Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 127 references

A tidal disruption event reveals an early near-infrared excess best explained by free-free emission from a reprocessing envelope, plus a disk-to-corona X-ray transition near day 178.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 01:18 UTC pith:7PQBVEFA

load-bearing objection Solid TDE data paper with a likely real NIR excess and clean X-ray state transition, but the break-evolution claim is contradicted by the paper's own table. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14696 v1 pith:7PQBVEFA submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.HE

Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd

Yongxin Wu , Yanan Wang , Thomas M. Reynolds , Shuyuan Wei , Shiyan Zhong , Zikun Lin , Megan Newsome , Sebastian Gomez
show 33 more authors
Iair Arcavi Panos Charalampopoulos Chun Chen Rongfeng Shen Ning-Chen Sun David Aguado Ismael P\'erez-Fournon Fr\'ed\'erick Poidevin Zhongnan Dong Niu Li Weijian Guo Hu Zou Jingbo Sun Nieves Castro-Rodr\'iguez Antonio Cabrera-Lavers Ning Jiang Hengxiao Guo J. P. Anderson Tom\'as E. M\"uller-Bravo Seppo Mattila Claudia P. Guti\'errez Amit Kumar G. Pignata Xiangkun Liu R. Dastidar Brajesh Kumar Xiaowei Liu Bin Ma M. Dennefeld Francesca Onori Lydia Makrygianni Mariusz Gromadzki Xuan Fang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventnear-infrared excessfree-free emissionreprocessing envelopeX-ray coronaspectral state transitionaccretion disksupermassive black hole
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 follows the tidal disruption event 2024aepd for roughly 300 days across radio, near-infrared, optical, ultraviolet, and X-ray bands. It tries to establish two things: the early near-infrared excess, with a nearly flat spectrum, is more plausibly free-free emission from a reprocessing photospheric envelope than a dust echo; and the X-ray spectrum switches from a thermal, disk-dominated state to a power-law, corona-dominated state around day 178. If right, this event joins two earlier ones as the third known TDE with an early-time NIR excess, and it gives a rare, time-resolved view of corona formation around a supermassive black hole.

Core claim

For TDE 2024aepd, the near-infrared excess appears by day ~40 with a power-law slope consistent with zero, far flatter than the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the UV-optical blackbody. Because the light-travel time to the inferred dust sublimation radius (~740 days) far exceeds the observed lag (<17 days), the authors argue a conventional dust echo is disfavoured and propose instead that the excess comes from free-free emission in a dense, extended reprocessing layer. In the same source, the X-ray spectrum, initially a thermal disk plus a hard excess, becomes purely power-law by ~178 days and hardens as the disk fades, which they interpret as the rapid emergence and strengthening of a corona. They a

What carries the argument

The central model is frequency-dependent free-free reprocessing in a homogeneous, spherical, electron-scattering-dominated envelope with a power-law density profile rho ∝ r^{-s}. Because free-free opacity rises toward low frequencies, NIR photons thermalize at larger radii than optical/UV photons, boosting the NIR flux and producing a power-law spectrum shallower than the Rayleigh-Jeans tail; the break frequency connects the blackbody and power-law branches and, with the fitted slope s, yields the thermalization radius, density normalization, and enclosed mass. The X-ray analysis uses a two-component spectral decomposition (thermal disk plus power law) to track the state transition.

Load-bearing premise

The free-free conclusion rests on assuming the reprocessing material is a homogeneous, spherical, electron-scattering-dominated layer with a power-law density profile; if the outflow is clumpy or anisotropic, the inferred masses and the claim of a stable density structure could fail, and the paper itself notes a dust echo cannot be fully excluded.

