event over an exotic black-hole–star merger—and argue that radio sky surveys will systematically uncover more such off-axis jets.

Core claim

AT 2019ijn combines a fast-rising, slowly declining luminous optical flare with a delayed, extremely energetic radio afterglow lasting more than six years. These combined properties are unprecedented and rule out known core-collapse classes. The radio emission is explained as a single narrow relativistic jet viewed off-axis, implying accretion onto a black hole of mass 10^4–10^6 solar masses and favoring a jetted tidal disruption event in a dwarf galaxy.

What carries the argument

A single narrow off-axis relativistic jet (opening angle ~0.1 rad, viewing angle ~0.7–1 rad, energy ~2×10^52 erg) propagating in a density profile slightly steeper than r^{-2}. Its decelerating synchrotron emission simultaneously fits every radio epoch and supplies the energy and timescale that a spherical blast wave cannot.

Load-bearing premise

The radio spectra are taken to require a narrow off-axis jet rather than some other mildly relativistic geometry whose launch time and surrounding density profile remain free parameters.

What would settle it

An early-time radio detection or multi-frequency campaign that forces a successful spherical blast-wave solution, or optical spectroscopy at peak that reveals a clear core-collapse supernova signature, would overturn the off-axis jet and black-hole-accretion interpretation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Events with this optical-plus-delayed-radio combination cannot be ordinary core-collapse explosions.
  • Off-axis jetted tidal disruptions become preferentially discoverable in radio sky surveys rather than high-energy triggers.
  • Low-redshift examples allow the late-time deceleration and energy of the jet to be measured directly.
  • The jet launch can be bracketed between the optical flare and the first radio detection.
  • Upcoming wide-field radio surveys will expand the known population of AT 2019ijn-like off-axis jets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Delayed radio flares already reported in other tidal disruption events may likewise be off-axis jets that only become visible after deceleration.
  • Intermediate-mass black holes in star-forming dwarfs may launch luminous relativistic jets more readily than the higher-mass black holes that dominate existing samples.
  • Once more events are found, the optical light-curve asymmetry (fast rise, shallow decline) could serve as a practical selection flag for radio follow-up of candidate off-axis jetted disruptions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports AT 2019ijn, a multi-wavelength transient at z=0.273 discovered as a VLASS radio source and associated with a prior ZTF optical flare. The optical light curve shows a fast rest-frame rise (~7 d) to peak νLν ~ 10^44 erg/s and a shallow decline lasting >38 d, while the radio counterpart is luminous (peak νLν ~ 1.8×10^41 erg/s), energetic (E ~ 2×10^52 erg), and persists for >6 years with delayed onset relative to the optical. Multi-epoch VLA/RACS spectra are argued to be inconsistent with a spherical blast wave on timing grounds and are reproduced by a narrow off-axis relativistic jet. Combined with a star-forming dwarf host and an inferred BH mass range of ~10^4–10^6 M⊙ from M*–MBH scaling, the authors conclude that known core-collapse classes are precluded and that the event is most naturally a jetted TDE (or exotic BH–stellar merger), with the low redshift enabling late-time jet constraints.

Significance. If the multi-wavelength association and the requirement for a powerful off-axis jet hold, this is a high-impact discovery: an off-axis analog to rare jetted TDEs (Swift J1644, AT 2022cmc) selected in radio rather than high-energy bands, at low enough redshift for multi-year spectral evolution. The observational foundation is strong—VLASS/RACS/VLA SEDs, ZTF forced photometry, LRIS host spectroscopy with redshift and line diagnostics, and MOSFIRE Ks photometry—with a very low chance-coincidence probability (~10^−8). The paper usefully maps the event against SLSNe, LFBOTs, GRB-SNe, and jetted/non-jetted TDEs and highlights the role of upcoming radio surveys (VLASS, DSA) for off-axis jets. Credit is due for the multi-epoch radio modeling (Methods 2.9) that shows an off-axis jet can fit all epochs with plausible microphysics, and for explicit discussion of alternate engines (magnetar, BH–stellar merger).

