Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Little Red Dots are likely the hot, opaque winds blown off black holes that are swallowing gas at thousands of times the Eddington rate.

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

2026-08-01 17:57 UTC pith:45XLMAKT

load-bearing objection A promising but not yet self-consistent application of the Meier (1982) outflow model to LRD envelopes; the FWHM test is clever, but the paper's own equations imply a photospheric luminosity ~10–30x its claimed L_bb, and Table 1's mdot values don't match Eq. (1). the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17448 v1 pith:45XLMAKT submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Optically Thick Outflow Driven by Supercritical Accretion May Explain Little Red Dots

Jun-Rong Liu , Hua Feng , Luis C. Ho This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords Little Red Dotssupercritical accretionoptically thick outflowblack hole photosphereEddington luminositybroad-line widthsBalmer breakaccretion rate
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.

This paper proposes that Little Red Dots—compact, red sources found in deep infrared surveys—are not black holes buried in stationary gas, but black holes accreting so aggressively that they blow off a thick, opaque wind. Using a known analytic model of radiation-driven, optically thick outflows, the authors show that the wind's photosphere naturally produces the observed red continua, with luminosities of 10^43–10^45 erg per second and temperatures of 3000–6000 K, when the black hole has ~10^5–10^7 solar masses and accretes at 1500–5000 times the Eddington rate. Fitting each object's luminosity and temperature to the model, they reproduce measured broad-line widths within a factor of 1.5 for 15 of 18 objects, once both the outflow speed and electron scattering are included. Photoionization calculations further yield Balmer breaks in the observed range, and the model naturally explains why LRDs are X-ray weak. If the claim holds, the red envelopes of Little Red Dots are not exotic shells but the visible surfaces of winds from overfed black holes, and the black holes themselves grow only near the Eddington rate because most of the gas is expelled.

Core claim

Little Red Dots are compact red sources in deep infrared surveys. The paper argues that their dense 'envelope' is the photosphere of an optically thick outflow driven by supercritical accretion. Two scalings carry the argument: L_bb = 3/4 L_Edd (an observed luminosity pins the black hole mass) and T_bb ∝ M^{-2/11} \dot m^{-15/11} (an observed temperature pins the accretion rate). On 36 objects, this yields M ~ 10^5–10^7 solar masses and \dot m ~ 1500–5000. Adding outflow kinematics and electron scattering predicts broad-line FWHMs within a factor of 1.5 for 15 of 18 objects; photoionization calculations give Balmer breaks consistent with observations and enhanced Balmer decrements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photosphere of a radiation-driven, optically thick outflow launched from the trapping radius of a supercritical accretion disk. The load-bearing identity is L_bb = 3 L_Edd/4, which turns an observed luminosity into a black hole mass; the companion scaling T_bb ∝ M^{-2/11} \dot m^{-15/11} turns an observed temperature into an accretion rate. Those two numbers then set the terminal velocity and electron-scattering optical depth, yielding a top-hat line profile convolved with an exponential scattering kernel. The photosphere emits the red continuum; the scattering region above it broadens lines and shapes the Balmer features.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the outflow photosphere always radiates at a fixed three-quarters of the Eddington luminosity—the brightness where radiation pressure balances gravity—regardless of how extreme the accretion rate; if that pinning fails, or if injecting the flow at the trapping radius is not valid at 1500–5000 times Eddington, the derived masses, temperatures, and line widths all shift together.

What would settle it

Run a radiation-MHD simulation at \dot m = 1500–5000 and check whether the photospheric luminosity is indeed close to 3/4 L_Edd; if it scales differently, the mass determination fails. Observationally, obtain independent black hole masses (e.g., from spatially resolved dynamics) for a handful of LRDs and compare with the model's M; or measure many more FWHMs to see whether the factor-of-1.5 success rate holds beyond 15 of 18 objects.