What would settle it

A single NIR spectrum with emission or absorption features characteristic of free-free processes would discriminate directly; more practically, observing the NIR excess before day 40 and tracking its rise would test the claimed <17-day lag. A dust-echo model predicts a delayed, roughly 1100 K blackbody with a light-travel lag comparable to the sublimation radius, whereas free-free predicts an immediate, flat power law that tracks the UV-optical decline.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Early-time NIR coverage may reveal that a substantial fraction of TDEs show such excesses, and the flat NIR slope can be used as a diagnostic of the reprocessing layer's density structure.
  • The measured break-frequency shift with roughly constant density slope implies the reprocessing envelope's structure persists while its density declines, constraining outflow and reprocessing models.
  • The disk-to-corona transition at roughly 0.5% Eddington supports using TDEs as fast laboratories for accretion-state transitions, analogous to X-ray binaries.
  • The positive photon-index versus X-ray-luminosity correlation in the TDE sample, without the low-luminosity anti-correlation branch, points to a lack of very low-Eddington observations rather than a fundamentally different accretion flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the free-free interpretation is right, the NIR excess directly probes gas mass and density profile; targeted NIR spectroscopy might look for the expected frequency dependence or polarization to confirm the mechanism.
  • The dust-echo alternative could be tested by measuring the NIR rise before day 40 and by searching for a late-rising echo; a detection of a delayed, ~1100 K component would overturn the free-free conclusion.
  • The same chromatic-reprocessing framework may apply to fast blue optical transients and to the V-shaped SEDs of Little Red Dots, making early-time NIR monitoring a useful discriminant in those populations.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-wavelength (radio, NIR, optical/UV, X-ray) observations of the tidal disruption event 2024aepd over the first ~300 days after discovery. It reports an early near-infrared excess above the UV-optical blackbody, with an approximately flat NIR power-law spectrum, and argues on the basis of a free-free reprocessing model that this excess is more plausibly explained by a photospheric reprocessing envelope than by a conventional dust echo. The X-ray data show an initially thermal-dominated spectrum with a hard tail, transitioning to a power-law-dominated and progressively harder spectrum around day 178, which the authors interpret as the emergence and strengthening of a corona. The paper also compiles a sample of TDEs with X-ray hard excesses and reports a positive correlation between photon index and Eddington ratio. The authors identify 2024aepd as the third TDE with an early-time NIR excess.

Significance. If the free-free interpretation is correct, the paper adds a valuable new data point to a very small sample of early NIR excesses in TDEs and supports the idea that frequency-dependent reprocessing can be diagnosed in the NIR. The X-ray spectral state transition is well documented and consistent with the growing population of TDEs showing disk-to-corona transitions. The paper's strengths include broad multi-wavelength coverage, careful host-galaxy subtraction, standard processing of Swift/XRT and ground-based data, explicit model-comparison tables, and an unusually candid set of caveats about the spherical, homogeneous assumptions of the free-free model and the tension between the inferred envelope mass and the MOSFiT stellar mass. However, the paper's central temporal-evolution claim—that the UV-optical-to-NIR break frequency increases while the density index stays constant—is not supported by the paper's own best-fit values in Table 1, and the free-free fits are underconstrained by the available two-band NIR data. The paper is publishable after the evolutionary narrative is either properly supported or substantially softened.

major comments (3)
  1. The abstract and §4.1 state that νbreak 'systematically increases' with time while s remains nearly constant. Table 1 gives νbreak = 2.89(+0.24/−0.33), 2.63(+0.27/−0.37), and 3.67(+0.76/−0.44) ×10^14 Hz for the +41, +68, and +101 d epochs. The first two epochs therefore show a decrease, not an increase, and the uncertainties overlap substantially. Moreover, the epoch-3 value is not an independent measurement: the source was undetected in K at +101 d, so the epoch-2 K-band datum was adopted. With only J and K per epoch, the claim of a systematic break evolution is not established. This claim is load-bearing for the conclusion of 'evolving reprocessing conditions within a broadly unchanged density structure.' The authors should either remove the monotonic-increase claim, or re-fit epoch 3 with only the J-band constraint and show whether any break evolution is statistically required, and re
  2. The conclusion that the density-profile index s remains nearly constant is essentially a reparameterization of the fitted NIR spectral slope: in the adopted model, α_IR = (4s−6)/(3s−2), and s is a free parameter fit to two NIR bands per epoch. The statement that 's remains consistent within the uncertainties' is therefore not an independent test of structural stability. I recommend presenting the joint posterior of (s, νbreak), or performing a model comparison between (i) a single s with freely evolving νbreak and (ii) independent s at each epoch. Without such a test, the stable-density-structure conclusion is weaker than the text implies. This also bears on the comparison with AT2019azh in Fig. 8.
  3. The argument against a dust echo relies on taking the first NIR observation as an approximate upper limit on the IR peak and deriving τ < 17 days, compared with the sublimation-radius delay of ~743 days. Section 3.2 explicitly notes that the NIR observations 'only sample the declining phase,' so the first NIR epoch does not directly constrain the time of the NIR peak. Although an upper limit on the delay can still be derived if the source was already declining at +41 d, this should be stated as a model-dependent assumption. The later discussion of anisotropic emission and line-of-sight geometry already acknowledges the main escape route for a dust echo; the quantitative τ < 17 d statement overstates the constraint and should be softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. Typos: 'primaly' should be 'primarily' and 'primally' should be 'primarily'; 'efficiency' and 'Office' contain non-standard ligature/encoding artifacts that should be corrected in the journal production step.
  2. 'DESI is amounted on the 4-meter Mayall Telescope' should read 'mounted'.
  3. The caveat that the K-band template image could contain a late-rising echo, which would cause the true K fluxes to be underestimated, is stated in §2.4 but is not repeated when the K-band points are used to fit the free-free model. This caveat is relevant to the light-travel-time argument and should be recalled in §4.1.
  4. The header 'Epoch 2K' for the epoch-3 NIR observations is confusing; it should read 'Epoch-2 K-band' with an explicit note that this datum is non-contemporaneous with the epoch-3 J band.
  5. Several arXiv identifiers appear malformed (e.g., arXiv:2604.160934, arXiv:2602.21624); please check the journal's reference formatting requirements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