major comments (4)
  1. Methods §2.9: Rejection of a spherical blast wave rests primarily on the derived launch-to-observation times (~50–300 d for the 998 d and 1997 d epochs) being shorter than the observed ~1000–2000 d post-optical (or ~500–1500 d post-first radio). The same section states that the spherical t estimate is only “correct within an order of magnitude,” that deceleration and light-travel delays can change t by factors of a few, and that jet hydrodynamics/spreading are not fully captured. Because the uniqueness of the narrow off-axis geometry (θj=0.1 rad, θobs~0.7–1 rad) is load-bearing for the abstract claim of a “powerful relativistic jet viewed off-axis,” the manuscript should either (i) quantify how large the spherical timing corrections would need to be to restore consistency and show they are unphysical, or (ii) soften the claim to “consistent with / well reproduced by” an off-axis jet rath
  2. Abstract and Main (pp. 5–7): The statement that the combined properties “preclude known classes of stellar explosion powered by core-collapse” is stronger than the body text supports. Methods §§2.10.6–2.11.2 and the comparison to AT 2022cmc leave open a magnetar-powered or accreting stellar-mass BH engine with continuous energy injection, and BH–stellar merger / LFBOT-extension models are explicitly retained as possible. The abstract and concluding paragraphs should be aligned with the body: core-collapse classes are strongly disfavored for standard SLSN/LGRB/LFBOT parameterizations, but not formally excluded, and the preferred interpretation is a BH-powered jetted TDE (or exotic BH–stellar merger).
  3. Methods §2.9 and Fig. 2: The density is forced to a piecewise wind profile with A declining from 8A* to 2.8A* across epochs (implying k≈2.5), while the text notes that neither constant nor pure wind fits all data. Because the jet energy E~2×10^52 erg and the late-time Γ~3, R~10^19 cm are quoted as central results, the manuscript should state more clearly how sensitive E and Γ are to the assumed density slope and to the free launch epoch (optical peak vs near first radio detection). A single illustrative model is fine, but the abstract energy and the claim that “this work determines the jet-launching occurrence” overstate what is constrained: launch time remains free between t0 and 412 d.
  4. Methods §§2.7 and 2.5: Host M* ≤ (9±5)×10^8 M⊙ and the derived MBH range 1.1×10^4–7.3×10^5 M⊙ rely on M/L and M*–MBH relations applied near or below the calibrated mass range, with possible NIR dust-echo contamination (Ldust ~ 6.5×10^41 erg/s under a 1600 K blackbody assumption). The IMBH/TDE interpretation depends on this mass scale. The paper should present M* and MBH more explicitly as upper limits / order-of-magnitude ranges and show that the TDE vs merger discussion remains intact if M* is lower by a factor of a few.
minor comments (8)
  1. Fig. 1a: The break in the time axis and the statement that the optical transient “likely remains detectable” beyond the last ZTF point should be quantified (e.g., extrapolated magnitude at a stated date) so the lower limit tdec,rest > 38 d is reproducible.
  2. Methods §2.1.2 / Extended Data Table 1: Optical light-curve fit parameters are given in the observer frame while rise/decline times in the abstract and Fig. 4 are rest-frame; state the conversion explicitly next to the table.
  3. Methods §2.3.2: Manual wavelength correction and rescaling of the 1650 d red spectrum, and the sky line near [OIII] 4959 at 2011 d, should be flagged in Extended Data Fig. 4 so line-ratio evolution is not over-interpreted.
  4. Fig. 2 caption: “E = 2×10^52 erg/s” appears to be a units typo (energy, not energy per time); correct to erg and list the full parameter set used for the overlaid curves in one place.
  5. Methods §2.4: Radio k-correction uses αR from the declining 2–4 GHz light curve and βR from the 998 d thin spectrum; note that α and β evolve, so the k-corrected peak luminosity is approximate.
  6. Extended Data Fig. 5 / §2.6: Color evolution is interpolated from non-simultaneous g and r points; a short note on interpolation uncertainty would help comparison to AT 2022cmc and LFBOTs.
  7. References and §2.13: Several comparison light curves are compiled from many sources; ensuring all are cited at first use in the figure captions (not only in §2.13) would aid readers.
  8. Typographical: “AT 201ijn” (shock-breakout subsection), inconsistent use of “AT 2019ijn” vs “VT 1312+2113” after the association is established, and occasional “erg/s” for energy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: radio jet parameters are fitted to SEDs in the usual way and tested against spherical alternatives; central claims rest on multi-wavelength phenomenology and external scalings, not tautological reduction.

