Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 124 references

Accreting binary black holes bifurcate: tiny-mass-ratio pairs settle toward q≈10^-3 while larger pairs evolve to equal mass.

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 06:13 UTC pith:EWSTXQQV

load-bearing objection A useful unified SED framework for accreting binary massive BHs, but the mass-ratio evolution bifurcation is only as solid as an unvalidated interpolation in the gap–CBD transition regime. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21956 v1 pith:EWSTXQQV submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

The Distinctive Evolution and Spectral Energy Distribution of Binary Massive Black Hole Accretion

Yue Xu , Fu-Guo Xie , Ya-Ping Li , Yinhao Wu , Luis C. Ho This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords binary black holesaccretion diskscircumbinary diskmass ratio evolutionspectral energy distributiongap/cavityhot accretion flowgravitational wave sources
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 builds a self-consistent model of gas accretion onto a binary of massive black holes — an outer circumbinary disk plus two mini-disks, each of which can behave as a thin disk, a hot accretion flow, or a slim disk depending on the local accretion rate — and uses it to predict spectra and long-term evolution across mass ratios q = 10^-4 to 0.5. Its central claim is that the evolution of the mass ratio is set by the difference in Eddington-normalized accretion rates of the two holes: binaries with tiny initial mass ratios (q ≲ a few × 10^-3) are driven to a stable equilibrium at q ≈ 10^-3, while binaries with larger initial mass ratios grow toward equal masses before merger. The same model produces a universal spectral 'notch' from the near-infrared to ultraviolet caused by the cavity or gap the secondary carves in the disk, with signatures that vary systematically with q. A sympathetic reader would care because the predicted bifurcation changes what binaries should look like — both electromagnetically and in gravitational waves — and offers a way to identify candidate systems in existing and upcoming surveys.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an accreting binary of massive black holes has two evolutionary fates, not one. Writing the growth of the mass ratio q = M_secondary/M_primary as dq/dt = q(ṁ_s − ṁ_p)/τ_growth, where ṁ are accretion rates in Eddington units and τ_growth is the e-folding mass-growth time, the sign of (ṁ_s − ṁ_p) decides everything. The authors construct a smooth joint fit for Ṁ_s/Ṁ_p across the gap regime (q ≲ 1.6 × 10^-3), the circumbinary-disk regime (q ≳ 0.04), and the unmeasured transitional band between them. The fit crosses ṁ_s = ṁ_p twice, at q ≈ 10^-3 and q ≈ 2.5 × 10^-3, making q ≈ 10^-3 an attractor: systems starting below it tend toward q ≈ 10^-3, while systems sta

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the accretion-rate ratio λ(q) = Ṁ_s/Ṁ_p, joined across mass-ratio regimes by a weight-function interpolation (Eq. 7) with endpoints q1 = 0.012, q2 = 0.0002, sharpness k = 20, anchored to the gap-case model (accretion limited by the secondary's gravitational capture region for q ≲ 1.6 × 10^-3) and to the circumbinary-disk formula (≈ 0.5 + 4(1−q)/9) for q ≳ 0.04. This λ(q) feeds the evolutionary equation dq/dt = q(ṁ_s − ṁ_p)/τ_growth, whose two crossings of ṁ_s = ṁ_p define the stable equilibrium at q ≈ 10^-3 and the unstable crossing at q ≈ 2.5 × 10^-3. The same machinery routes the supplied total accretion rate into the two mini-disks, deciding which disk is a thin

Load-bearing premise

The existence and location of the equilibrium at q ≈ 10^-3 rests on a hand-fitted interpolation of the accretion-rate ratio in the transition region q ≈ 2 × 10^-4 to 0.012, where the paper states no dedicated simulations exist; if the true λ(q) differs there, the attractor could disappear or move.