NIR 'density-structure constancy' reduces to the fitted flat NIR slope; central free-free vs. dust-echo choice retains independent timescale evidence.

specific steps
  1. renaming known result [Sec. 3.3 vs Sec. 4.1, Eq. (7), Table 1]
    "We also fit the NIR SEDs with a power-law model, fν ∝ ν^{αIR}. The resulting spectral indices, αIR = 0.22+0.23−0.22 and −0.27+0.33−0.31, are both consistent with zero ... Fν = K(ρ0, s, T)ν^{(4s−6)/(3s−2)}/(4πD^2) ... we find νbreak systematically increases with time, while s remains consistent within the uncertainties, suggesting that the overall density structure of the reprocessing medium remains approximately unchanged."

    Eq. (7) makes the NIR power-law index a one-to-one function of s: αIR = (4s−6)/(3s−2). Fitting s from the same J/K excess and then reporting 's remains nearly constant' is therefore the same empirical statement as the flat, time-constant αIR already fitted in Sec. 3.3; it adds no independent information about a 'density structure' beyond the spectral slope. The derived ρ0, rth and MK are algebraically propagated from these same fitted s and νbreak, so they cannot serve as independent validation of the model.

full rationale

The free-free vs. dust-echo discrimination is not circular: it uses an independent light-travel-time argument (Rsub ~ 0.62 pc → ~743 d vs observed τ < 17 d) plus the flatness of the NIR spectrum. The X-ray disk/corona transition and Γ–LX correlation are empirical fits to independent X-ray data, not reductions of the model to its inputs. The only identifiable reduction is the 'density-profile index constancy' claim, which is a reparameterization of the NIR slope already measured in Sec. 3.3. A minor non-load-bearing self-citation exists (Reynolds et al. 2026 for NOTCam reduction and the AT2019azh comparison); the theoretical model is drawn from external work (Lu & Bonnerot 2020; Roth et al. 2020; Somalwar et al. 2025). Note also that Table 1 does not strictly support the statement that νbreak 'systematically increases': 2.89, 2.63, 3.67 ×10^14 Hz, and epoch 3 borrows the epoch-2 K point; this is a support/statistical issue rather than a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central free-free inference rests on fitted parameters s and ν_break and assumptions of spherical symmetry, electron-scattering dominance, and isothermality. The X-ray transition relies on standard spectral decomposition into thermal and power-law components.