full rationale

The paper is an observational discovery report whose load-bearing steps are (i) positional/temporal association of the VLASS radio source with ZTF AT 2019ijn, (ii) host redshift and stellar-mass estimates from DESI-Legacy + MOSFIRE photometry plus external M*–MBH relations, (iii) optical light-curve morphology and luminosity, and (iv) radio spectral modeling. In Methods 2.9 the spherical blast-wave solution is shown to produce launch-to-observation times that are shorter than the observed epochs (order-of-magnitude tension acknowledged by the authors themselves); a narrow off-axis jet with fixed angles θj ≈ 0.1 rad, θobs ≈ 0.7–1 rad and E ∼ 1–3 × 10^52 erg is then demonstrated to reproduce the multi-epoch SEDs for a density profile slightly steeper than r^−2. This is ordinary forward modeling with free microphysical and geometric parameters, not a claim that the jet solution is uniquely forced by first principles or by a self-citation uniqueness theorem. BH mass bounds come from published galaxy scaling relations (Greene et al. 2020; Yao et al. 2023), not from a fit that presupposes a TDE. Optical MOSFiT runs are likewise ordinary parameter estimation. No equation set reduces a claimed prediction to its own fitted inputs by construction, no load-bearing uniqueness result is imported solely from overlapping authors, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The modest residual (score 1) is only that the abstract and main text phrase the fitted jet energy as “determining” an off-axis jet; the Methods section itself is transparent that the solution is non-unique and that hydrodynamics/spreading are incomplete. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard synchrotron afterglow theory, empirical galaxy scaling relations, and a set of free microphysical and geometric parameters fitted to the radio data. No new particles or forces are invented; the 'off-axis jet' is an application of existing GRB/TDE jet models to new observations.

free parameters (5)
  • jet isotropic-equivalent energy E = ~2e52 erg
    Fitted to radio SEDs across epochs; canonical value ~2e52 erg used in Figure 2 and abstract.
  • jet opening angle theta_j and observer angle theta_obs = theta_j=0.1 rad, theta_obs~0.7-1 rad
    Chosen as 0.1 rad and ~0.7-1 rad to demonstrate viable off-axis solutions (Methods 2.9); not uniquely constrained.
  • microphysical parameters epsilon_e, epsilon_B, electron index p = epsilon_e~0.08-0.1, epsilon_B~0.01-0.1, p=3
    Set to canonical or near-canonical values (epsilon_e~0.1, epsilon_B~0.01-0.1, p=3) to obtain physical solutions; varied slightly between epochs.
  • circum-jet density normalization A (wind-like profile) = A~[2.8-8] A*
    Allowed to vary per epoch (A = 2.8-8 A*) to match the observed spectral evolution; implies k~2.5 density slope.
  • host stellar mass M* and derived BH mass range = M*~(9+/-5)e8 Msun; MBH 1e4-7e5 Msun
    M* from optical+NIR M/L relations with possible transient contamination; MBH from Greene et al. (2020) and Yao et al. (2023) scalings.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron emission from a relativistic blast wave / jet follows the standard Granot & Sari (2002) / Chevalier (1998) broken power-law spectrum with self-absorption and characteristic frequencies nu_a, nu_m.
    Used throughout Methods 2.9 to convert observed SEDs into physical parameters.
  • domain assumption Galaxy stellar mass to black-hole mass scaling relations calibrated on higher-mass systems remain valid down to M*~1e9 Msun.
    Invoked in Methods 2.7 to place the putative BH in the 1e4-1e6 Msun range.
  • standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with h=0.696, Omega_M=0.286, Omega_Lambda=0.714.
    Stated at start of Methods; used for all luminosity and k-correction calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper Optical emission can be approximated by a single blackbody for k-corrections and MOSFiT fitting even when only three photometric bands are available near peak.
    Methods 2.1.2; limited SED coverage forces the assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 50057 in / 3235 out tokens · 30003 ms · 2026-07-14T00:46:24.300598+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Many of the most luminous extragalactic transients originate from the accretion of material onto a black hole (BH) via core-collapse, stellar mergers, or the tidal disruption of a star. Some produce energetic multi-wavelength emission, displaying short, blue optical flares and bright, long-lived radio afterglows. In rare cases, these have also launched powerful relativistic jets almost exclusively detected on-axis via high-energy emission. Here we report AT 2019ijn, a radio transient discovered in the Very Large Array Sky Survey, associated with a powerful relativistic jet viewed off-axis and accompanied by a luminous ($\nu L_{\nu, opt} \sim 10^{44}$ erg/s) optical transient. Originating from a star-forming dwarf galaxy at z = 0.273, AT 2019ijn's optical flare exhibited a fast rise ($t_{rise, rest} \sim 7$ d) and shallow decline ($t_{dec, rest} > 38$ d), followed a year later by an energetic ($E \sim 2\times10^{52}$ erg) radio counterpart persisting for $>6$ years. These combined properties are unprecedented and preclude known classes of stellar explosion powered by core-collapse. Instead, the implied accretion onto a BH and associated off-axis jet invokes an exotic BH-stellar merger or a jetted tidal disruption event (TDE) by a $10^4 - 10^6 M_\odot$ black hole. Favoring a TDE, this work determines the jet-launching occurrence, with the low redshift allowing constraints on the late-time evolution in contrast to prior events. Upcoming radio sky surveys will offer an unprecedented new window for further discovery of AT 2019ijn-like off-axis relativistic transients.