What would settle it

Run three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of an accreting binary with mass ratios q = 5 × 10^-4, 2 × 10^-3, 5 × 10^-3, and 0.01 in a thin disk (aspect ratio h ≈ 3 × 10^-3) and measure the time-averaged ratio Ṁ_s/Ṁ_p. If it is everywhere above or below one, or crosses once instead of twice, the q ≈ 10^-3 equilibrium and the claimed bifurcation do not hold. Alternatively, measure the mass-ratio distribution of mergers with a space-based gravitational-wave detector: no pile-up near q ≈ 10^-3 would contradict the attractor.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Most extreme- and intermediate-mass-ratio binaries that survive to merger will do so near q ≈ 10^-3 rather than growing to comparable masses.
  • Binaries with initial q above roughly 2.5 × 10^-3 will tend to become equal-mass before merging, so their gravitational-wave chirp and electromagnetic signatures should be those of near-equal-mass systems.
  • A broad spectral depression from near-infrared through ultraviolet, with the notch frequency shifting as ν_notch ∝ a_sep^-0.76, is a generic sign of the binary cavity and can be searched for in high-redshift AGN samples.
  • Secondary-dominated systems with q ≈ 10^-4 can produce excess emission in X-rays, while systems with q ≈ 0.1 produce hot-accretion-flow emission from the primary's disk; broad-band infrared-to-X-ray observations can separate mass-ratio regimes.
  • Predicted periodic Doppler-boosted flux variations are up to about 20% for low-q systems, complementing the notch as an identification tool.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the q ≈ 10^-3 attractor is real, the mass-ratio distribution of merging massive black holes observed by future space-based detectors should be bimodal, peaking near 10^-3 and 1; a flat distribution would falsify the interpolation.
  • The paper leaves the transition band 2 × 10^-4 ≲ q ≲ 0.012 without dedicated simulations; a direct simulation suite measuring λ(q) there at AGN-like aspect ratios would settle whether the attractor exists.
  • The notch mechanism offers a natural discriminator between binary-induced 'V-shaped' spectra and Balmer-break features in high-redshift compact-object populations, since the binary notch has no fixed rest-frame wavelength and should drift with orbital separation.
  • One can extend the model to higher total accretion rates or lower disk aspect ratios; if λ(q) changes shape there, the equilibrium mass ratio may shift, changing which binaries produce gravitational-wave counterparts.

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 models accretion onto binary massive black holes (BHs) across mass ratios 10^-4 ≤ q ≤ 0.5 for a 10^8 M_sun binary with Eddington ratio 0.1. It combines a circumbinary disk and two mini-disks, assigning each disk one of three accretion states (SSD, HAF, or Slim) depending on the local accretion rate, and computes multi-component SEDs. The SED portion finds a characteristic 'notch' feature caused by the gap/cavity, plus distinctive mass-ratio-dependent broadband signatures including HAF X-ray emission and Slim-disk soft X-ray excess. The evolution portion derives dq/dt from the accretion-rate ratio λ(q)=Ṁ_s/Ṁ_p, using a joint fit that splices a gap-case prescription (Li et al. 2023) to a CBD prescription (Lai & Muñoz 2023), and claims that initial q ≲ a few × 10^-3 evolve toward an equilibrium q ~ 10^-3, while larger-q systems evolve toward q → 1 (Eqs. 10–11, Fig. 10).