free parameters (5)
  • s (density-profile index) = 1.76+0.35-0.30, 1.39+0.34-0.23, 1.58+0.45-0.23 at three epochs (Table 1)
    Free parameter of the free-free SED model (Eq. 10); fitted to the NIR spectral slope.
  • ν_break (break frequency) = 2.89+0.24-0.33, 2.63+0.27-0.37, 3.67+0.76-0.44 ×10^14 Hz
    Free parameter of the free-free SED model; fitted to the UV-optical-NIR SEDs.
  • TOBB (UV-optical blackbody temperature) = ~3.3×10^4 K early to ~2.4×10^4 K late
    Fitted from UV-optical SED; adopted as the temperature T in the free-free model.
  • ROBB (UV-optical blackbody radius) = ~5.7×10^14 cm at peak to ~3.5×10^14 cm late
    Fitted from UV-optical SED; sets the normalization of the blackbody and the free-free component.
  • X-ray spectral parameters (Tin, Γ, normalizations) = Tin ~0.043 keV, Γ from 2.8 to 1.6 (Table B.1)
    Fitted in X-ray spectral decomposition; used to infer the disk-to-corona transition.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Homogeneous spherical medium with power-law density profile ρ=ρ0(r/r0)^-s and electron-scattering-dominated opacity (κ_es >> κ_ff).
    Assumed for the free-free model (Sec. 4.1); if the outflow is clumpy or opt differentially, the derived density structure is invalid.
  • standard math Validity of the Illarionov & Sunyaev (1972) chromatic radiative diffusion formula (Eq. 4) for the emitted luminosity.
    Used to derive the free-free SED; cited to Illarionov & Sunyaev 1972.
  • ad hoc to paper The reprocessing layer is isothermal with T = TOBB (the UV-optical blackbody temperature).
    Adopted in Sec. 4.1 without a physical temperature profile; affects the normalization of the free-free component and derived mass.
  • domain assumption The UV-optical continuum is a single-temperature blackbody.
    Standard assumption for TDE SEDs; used to define the high-frequency component and the break frequency.
  • domain assumption The hard X-ray excess is represented by a simple powerlaw (thermal Comptonization).
    Used in X-ray spectral fits; alternative models (simpl) give consistent parameters, though the physical corona interpretation is inferred.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27008 in / 18412 out tokens · 147742 ms · 2026-08-02T01:18:36.607592+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PQBVEFA

@misc{pith2026260714696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Near-Infrared Excess and Rapid Disk-Corona Evolution in the Tidal Disruption Event 2024aepd},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PQBVEFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14696}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present multi-wavelength observations of the tidal disruption event (TDE) 2024aepd, spanning primarily the first $\sim$300 days after discovery. The X-ray spectrum is initially dominated by a thermal disk component accompanied by a hard excess. From $\sim$178 days onward, the spectrum becomes power-law dominated and subsequently hardens, indicating the rapid emergence and strengthening of a hot corona. A prominent near-infrared (NIR) excess is detected as early as $\sim40$ days. Its nearly flat power-law spectrum strongly deviates from the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the UV-optical blackbody. Although a conventional dust-echo origin cannot be completely ruled out, free-free emission from a reprocessing photospheric envelope provides a more plausible explanation. Moreover, the UV-optical-to-NIR break shifts to higher frequencies as the density-profile index remains nearly constant, implying evolving reprocessing conditions within a broadly unchanged density structure. Together with AT2019azh and TDE 2025abcr, TDE 2024aepd is the third TDE reported to exhibit an early-time NIR excess. A larger sample with early-time NIR coverage is needed to determine whether such excesses are common among TDEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14696 by Amit Kumar, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Bin Ma, Brajesh Kumar, Chun Chen, Claudia P. Guti\'errez, David Aguado, Francesca Onori, Fr\'ed\'erick Poidevin, G. Pignata, Hengxiao Guo, Hu Zou, Iair Arcavi, Ismael P\'erez-Fournon, Jingbo Sun, J. P. Anderson, Lydia Makrygianni, Mariusz Gromadzki, M. Dennefeld, Megan Newsome, Nieves Castro-Rodr\'iguez, Ning-Chen Sun, Ning Jiang, Niu Li, Panos Charalampopoulos, R. Dastidar, Rongfeng Shen, Sebastian Gomez, Seppo Mattila, Shiyan Zhong, Shuyuan Wei, Thomas M. Reynolds, Tom\'as E. M\"uller-Bravo, Weijian Guo, Xiangkun Liu, Xiaowei Liu, Xuan Fang, Yanan Wang, Yongxin Wu, Zhongnan Dong, Zikun Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-wavelength light curves of 2024aepd. Top: Host-subtracted and galactic-extinction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The NIR-to-X-ray SEDs constructed from nearly simultaneous observations obtained near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The temporal evolution of the blackbody temperature (top panel), radius (middle panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The temporal evolution of the disk inner temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fitting results for the two UV–optical–NIR SED at 41 days and 68 days using modified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optical spectroscopic evolution of 2024aepd. The vertical lines mark prominent observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fitting models for the UV–optical–NIR SEDs at different phases. The dotted and dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the three TDEs with reported NIR excesses to date. The colored solid, dotted, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Photon index Γ as a function of Eddington ratio for TDEs exhibiting a hard X-ray excess. In addition to 2024aepd, the sample includes XMMSL2 J144605.0+685735 (Saxton et al. 2019), 2XMMi J184725.1–631724 (Lin et al. 2011), XMMSL1 J061927.1–655311 (Saxton et al. 2014), XMMSL1 J074008.2–853927 (Saxton et al. 2017), ASASSN-15oi (Holoien et al. 2016a), AT2018fyk (Wevers et al. 2021), AT2019qiz (Nicholl et al. 2… view at source ↗