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

183 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Luminous Supernovae.Science337, 927 (2012)

    Gal-Yam, A. Luminous Supernovae.Science337, 927 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Tsuna, D. & Lu, W. Stellar Tidal Disruptions by Newborn Neutron Stars or Black Holes: A Mechanism for Hydrogen-poor (Super)luminous Supernovae and Fast Blue Optical Transients.ApJ986, 84 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Rees, M. J. Tidal disruption of stars by black holes of 10 6-108 solar masses in nearby galaxies.Nature333, 523–528 (1988)

    1988

  4. [4]

    A.et al.The fast, luminous ultraviolet transient AT2018cow: extreme supernova, or disruption of a star by an intermediate-mass black hole?MNRAS 484, 1031–1049 (2019)

    Perley, D. A.et al.The fast, luminous ultraviolet transient AT2018cow: extreme supernova, or disruption of a star by an intermediate-mass black hole?MNRAS 484, 1031–1049 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Yao, Y.et al.Tidal Disruption Event Demographics with the Zwicky Transient Facility: Volumetric Rates, Luminosity Function, and Implications for the Local Black Hole Mass Function.ApJL955, L6 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Ho, A. Y. Q.et al.A Search for Extragalactic Fast Blue Optical Transients in ZTF and the Rate of AT2018cow-like Transients.ApJ949, 120 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Ho, A. Y. Q.et al.AT2018cow: A Luminous Millimeter Transient.ApJ871, 73 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    A.et al.Birth of a relativistic outflow in the unusualγ-ray transient Swift J164449.3+573451.Nature476, 425–428 (2011)

    Zauderer, B. A.et al.Birth of a relativistic outflow in the unusualγ-ray transient Swift J164449.3+573451.Nature476, 425–428 (2011)

    2011

  9. [9]

    Andreoni, I.et al.A very luminous jet from the disruption of a star by a massive black hole.Nature612, 430–434 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    N.et al.Relativistic jet activity from the tidal disruption of a star by a massive black hole.Nature476, 421–424 (2011)

    Burrows, D. N.et al.Relativistic jet activity from the tidal disruption of a star by a massive black hole.Nature476, 421–424 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    & Metzger, B

    Klencki, J. & Metzger, B. D. Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients as “Failed” Gravitational Wave Sources: Helium Core−Black Hole Mergers Follow- ing Delayed Dynamical Instability.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2510.09745 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    & Metzger, B

    Teboul, O. & Metzger, B. D. A Unified Theory of Jetted Tidal Disruption Events: From Promptly Escaping Relativistic to Delayed Transrelativistic Jets. ApJL957, L9 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Jansky Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS)