Significance. If the evolution claim survives scrutiny, it has substantial implications: extreme- and intermediate-mass-ratio binaries would tend to merge near q ~ 10^-3, whereas comparable-mass systems would converge toward equality before merger, affecting LISA event-rate predictions and electromagnetic counterpart searches. The SED predictions are also valuable and more robust: they use standard disk models, show systematic variation with q and separation, and give falsifiable signatures (notch location scaling as a_sep^-0.76, HAF/Slim spectral state changes) that can be tested with UV/optical/X-ray facilities. A clear strength is that the paper is candid about its limitations, including explicitly stating in §5.2 that no dedicated simulations cover the transitional mass-ratio regime. The central weakness is that the claimed bifurcation and its threshold q_crit ≈ 2.5×10^-3 are direct products of the hand-fitted interpolation in Eq. (7), which is not supported by simulations in the relevant interval. This is the load-bearing point for the abstract's headline evolution result.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.3, Eq. (7); §4, Fig. 10] The evolutionary bifurcation is determined by the sign of (ṁ_s − ṁ_p) in Eq. (10), and the location of the fixed points is set by the joint fit λ_fit(q) in Eq. (7) with parameters q1=0.012, q2=0.0002, k=20. The attracting equilibrium q ≈ 1×10^-3 and the separatrix q_crit ≈ 2.5×10^-3 both lie inside the transition interval 2×10^-4 < q < 1.2×10^-2 where there are no dedicated simulations, as the paper itself states in §5.2: 'there are currently no dedicated simulations that concern the mass ratio in transitional state between the gap case and the CBD case.' The parameters q1, q2, k are hand-picked to make a smooth connection, with no error bars or sensitivity analysis. Because the claimed bifurcation in evolutionary pathways is the central new result, the manuscript needs either a dedicated sensitivity study over plausible alternative interpolations or new transitional-regime hydrodynamic
  2. [§4, Fig. 10; §5.2] The paper's abstract and conclusions state that systems with q ≲ a few × 10^-3 evolve toward q ~ 10^-3, but the same section notes that the mass-growth timescale may exceed the gravitational-wave merger timescale. Concretely, the text states that q0 = 3×10^-3 requires about 1.4×10^8 yr to reach q = 6×10^-3, and Fig. 10 shows t_GW for a_sep = 2000 R_g,p0 and 1000 R_g,p0 can be comparable or shorter; §4 then cautions that 'most binary SMBHs with mass ratios q ≲ 10^-2 are likely to merge before they can evolve into systems with q = 10^-3 or large mass ratios q ∼ 1.' This is an important caveat that should appear in the abstract and conclusions, not only in the discussion. The evolutionary tracks in Fig. 10 need a direct quantitative comparison between the accretion-driven q-evolution timescale and t_GW/t_migration for representative separations, otherwise the headline claim overstates the a
  3. [§2.3.1–2.3.3; §5.2] Both the gap-case formula (Eq. 4–5, from Li et al. 2023) and the CBD-case formula (Eq. 6, from Lai & Muñoz 2023) are calibrated by hydrodynamic simulations with disk aspect ratios h ≳ 0.03, whereas the present work applies them at h = 3×10^-3, the value appropriate for a cold AGN thin disk. The paper acknowledges this in §5.2 ('These simulations usually assume a SSD with an aspect ratio of h ≳ 0.03...'). Since ṁ_s and ṁ_p enter Eq. (10) linearly, this mismatch is not a cosmetic issue for the evolution calculation. The SED results are less sensitive because the qualitative disk-state assignments are robust, but the quantitative λ(q) and therefore the exact equilibrium values are not. A sensitivity analysis varying h (or at least showing the resulting spread in q_crit) would materially improve the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §6] The abstract says 'q ≲ a few × 10^-3' while the conclusions say 'q ≲ 2.5×10^-3.' These are inconsistent; the quantitative threshold should be stated uniformly.
  2. [§2.3.3, Eq. (7)] The functional form λ_fit is an inverse-weighted harmonic mean of λ_gap and λ_CBD. It would help readers to explain why this particular combination (rather than, say, a simple logistic interpolation in log λ) is chosen, and to state explicitly that the parameters are unconstrained.
  3. [§2.4] The text has several typos, e.g., 'T able' in Table 1, 'magneta' for 'magenta', 'binay' for 'binary', and 'the and dot-dashed' in the Fig. 10 caption. Please proofread carefully.
  4. [§3.2, Fig. 6] The scaling ν_notch ∝ a_sep^-0.76 is quoted as a fit; it would be useful to state the expected range of validity (e.g., for which q and a_sep this power-law remains accurate), since the text notes the simple R^-3/4 scaling assumes q ≪ 1.
  5. [§5.1.2] The 'Little Red Dots' discussion is interesting but the connection to the paper's binary notch is only qualitative. A brief mention in the conclusions would help emphasize the observational relevance.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mass-ratio bifurcation reduces to the hand-fitted λ(q) interpolation (Eq. 7); transitional regime has no dedicated simulations (§5.2).

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.3.3 Eq. (7); §4 Eqs. (10)-(11) & Fig. 10; §5.2]
    "To make a smooth transition for the λ profile from the CBD to the gap case (for the h=3×10^-3 case), we find q1=0.012, q2=0.0002, and k=20. ... Two intersection points at ṁ_s = ṁ_p are identified, one at q≈1×10^-3 and the other at q_crit≈2.5×10^-3."