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

If this is right

  • With M ≈ 10^5–10^7 solar masses and \dot m ≈ 1500–5000, the model covers the entire observed range of LRD red continua: 10^43–10^45 erg/s at 3000–6000 K.
  • The broad-line region is a non-virialized outflow plus scattering layer, so virial black hole masses for LRDs are overestimated by roughly an order of magnitude.
  • The same outflow produces Balmer breaks in the observed range and Balmer decrements above Case B, though below the most extreme measured values.
  • Most of the supplied gas is expelled rather than swallowed, so net black hole growth stays near the Eddington rate; LRDs can last about 10^8 years with a duty cycle near 0.1 without catastrophic growth.
  • UV photons escaping through the low-density funnel and scattering in the outer wind predict a population of beamed AGNs at LRD redshifts and a natural reason for weak X-ray emission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the photospheric luminosity is not pinned at 3/4 L_Edd at these extreme rates—a regime the paper concedes no simulation has reached—the derived masses, accretion rates, and line widths all shift; a radiation-MHD run at \dot m ≈ 1500–5000 would settle it.
  • The paper's own Saha estimate implies the photosphere is only ~20% ionized, yet the model's opacity scalings assume full ionization; a self-consistent partial-ionization treatment could change the predicted temperatures and widths.
  • If correct, supercritical outflows would be one mechanism spanning stellar-mass ultraluminous X-ray sources, tidal disruption events, and million-solar-mass LRDs; a testable result is that some LRDs should show soft thermal X-ray components analogous to ULX soft excesses.
  • The model's L–T tracks predict where LRDs should cluster, so a larger homogeneous sample could confirm or falsify the inferred mass and accretion-rate distributions without individual spectral fitting.

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 proposes that the red optical continua, broad emission-line widths, and Balmer features of Little Red Dots (LRDs) are produced by an optically thick, radiation-driven outflow from a supercritically accreting black hole. Using the analytic Meier (1982) outflow model cast in the form of Zhou et al. (2019), the authors express the outflow photospheric temperature T_bb, luminosity L_bb, terminal velocity, and photospheric radius as functions of black hole mass M and dimensionless accretion rate mdot (Eqs. 1–5). They show that the observed L_bb–T_bb distribution of LRDs maps to M~1e5–1e7 M_sun and mdot~1500–5000. For 18 objects with measured broad-line FWHMs, they invert (L_bb,T_bb) to (M,mdot), construct an intrinsic top-hat line profile broadened by the terminal velocity, convolve it with an exponential electron-scattering kernel calibrated from Monte Carlo simulations, and claim agreement within factor 1.5 for 15/18 objects. They also use Cloudy to compute Balmer breaks and decrements, finding the former broadly consistent and the latter underpredicted. They conclude that LRD envelopes may be super-Eddington outflow photospheres around ~10^6 M_sun black holes.