    Lacy, M.et al.The Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS). Science Case and Survey Design.PASP132, 035001 (2020). 39

    2020

  14. [14]

    Nordin, J.et al.ZTF Transient Discovery Report for 2019-06-28.Transient Name Server Discovery Report2019-1095, 1 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J. & Wrobel, J. M. The Expanded Very Large Array: A New Telescope for New Science.ApJL739, L1 (2011)

    2011

  16. [16]

    Ho, A. Y. Q.et al.Cosmological Fast Optical Transients with the Zwicky Transient Facility: A Search for Dirty Fireballs.ApJ938, 85 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Hammerstein, E.et al.The Jetted Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022cmc: Inves- tigating Connections to the Optical Tidal Disruption Event Population and Spectral Subclasses through Late-time Follow-up.ApJ996, 143 (2026)

    2026

  18. [18]

    Sfaradi, I.et al.The dense and non-homogeneous circumstellar medium revealed in radio wavelengths around the Type Ib SN 2019oys.A&A686, A129 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    M., Wilson, A

    Falcke, H., Nagar, N. M., Wilson, A. S. & Ulvestad, J. S. Radio Sources in Low-Luminosity Active Galactic Nuclei. II. Very Long Baseline Interferometry Detections of Compact Radio Cores and Jets in a Sample of LINERs.ApJ542, 197–200 (2000)

    2000

  20. [20]

    AGNs“ in a distance-limited sample of “LLAGNs

    Nagar, N. M., Falcke, H., Wilson, A. S. & Ulvestad, J. S. Radio sources in low- luminosity active galactic nuclei. III. “AGNs“ in a distance-limited sample of “LLAGNs”.A&A392, 53–82 (2002)

    2002

  21. [21]

    Fender, R. P. Powerful jets from black hole X-ray binaries in low/hard X-ray states.MNRAS322, 31–42 (2001)

    2001

  22. [22]

    inJets from X-ray binaries(eds Lewin, W

    Fender, R. inJets from X-ray binaries(eds Lewin, W. H. G. & van der Klis, M.) Compact stellar X-ray sources, Vol. 39 381–419 (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    Kaiser, C. R. The flat synchrotron spectra of partially self-absorbed jets revisited.MNRAS367, 1083–1094 (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    Chevalier, R. A. Synchrotron Self-Absorption in Radio Supernovae.ApJ499, 810–819 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    & Metzger, B

    Gottlieb, O. & Metzger, B. D. Late Jets, Early Sparks: Illuminating the Premaximum Bumps in Superluminous Supernovae.ApJL974, L9 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    K., Combi, L., Siegel, D

    Desai, D. K., Combi, L., Siegel, D. M. & Metzger, B. D. Relativistic jets from millisecond proto-magnetars.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2601.07918 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Eftekhari, T.et al.A Radio Source Coincident with the Superluminous Super- nova PTF10hgi: Evidence for a Central Engine and an Analog of the Repeating FRB 121102?ApJL876, L10 (2019). 40

    2019

  28. [28]

    Margutti, R.et al.Luminous Radio Emission from the Superluminous Supernova 2017ens at 3.3 yr after Explosion.ApJL954, L45 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    A.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility Bright Transient Survey

    Perley, D. A.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility Bright Transient Survey. II. A Public Statistical Sample for Exploring Supernova Demographics.ApJ904, 35 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    J.et al.A luminous and hot infrared through X-ray transient at a 5 kpc offset from a dwarf galaxy.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2505.11597 (2025)

    Somalwar, J. J.et al.A luminous and hot infrared through X-ray transient at a 5 kpc offset from a dwarf galaxy.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2505.11597 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Vink´ o, J.et al.A Luminous, Fast Rising UV-transient Discovered by ROTSE: A Tidal Disruption Event?ApJ798, 12 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    Yan, L.et al.Detection of Broad HαEmission Lines in the Late-time Spectra of a Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernova.ApJ814, 108 (2015)

    2015

  33. [33]

    MNRAS475, 1046–1072 (2018)

    Inserra, C.et al.On the nature of hydrogen-rich superluminous supernovae. MNRAS475, 1046–1072 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    J., Ravi, V