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

127 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 4410

    2023

  2. [2]

    1996, A&A, 309, L353

    Bade, N., Komossa, S., & Dahlem, M. 1996, A&A, 309, L353

    1996

  3. [3]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004, ascl:1504.0047

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004, ascl:1504.0047

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 0180024

    2019

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 984, L5523

    Bellovary, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, L5523

    2025

  6. [6]

    Berger, V., Kara, E., Chakraborty, J., Masterson, M., & Burdge, K. 2026, ApJ, 999, 2654, 24 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 31 10−9 10−8 10−7 Fν (Jy) 1017 10182×1017 5×1017 2×1018 −1 0 1 (data−model)/error Energy (Hz) Fig.B.1: Fitting result of the combined X-ray spectrum with diskbb+powerlaw model. Table C.1: Log of optical spectrosc...

    2026

  7. [7]

    2019, A&A, 622, A10310

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A10310

    2019

  8. [8]

    M., Robitaille, T

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B. M., Robitaille, T. P., et al. 2026, Photutils9

    2026

  9. [9]

    J., & Fraser, M

    Brennan, S. J., & Fraser, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A628

    2022

  10. [10]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 1658

    2005

  11. [11]

    1984, The Messenger, 38, 97

    Buzzoni, B., Delabre, B., Dekker, H., et al. 1984, The Messenger, 38, 97

    1984

  12. [12]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 68211

    2000

  13. [13]

    2009, MNRAS, 394, 20724

    Cao, X. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 20724

    2009

  14. [14]

    2019, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics X, ed

    Cardiel, N., Pascual, S., Gallego, J., et al. 2019, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics X, ed. B. Montesinos, A. Asensio Ramos, F. Buitrago, R. Schödel, E. Villaver, S. Pérez-Hoyos, & I. Ordóñez-Etxeberria, 6059 32 Yongxin Wu et al. CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 1145019

    2019

  15. [15]

    G., et al

    Cepa, J., Aguiar, M., Escalera, V. G., et al. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 6238

    2000

  16. [16]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Chambers, K., & Pan-STARRS Team. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 102.017

    2018

  17. [17]

    2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 9, 15

    Charalampopoulos, P. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 9, 15

    2025

  18. [18]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 1805

    Chen, C., & Shen, R.-F. 2025, ApJ, 991, 1805

    2025

  19. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 971, L26

    Chen, X., Kumar, B., Er, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, L26

    2024

  20. [20]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 133623

    Constantin, A., Green, P., Aldcroft, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 133623

    2009

  21. [21]

    C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Miller, M

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, L204 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.000368 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 2078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 1688

    2019

  23. [23]

    A., & Andersen, J

    Djupvik, A. A., & Andersen, J. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 14, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics V, ed. J. M. Diego, L. J. Goicoechea, J. I. González-Serrano, & J. Gorgas, 2117

    2010

  24. [24]

    2007, A&A Rev., 15, 13

    Done, C., Gierliński, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rev., 15, 13

    2007

  25. [25]

    2026, AJ, 171, 3718

    Dong, Z.-N., Ma, B., Chen, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 3718

    2026

  26. [26]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 17211

    2014

  27. [27]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJ, 346, L133

    1989

  28. [28]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 3798

    2007

  29. [29]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 11778

    2009

  30. [30]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 635

    1999

  31. [31]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 76711 Garzón, F., Balcells, M., Gallego, J., et al

    Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 76711 Garzón, F., Balcells, M., Gallego, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A1078

    2006

  32. [32]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 10057

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 10057

    2004

  33. [33]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 213

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 213

    2021

  34. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 192525

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Short, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 192525

    2020

  35. [35]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 0780014

    2019

  36. [36]

    Grupe, D., Beuermann, K., Mannheim, K., & Thomas, H. C. 1999, A&A, 350, 8053

    1999

  37. [37]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 34923

    Gu, M., & Cao, X. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 34923

    2009

  38. [38]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 610

    2018

  39. [39]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 2354

    Guo, H., Sun, J., Li, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 2354

    2025

  40. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 1603, 4, 23, 24

    Guolo, M., Gezari, S., Yao, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 1603, 4, 23, 24