Significance. The proposed interpretation is timely, and the FWHM test is a genuine third-observable check: two observables (L_bb, T_bb) fix (M, mdot), leaving the line width as a prediction with no constant fitted to the FWHM data. The scattering kernel is anchored to independent Monte Carlo simulations, and the paper openly reports the Balmer-decrement shortfall. If the model equations are self-consistent, this would be an important step toward a physical picture of LRD envelopes and a non-virial origin for their broad lines. However, the manuscript currently contains an internal inconsistency between the photospheric radius/temperature scalings and the assumed Eddington-luminosity relation, which directly affects the mass and accretion-rate inversions and therefore the FWHM predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (1)–(2) and (4)] Under the LTE assumption stated in §2, a spherical photosphere of radius r_* and temperature T_bb must emit L_phot = 4π r_*^2 σ T_bb^4. Substituting Eqs. (1) and (4) yields L_phot ∝ M_6^{12/11} (mdot_3)^{-9/11}; for M=10^6 M_sun and mdot=2000 this gives L_phot≈1.2×10^45 erg s^-1, whereas Eq. (2) gives L_bb=1.09×10^44 erg s^-1. The ratio is 10–20 over the adopted parameter range and is mdot-dependent. For UNCOVER-45924 (Table 1), using the mdot value that reproduces the listed vterm (mdot≈772) gives L_phot≈2.5×10^46 erg s^-1, ≈30× the observed L_bb used to infer M. The model's own photosphere would therefore outshine the observed red continuum by more than an order of magnitude. Because (M,mdot) are derived from (L_bb,T_bb) through Eqs. (1)–(2), and because vterm and r_* feed into the FWHM prediction, this inconsistency is load-bearing. The authors must either show that r_* is not the bla
  2. [Table 1, Eq. (3)] Columns (7) and (8) of Table 1 are mutually inconsistent with Eq. (3). For JADES-28074, the listed mdot=1933 gives vterm = 746×(1.933)^-1/2 ≈ 537 km s^-1, yet the table lists vterm=758 km s^-1, which is exactly the value for mdot≈967. The same factor-of-two offset appears in every row. Thus either the mdot column is double the model parameter actually used in the equations, or the text/equation for vterm uses mdot/2 without saying so. This must be clarified and corrected, because it affects the reported mdot~1500–5000 range and reproducibility.
  3. [§3, Eq. (6) and FWHM calculation] The FWHM prediction depends on the electron-scattering optical depth through σ_v = (428τ_es + 370)√(T_bb/10^4 K), with τ_es = x n_H r_* σ_T. The Saha estimate in Eq. (6) gives x≈0.2 at photospheric conditions, but the calculation adopts x=0.1 as a fiducial without a sensitivity study. Since τ_es is directly proportional to x, switching from x=0.1 to x=0.2 can alter σ_v by roughly 50% for the relevant τ_es values, which is comparable to the factor-1.5 tolerance used to claim agreement. Given that the ionization structure is not solved self-consistently, a bracketing calculation (e.g., x=0.05–0.2) and/or a justification of the adopted x is needed to support the central FWHM claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2] The filled circles are not identified; since only 36 of 37 sources are shown, a legend mapping to Table 1 would help.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (1)–(5)] M_6 and mdot_3 are used before being defined; please define them explicitly at first use.
  3. [§3, Cloudy calculation] The text states that the sphere command imposes a closed geometry, but the covering factor CF is later used to synthesize the spectrum. The relation between CF and the funnel geometry described in §4 is not quantified; please define how CF is applied to transmitted and diffuse continua.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The convolution variable and limits are implicit; specify that the integral is over line-of-sight velocity and state the bounds.
  5. [§3, first paragraph] The claim that the modified blackbody temperature and luminosity are close to a pure blackbody is not quantified; a sentence giving the typical difference would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Continuum match reduces to parameter inversion; FWHM test remains an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Figure 2 discussion after Eq. (5)]
    "We plotted the theoretical blackbody luminosity and temperature given the outflow model with different M and mdot in the same figure with Eqs. (1-2). As one can see, to match the observed ranges of luminosity and temperature, one requires 10^5 M_sun < M < 10^7 M_sun and 1500 < mdot < 5000."

    Equations (1) and (2) give a one-to-one map from (M, mdot) to (Tbb, Lbb). The Figure 2 'match' is obtained by inverting the observed Tbb and Lbb to choose M and mdot, so the continuum agreement is guaranteed by construction rather than being an independent prediction. These fitted parameters then feed the FWHM calculation, so this circularity contaminates the chain, although the FWHM comparison itself is not determined by fitting to FWHM data.