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V. & Lu, W. VLASS Tidal Disruption Events with Optical Flares. II. Discovery of Two TDEs with Intermediate Width Balmer Emission Lines and Connections to the Ambiguous Extreme Coronal Line Emitters.ApJ 983, 159 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D. & Quataert, E. The diversity of tran- sients from magnetar birth in core collapse supernovae.MNRAS454, 3311–3316 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    D., Thompson, T

    Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D., Thompson, T. A., Nicholl, M. & Sukhbold, T. The GRB-SLSN connection: misaligned magnetars, weak jet emergence, and observational signatures.MNRAS475, 2659–2674 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    & Margutti, R

    Gottlieb, O., Tchekhovskoy, A. & Margutti, R. Shocked jets in CCSNe can power the zoo of fast blue optical transients.MNRAS513, 3810–3817 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    E., Strader, J

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J. & Ho, L. C. Intermediate-Mass Black Holes.ARA&A 58, 257–312 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Metzger, B. D. Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients and Type Ibn/Icn SNe from Wolf-Rayet/Black Hole Mergers.ApJ932, 84 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    E.et al.The Environments of Luminous Fast Blue Optical Tran- sients: Evidence for a Compact Object and Wolf-Rayet Star Merger Origin

    Nugent, A. E.et al.The Environments of Luminous Fast Blue Optical Tran- sients: Evidence for a Compact Object and Wolf-Rayet Star Merger Origin. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2603.23597 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    B.et al.Swift J2058.4+0516: Discovery of a Possible Second Relativistic Tidal Disruption Flare?ApJ753, 77 (2012)

    Cenko, S. B.et al.Swift J2058.4+0516: Discovery of a Possible Second Relativistic Tidal Disruption Flare?ApJ753, 77 (2012). 41

    2012

  42. [42]

    C.et al.Swift J1112.2-8238: a candidate relativistic tidal disruption flare.MNRAS452, 4297–4306 (2015)

    Brown, G. C.et al.Swift J1112.2-8238: a candidate relativistic tidal disruption flare.MNRAS452, 4297–4306 (2015)

    2015

  43. [43]

    Strubbe, L. E. & Quataert, E. Optical flares from the tidal disruption of stars by massive black holes.MNRAS400, 2070–2084 (2009)

    2070

  44. [44]

    Stone, N. C. & Metzger, B. D. Rates of stellar tidal disruption as probes of the supermassive black hole mass function.MNRAS455, 859–883 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. & Miller, M. C. A Unified Model for Tidal Disruption Events.ApJL859, L20 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    A., Margutti, R

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Zauderer, B. A., Margutti, R. & Alexander, K. D. Radio Monitoring of the Tidal Disruption Event Swift J164449.3+573451. III. Late-time Jet Energetics and a Deviation from Equipartition.ApJ854, 86 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Rhodes, L.et al.Thermal Electrons in the Radio Afterglow of Relativistic Tidal Disruption Event ZTF22aaajecp/AT 2022cmc.ApJ992, 146 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Horesh, A., Cenko, S. B. & Arcavi, I. Delayed radio flares from a tidal disruption event.Nature Astronomy5, 491–497 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Horesh, A.et al.Are Delayed Radio Flares Common in Tidal Disruption Events? The Case of the TDE iPTF 16fnl.ApJL920, L5 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    Yoon, Y.et al.Host Galaxy Properties and Black Hole Mass of Swift J164449.3+573451 from Multi-wavelength Long-term Monitoring and HST Data.ApJ808, 96 (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    Eftekhari, T.et al.Late-time X-Ray Observations of the Jetted Tidal Disruption Event AT2022cmc: The Relativistic Jet Shuts Off.ApJ974, 149 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    & Metzger, B

    Matsumoto, T. & Metzger, B. D. Synchrotron afterglow model for AT 2022cmc: jetted tidal disruption event or engine-powered supernova?MNRAS522, 4028– 4037 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L. & Hinshaw, G. The 1% Concordance Hubble Constant.ApJ794, 135 (2014)

    2014

  54. [54]

    McConnell, D.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey I: Design and first results.PASA37, e048 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    L.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey Paper II: First Stokes I Source Catalogue Data Release.PASA38, e058 (2021)