    2024

  41. [41]

    2023, AJ, 165, 1448 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 33

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 1448 NIR excess and disk-corona evolution in TDE 2024aepd 33

    2023

  42. [42]

    1991, ApJ, 380, L513

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJ, 380, L513

    1991

  43. [43]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 2538

    2023

  44. [44]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 294, 23

    2025

  45. [45]

    C., Collins, R

    Hambly, N. C., Collins, R. S., Cross, N. J. G., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 6379

    2008

  46. [46]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 94 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 94 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A1168, 14

    2023

  47. [47]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 2953

    1975

  48. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 964, L2224

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, L2224

    2024

  49. [49]

    F., & Sunyaev, R

    Illarionov, A. F., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1972, Ap&SS, 19, 6119

    1972

  50. [50]

    2025, ApJ, 980, L2722

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L2722

    2025

  51. [51]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 390022

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., Übler, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 390022

    2025

  52. [52]

    Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJ, 980, L174

    2025

  53. [53]

    2025, ARA&A, 63, 3793

    Kara, E., & García, J. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 3793

    2025

  54. [54]

    1999, A&A, 343, 7753

    Komossa, S., & Bade, N. 1999, A&A, 343, 7753

    1999

  55. [55]

    1999, A&A, 349, L453

    Komossa, S., & Greiner, J. 1999, A&A, 349, L453

    1999

  56. [56]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 51110

    2013

  57. [57]

    2026, ApJ, 997, L105

    LeBaron, N., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, L105

    2026

  58. [58]

    2023, Chinese Physics B, 32, 03980110

    Li, N., & Li, C. 2023, Chinese Physics B, 32, 03980110

    2023

  59. [59]

    R., Grupe, D., et al

    Lin, D., Carrasco, E. R., Grupe, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 5224

    2011

  60. [60]

    F., Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E

    Liu, B. F., Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 2006, A&A, 454, L924

    2006

  61. [61]

    E., & Ma, Y

    Liu, H., Jiang, Y.-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y. 2025, ApJ, 994, 11322

    2025

  62. [62]

    2023, A&A, 669, A7524

    Liu, Z., Malyali, A., Krumpe, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A7524

    2023

  63. [63]

    1997, ApJ, 489, 5734

    Loeb, A., & Ulmer, A. 1997, ApJ, 489, 5734

    1997

  64. [64]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 6864, 5, 18

    Lu, W., & Bonnerot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6864, 5, 18

    2020

  65. [65]

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Evans, N. J. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 5754, 13

    2016

  66. [66]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 304

    2014

  67. [67]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 937, L124

    2022

  68. [68]

    W., Shiao, B., et al

    Million, C., Fleming, S. W., Shiao, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 29210

    2016

  69. [69]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 15110

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 15110

    2019

  70. [70]

    A., et al

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 68210

    2007

  71. [71]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, L2415

    Mummery, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, L2415

    2021

  72. [72]

    A., et al

    Newsome, M., Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 25824

    2024

  73. [73]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 48224

    2020

  74. [74]

    Pascual, S., Gallego, J., Cardiel, N., & Eliche-Moral, M. C. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 434, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIX, ed. 34 Yongxin Wu et al. Y. Mizumoto, K.-I. Morita, & M. Ohishi, 3539

    2010

  75. [75]

    C., Liepold, E

    Patra, K. C., Liepold, E. R., Earl, N., et al. 2026, JWST and Keck observations of the off-nuclear tidal disruption event TDE 2025abcr: An evolving reprocessing layer, arXiv:2604.160934, 18, 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    S., Steele, I

    Piascik, A. S., Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91478H7

    2014

  77. [77]

    M., & Shiokawa, H

    Piran, T., Svirski, G., Krolik, J., Cheng, R. M., & Shiokawa, H. 2015, ApJ, 806, 1644 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A65

    2015

  78. [78]

    Qiao, E., & Liu, B. F. 2013, ApJ, 764, 224

    2013

  79. [79]

    F., Panessa, F., & Liu, J

    Qiao, E., Liu, B. F., Panessa, F., & Liu, J. Y. 2013, ApJ, 777, 10224

    2013

  80. [80]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 34734

    Qiao, E., Wu, Y., Lin, Y., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 34734

    2025

Showing first 80 references.