full rationale

The only genuinely circular step is the continuum 'match' in Figure 2: since M and mdot are solved from the observed Lbb and Tbb via Eqs. (1)–(2), the agreement in the luminosity–temperature plane is parameter coverage, not an out-of-sample prediction. The paper's headline tests, however, are the FWHM and Balmer predictions, which do not reduce by construction: the FWHM calculation uses no FWHM values to set M, mdot, x, or the scattering kernel, and instead adopts an externally calibrated Monte Carlo kernel (Rusakov et al. 2026). The self-citation to Zhou et al. (2019) for Lbb = 3L_Edd/4 is load-bearing but is an independent published analytic derivation whose assumptions do not include LRD data, so it is legitimate evidence rather than a circular chain. Section 4 candidly notes that no simulations reach mdot ~ 1500–5000 and that the funnel opening angle is unknown; these are limitations, not circularity. Separately, the photosphere definitions imply a Stefan–Boltzmann luminosity roughly an order of magnitude above Eq. (2), an internal-consistency concern that would affect the derived masses, but it is not a circularity and therefore does not dominate the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's physics is inherited from Meier (1982) and Zhou et al. (2019); its contribution is the application and the consistency tests. Each object's two continuum observables (L_bb, T_bb) are absorbed by two model parameters (M, m-dot) through Eqs. (1)–(2), so Fig. 2 is parameter coverage rather than prediction. The FWHM and Balmer predictions then rest on the hand-set ionization fraction x=0.1 (below the paper's own Saha value 0.2), a freely scanned covering factor (0.1–0.8), and the assumed low-density funnel that leaks ionizing UV (unconstrained by simulations at these accretion rates). No new entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • Black hole mass M (per object) = 0.2–7.6 × 10^6 M_sun (Table 1)
    Inverted from observed L_bb via Eq. (2), L_bb = 1.09×10^44 M_6 erg/s — the Eddington pin. Absorbs the luminosity observable; with M fixed, T_bb fixes m-dot.
  • Dimensionless accretion rate m-dot (per object) = 1544–4251 (Table 1)
    Inverted from observed T_bb via Eq. (1) once M is fixed. Absorbs the temperature observable; sets v_term and tau_es entering the FWHM prediction.
  • Ionization fraction x (scattering depth) = 0.1 (fiducial; Saha estimate 0.2)
    Sets tau_es = x n_H r_* sigma_T, hence sigma_v = 428*tau_es + 370 and the scattering contribution to every predicted FWHM. Hand-set below the paper's own Eq. (6) value.
  • Covering factor CF = 0.1–0.8 (scanned)
    Used in the Cloudy Balmer-break comparison (Fig. 4); the shaded 'prediction' band is generated by freely varying CF over an order of magnitude.
  • Accretion efficiency eta and viscosity alpha = 0.1, 0.1
    Section 2; the paper states these have minor influence on the results.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Meier (1982) analytic optically thick, radiation-driven outflow solution, launched at the trapping radius r_i = 6GM m-dot/c^2, with acceleration followed by free expansion and LTE out to the photosphere.
    The entire framework is taken from prior work (Meier 1982; Zhou et al. 2019) and not re-derived here; Section 2 refers readers to 'the Appendix of Zhou et al. (2019)' for the derivation of Eqs. (1)–(5).
  • domain assumption The emergent blackbody luminosity equals the input luminosity at r_i, approximately the Eddington luminosity: L_bb = 3/4 L_Edd.
    Section 2, 'a natural consequence...' following Eq. (14) of Zhou et al. (2019). Load-bearing: it converts observed L_bb directly into M via Eq. (2) with no freedom.
  • domain assumption Electron-scattering opacity with full ionization (kappa_es ~ 0.34 cm^2 g^-1) determines the outflow structure (r_*, rho_*, tau_es).
    Used in deriving Eqs. (4)–(5); Section 3's Saha estimate (x ~ 0.2, Eq. 6) implies a mostly neutral photosphere, so the opacity assumed in the scalings differs from the opacity at the photosphere.
  • domain assumption The emergent line profile is the convolution of a top-hat of width 2 v_term with an exponential scattering kernel whose scale is sigma_v = (428 tau_es + 370) sqrt(T_bb/10^4 K) km/s from Rusakov et al. (2026) Monte Carlo simulations.
    Section 3, Eqs. (7)–(8); the kernel calibration is external and not re-validated for LRD densities and ionization states.
  • domain assumption UV photons from the central accretion flow leak through a low-density funnel to illuminate and ionize the gas beyond the photosphere.