    Hale, C. L.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey Paper II: First Stokes I Source Catalogue Data Release.PASA38, e058 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    W.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey IV: continuum imaging at 1367.5 MHz and the first data release of RACS-mid.PASA40, e034 42 (2023)

    Duchesne, S. W.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey IV: continuum imaging at 1367.5 MHz and the first data release of RACS-mid.PASA40, e034 42 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    W.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey V: Cataloguing the sky at 1 367.5 MHz and the second data release of RACS-mid.PASA41, e003 (2024)

    Duchesne, S. W.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey V: Cataloguing the sky at 1 367.5 MHz and the second data release of RACS-mid.PASA41, e003 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Duchesne, S.et al.The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey (RACS) VI: The RACS-high 1655.5 MHz images and catalogue.PASA42, 38 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    P.et al.LOFAR: The LOw-Frequency ARray.A&A556, A2 (2013)

    van Haarlem, M. P.et al.LOFAR: The LOw-Frequency ARray.A&A556, A2 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    W.et al.The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey

    Shimwell, T. W.et al.The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey. II. First data release. A&A622, A1 (2019)

    2019

  61. [61]

    W.et al.The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey

    Shimwell, T. W.et al.The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey. V. Second data release.A&A659, A1 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    W.et al.The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey: VII

    Shimwell, T. W.et al.The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey: VII. Third Data Release.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2602.15949 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    C.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Perfor- mance, and First Results.PASP131, 018002 (2019)

    Bellm, E. C.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Perfor- mance, and First Results.PASP131, 018002 (2019)

    2019

  64. [64]

    J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Science Objectives.PASP 131, 078001 (2019)

    Graham, M. J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Science Objectives.PASP 131, 078001 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    Dekany, R.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Observing System.PASP132, 038001 (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive.PASP131, 018003 (2019)

    Masci, F. J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive.PASP131, 018003 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. Correcting for the Effects of Interstellar Extinction.PASP 111, 63–75 (1999)

    1999

  68. [68]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P. & Davis, M. Maps of Dust Infrared Emission for Use in Estimation of Reddening and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Foregrounds.ApJ500, 525–553 (1998)

    1998

  69. [69]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. Measuring Reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD.ApJ737, 103 (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    van Velzen, S.et al.Seventeen Tidal Disruption Events from the First Half of ZTF Survey Observations: Entering a New Era of Population Studies.ApJ908, 4 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    W., Lang, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC 43 Hammer.PASP125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  72. [72]

    N.et al.The Chandra Source Catalog Release 2 Series.ApJS274, 22 (2024)

    Evans, I. N.et al.The Chandra Source Catalog Release 2 Series.ApJS274, 22 (2024)

    2024

  73. [73]

    Gehrels, N.et al.The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission.ApJ611, 1005–1020 (2004)

    2004

  74. [74]

    N.et al.The Swift X-Ray Telescope.SSR120, 165–195 (2005)

    Burrows, D. N.et al.The Swift X-Ray Telescope.SSR120, 165–195 (2005)

    2005

  75. [75]

    Roming, P. W. A.et al.The Swift Ultra-Violet/Optical Telescope.SSR120, 95–142 (2005)

    2005

  76. [76]

    Jansen, F.et al.XMM-Newton observatory. I. The spacecraft and operations. A&A365, L1–L6 (2001)

    2001

  77. [77]

    Predehl, P.et al.The eROSITA X-ray telescope on SRG.A&A647, A1 (2021)

    2021

  78. [78]

    First X-ray catalogues and data release of the western Galactic hemisphere.A&A682, A34 (2024)

    Merloni, A.et al.The SRG/eROSITA all-sky survey. First X-ray catalogues and data release of the western Galactic hemisphere.A&A682, A34 (2024)

    2024

  79. [79]

    Description and access to the data.A&A682, A35 (2024)

    Tub´ ın-Arenas, D.et al.The eROSITA upper limits. Description and access to the data.A&A682, A35 (2024)

    2024

  80. [80]

    B.et al.The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Mission.ApJ697, 1071–1102 (2009)

    Atwood, W. B.et al.The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Mission.ApJ697, 1071–1102 (2009)

    2009

Showing first 80 references.