    Section 3 Cloudy geometry and Section 4; the authors state no simulation reaches the extreme accretion rates needed to predict the funnel opening angle, so the ionizing-photon leak is an unconstrained input.
  • standard math Saha equation applies to hydrogen at n_H ~ 5×10^8 cm^-3 and T_bb ~ 5000 K, giving x ~ 0.2.
    Eq. (6); standard statistical mechanics, but its output is inconsistent with both the full-ionization hydro scalings and the adopted x = 0.1 in the FWHM estimate.
  • domain assumption Cloudy AGN default SED (disk T = 1.5×10^5 K, alpha_UV = -0.5, alpha_X = -1, alpha_OX = -1.4) represents the ionizing continuum.
    Section 3 Cloudy setup; the Balmer break and decrement predictions depend on this assumed spectrum.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13153 in / 32273 out tokens · 288455 ms · 2026-08-01T17:57:35.504661+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent JWST observations have revealed a population of compact, optically red sources known as Little Red Dots (LRDs). A popular interpretation is that LRDs host massive black holes embedded in dense gaseous envelopes, yet the physical origin of such envelopes remains unclear. We propose that the optically thick outflow driven by supercritical accretion onto black holes may explain the envelope. Based on an analytic radiative hydrodynamic outflow model, we relate the outflow properties to the black hole mass $M$ and dimensionless accretion rate $\dot{m}$. With $M\sim10^5-10^7\,M_\odot$ and $\dot m \sim 1500-5000$, the outflow photosphere reaches luminosities of $10^{43}-10^{45}\,\rm erg\,s^{-1}$ and temperatures of $\sim 3000-6000$ K, effectively matching the red optical continua observed in LRDs. The presence of a thick scattering region beyond the photosphere is central to deciphering the distinctive properties of LRDs. For each object, if one derives $M$ and $\dot{m}$ from the observed luminosity and temperature, while accounting for both kinematic broadening and scattering effects, the model predicts an emission line FWHM consistent with observations within a factor of 1.5 for more than 80\% objects. Furthermore, with Cloudy simulations, we find that the partially ionized gas beyond the photosphere produces Balmer breaks broadly consistent with measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17448 by Hua Feng, Jun-Rong Liu, Luis C. Ho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the outflow model. The arrows indicate the inflow and outflow. The outflow starts from ri and then undergoes acceleration and free expansion. r∗ denotes the photosphere and rsc denotes the scattersphere. UV radiation from the central accretion flow can escape from the low-density funnels (blue cones). a non-spinning black hole, where G is the gravitational constant and c is the sp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Blackbody luminosity vs. temperature measured from the red envelope in LRDs (circles) and the local analog “The Egg” (star). The dashed and dotted lines show the predicted blackbody luminosity and temperature from the outflow model at different black hole masses (M = 105 , 106 , and 107M⊙) and accretion rates (m˙ = 1500, 3000, and 5000). 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FWHMmod (km s ¡1 ) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed vs. model predicted FWHMs of the broad-line component. Both kinetic and scattering effects are taken into account when calculating the velocity dispersion. The dashed line marks the 1:1 relation. ted the theoretical blackbody luminosity and tempera￾ture given the outflow model with different M and m˙ in the same figure with Eqs. (1-2). As one can see, to match the observed ranges of luminosity and… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Balmer break strengths in LRDs. The shaded region shows the expected range from the fiducial outflow model with M = 106 M⊙ and m˙ = 2000 given a covering factor from 0.1 (left side) to 0.8 (right side). (Weymann 1970; Laor 2006) and produce exponential wings. Such a feature has been seen in the broad￾line component of LRDs (Rusakov et al. 2026; Matthee et al. 2026; Ji et al. 2026). We adopt… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Balmer decrements in LRDs. The shaded region shows the expected range from the outflow model with M and m˙ determined from the observed lumi￾nosity and temperature for each object. LHα/LHβ, where LHα and LHβ are the integrated Hα and Hβ luminosity, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] 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

79 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

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

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  3. [3]

    C., & Dexter, J

    Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J. 2026, ApJ, 996, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae274a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae274a 2026

  4. [4]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2131

    Chang, S.-J., Gronke, M., Matthee, J., & Mason, C. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2131

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2131 2026

  5. [5]

    C., et al

    Chen, C.-H., Shangguan, J., Ho, L. C., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.04711

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.04711

  6. [6]

    2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.06954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06954

    Chen, Y.-X., Liu, H., Li, R., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.06954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06954

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06954

  7. [7]

    A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chisholm, J., Berg, D. A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.15935, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.15935

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15935 2026

  8. [8]

    Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.21820 8 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025b, A&A, 701, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554681 D’Eugenio, F., Nelson, E., Ji, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-print...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21820 2018

  9. [9]

    J., Duncan, K

    Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Eilers, A.-C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adddb9 2025

  10. [10]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f 2024

  11. [11]

    2006, MNRAS, 365, 345, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09712.x

    Hu, J., Shen, Y., Lou, Y.-Q., & Zhang, S. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 345, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09712.x

    arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    2026, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag030

    Huang, J., Ohsuga, K., Feng, H., & Li, H. 2026, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag030

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psag030 2026

  13. [13]

    G., & Storey, P

    Hummer, D. G., & Storey, P. J. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/224.3.801

    doi:10.1093/mnras/224.3.801 1987

  14. [14]

    E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T

    Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555816

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555816 2025

  15. [15]

    Inayoshi, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.03130, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.03130

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.03130 2025

  16. [16]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2

    Inayoshi, K., & Ichikawa, K. 2024, ApJL, 973, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad74e2 2024

  17. [17]

    S., & Noda, H

    Inayoshi, K., Kimura, S. S., & Noda, H. 2025, PASJ, 77, 811, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf050

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf050 2025

  18. [18]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    Inayoshi, K., & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJL, 980, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaebd 2025

  19. [19]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3725

    Jeon, J., Liu, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3725

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3725 2026

  20. [20]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1867

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., Übler, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1867

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1867 2025

  21. [21]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2235

    Ji, X., D’Eugenio, F., Juodžbalis, I., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2235

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2235 2026

  22. [22]

    2026, ApJL, 996, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae247a

    Jiang, F., Jia, Z., Zheng, H., et al. 2026, ApJL, 996, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae247a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae247a 2026

  23. [23]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106 —. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag086

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/106 2014

  24. [24]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 769, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.4.769 —

    Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 769, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.4.769 —. 2012, ApJ, 752, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/18

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/61.4.769 2009

  25. [25]

    Kido, D., Ioka, K., Hotokezaka, K., Inayoshi, K., & Irwin, C. M. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1898

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1898 2025

  26. [26]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L109, doi: 10.1086/320343

    Elvis, M. 2001, ApJL, 552, L109, doi: 10.1086/320343

    doi:10.1086/320343 2001

  27. [27]

    R., & Pounds, K

    King, A. R., & Pounds, K. A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 657, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06980.x

    arXiv 2003

  28. [28]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 2013

  29. [29]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 92, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx101 —

    Kitaki, T., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., & Kawashima, T. 2017, PASJ, 69, 92, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx101 —. 2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx101 2017

  30. [30]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d 2025

  31. [31]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 2024

  32. [32]

    E., Matthee, J., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Matthee, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04557, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.04557 2024

  33. [33]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551 2025

  34. [34]

    A., Larson, R

    Lambrides, E., Hutchison, T. A., Larson, R. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.25991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.25991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25991 2026

  35. [35]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 112, doi: 10.1086/502798

    Laor, A. 2006, ApJ, 643, 112, doi: 10.1086/502798

    doi:10.1086/502798 2006

  36. [36]

    Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., Ichikawa, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 980, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada5fb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada5fb 2025

  37. [37]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 364, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2bdf

    Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 364, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2bdf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2bdf 2026

  38. [38]

    E., & Ma, Y

    Liu, H., Jiang, Y.-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y. 2025, ApJ, 994, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c19

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c19 2025

  39. [39]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.02317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.02317

    Liu, H., Jiang, Y.-F., Quataert, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.02317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.02317

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02317 2026

  40. [40]

    1997, ApJ, 489, 573, doi: 10.1086/304814

    Loeb, A., & Ulmer, A. 1997, ApJ, 489, 573, doi: 10.1086/304814

    doi:10.1086/304814 1997

  41. [41]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 2024

  42. [42]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf359 2025

  43. [43]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  44. [44]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667

    Matthee, J., Torralba, A., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17667, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17667

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.17667 2026

  45. [45]

    2026, A&A, 706, A372, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453317

    Mazzolari, G., Gilli, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A372, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453317

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453317 2026

  46. [46]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    Narayan, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu762 2014

  47. [47]

    Meier, D. L. 1982, ApJ, 256, 681, doi: 10.1086/159942 —. 2012, Black Hole Astrophysics: The Engine Paradigm, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01936-4

    doi:10.1086/159942 1982

  48. [48]

    M., Kaastra, J

    Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J. S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 542, doi: 10.1038/nature15708

    doi:10.1038/nature15708 2015

  49. [49]

    Miller, M. C. 2015, ApJ, 805, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/83 9

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/83 2015

  50. [50]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16596 2025

  51. [51]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3

    Nandal, D., & Loeb, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3 2026

  52. [52]

    P., Watson, D., Sneppen, A., et al

    Nikopoulos, G. P., Watson, D., Sneppen, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06362, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06362

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06362 2025

  53. [53]

    W., & Mirioni, L

    Pakull, M. W., & Mirioni, L. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0202488

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0202488 2002

  54. [54]

    Perger, K., Fogasy, J., Frey, S., & Gabányi, K. É. 2025, A&A, 693, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452422

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452422 2025

  55. [55]

    G., & Abolmasov, P

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

    arXiv 2007

  56. [56]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc959

    Qiu, Y., & Feng, H. 2021, ApJ, 906, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc959

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc959 2021

  57. [57]

    P., et al

    Rusakov, V., Watson, D., Nikopoulos, G. P., et al. 2026, Nature, 649, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09900-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09900-4 2026

  58. [58]

    D., Farag, E., Bellinger, E

    Santarelli, A. D., Farag, E., Bellinger, E. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.17952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.17952

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17952 2025

  59. [59]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  60. [60]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu183

    Shen, R.-F., Barniol Duran, R., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 447, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu183

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu183 2015

  61. [61]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw645 Sądowski, A., & Narayan, R

    Shen, R.-F., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw645 Sądowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1802 —. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2941 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw645 2016

  62. [62]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2479 2014

  63. [63]

    H., et al

    Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Matthews, J. H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18864, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18864

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18864 2026

  64. [64]

    Q., Naidu, R

    Sun, W. Q., Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.20929, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.20929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20929 2026

  65. [65]

    J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D

    Taylor, A. J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade789

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade789 2025

  66. [66]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22305, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22305

    Trinca, A., Lupi, A., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22305, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22305 2026

  67. [67]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4101

    Umeda, H., Inayoshi, K., Harikane, Y., & Murase, K. 2026, ApJ, 999, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4101

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4101 2026

  68. [68]

    2024, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    Wang, B., Leja, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7 2024

  69. [69]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.06024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06024

    Wang, B., Leja, J., Labbe, I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.06024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06024

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06024 2026

  70. [70]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.09278

    Wang, J.-M., Wang, Y.-L., Chen, Y.-J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.09278

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09278 2025

  71. [71]

    Weymann, R. J. 1970, ApJ, 160, 31, doi: 10.1086/150402

    doi:10.1086/150402 1970

  72. [72]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5dbd

    Yan, Z., Inayoshi, K., Chen, K., & Guo, J. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5dbd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5dbd 2026

  73. [73]

    2019, ApJL, 884, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab44c7

    Yao, Y., & Feng, H. 2019, ApJL, 884, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab44c7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab44c7 2019

  74. [74]

    T., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Ananna, T. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7eba 2024

  75. [75]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02785-x

    Zhang, C., Wu, Q., Fan, X., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02785-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-026-02785-x 2026

  76. [76]

    Zhang, S. N. 2005, ApJL, 618, L79, doi: 10.1086/427800

    work page doi:10.1086/427800 2005

  77. [77]

    C., & Yao, Y

    Zhou, Y., Feng, H., Ho, L. C., & Yao, Y. 2019, ApJ, 871, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf724

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf724 2019

  78. [78]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3612

    Zhuang, M.-Y., Li, J., Shen, Y., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3612

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3612 2026

  79. [79]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22014

    Zwick, L., Tiede, C., & Mayer, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22014

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.22014 2025