    In Eq. (10), dq/dt = q(ṁ_s−ṁ_p)/τ, so the fixed points are exactly the roots of ṁ_s=ṁ_p, i.e. λ_fit(q)=q. The λ_fit used for every track in Fig. 10 is the hand-constructed interpolation of Eq. (7), with q1,q2,k chosen for smoothness. The stable root q≈10^-3 and the separatrix q_crit≈2.5×10^-3—the basis of the claimed bifurcation—lie in or adjacent to the transition region 2×10^-4<q<0.012, where §5.2 states 'there are currently no dedicated simulations that concern the mass ratio in transitional state.' Hence the predicted evolutionary split is a property of the assumed fitting function, not an independent empirical prediction; a different interpolation can shift or erase the attractor.

full rationale

The SED/notch analysis is self-contained: it uses standard SSD/HAF/Slim radiative models, and the notch feature is explicitly checked against previous studies, so no circularity is found there. The circularity concern is confined to Sec. 4: the central claim of a bifurcation at q∼10^-3 is obtained by solving Eq. (10) with the composite fit λ_fit from Eq. (7), whose transition-regime parameters are hand-chosen rather than simulation-constrained. The paper is transparent about this, admitting in §5.2 that no dedicated simulations cover the transitional mass-ratio state, which prevents a higher score. The CBD branch (q→1) and the low-q equilibrium are partly anchored by external simulation-based fits, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Self-citations such as Li et al. (2023) are used as simulation-based inputs rather than as authoritative uniqueness theorems, so they are not separately flagged as load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard accretion physics plus a hand-tuned accretion-rate interpolation; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • q1, q2, k (joint fit parameters) = q1=0.012, q2=0.0002, k=20
    Set by hand in §2.3.3 to make a smooth transition between gap and CBD accretion-rate ratio formulas; no uncertainties; central to the evolution result.
  • alpha_vis (viscosity parameter) = 0.3
    Assumed for all disks; standard value but affects gap criterion, HAF critical rate, and disk structure.
  • q_max,gap (gap-case upper limit) = 1.6e-3 (for h=3e-3)
    Derived from choosing W_gap=1.5 a_sep criterion; the paper notes uncertainty and that simulations reach only 0.8 a_sep.
  • delta (fraction of viscous heating to electrons) = 0.1
    Adopted from Xie & Yuan 2012 for HAF; affects HAF emission and critical rate.
  • beta (gas-to-magnetic pressure ratio) = 0.5
    Assumed for HAF with stronger magnetic field.
  • outflow index = 0.3
    Sets radially varying accretion rate in HAF; outflow strength poorly constrained.
  • R_out = 0.4 R_Roche (mini-disk outer truncation) = 0.4 R_Roche
    Adopted from Martin & Lubow 2011; sets disk size and spectral turnover.
  • inclination angle i = 30 deg
    Assumed for SED calculation; affects normalization, not shape.
  • mbin (total binary Eddington ratio) = 0.1
    Fixed; all results are for this value; the paper notes timescales scale inversely with mbin.
  • BH spin a* = 0.5
    Fixed; affects radiative efficiency and peak frequencies; not explored.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The three-disk decomposition (circumbinary disk + two mini-disks) with radiative contributions summed independently is valid; streams and spiral-wave emission are negligible.
    Assumed in §2.1-2.2 and §5.2; if stream emission is significant, the notch may be partially filled.
  • domain assumption Planet-disk gap-opening criteria and scaling laws apply to AGN disks around massive BHs.
    Eqs. (1) and (3) are taken from protoplanetary disk literature (Kanagawa et al. 2015, 2016); applied to much thinner AGN disks.
  • domain assumption The accretion-rate redistribution λ(q) is a deterministic function of q (and h) and is time-independent for fixed q.
    Used throughout §3-4; actual λ may fluctuate with disk turbulence and orbital phase (stochastic torques mentioned in §2.2.1).
  • domain assumption The binary orbit remains circular with fixed separation during the mass-ratio evolution; GW-driven inspiral is only compared a posteriori, not coupled to accretion.
    e=0 fixed in §2.1; evolution Eq. (10) ignores orbital shrinkage due to GW and disk migration; the paper discusses migration timescales but does not include them in the tracks.
  • domain assumption Total accretion rate in Eddington units is constant (mbin=0.1) over cosmic time in the evolution calculation.
    Stated in §4; actual gas supply likely evolves with cosmic time and AGN fueling.
  • standard math Standard SSD, HAF, and Slim disk solutions are mutually exclusive and valid in their respective accretion-rate regimes, with radiative efficiencies as in Fig. 3.
    Relies on Shakura & Sunyaev 1973; Xie & Yuan 2012; Kubota & Done 2019; the paper omits the two-phase HAF regime and corona.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30990 in / 13916 out tokens · 123661 ms · 2026-08-01T06:13:02.383273+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Distinctive Evolution and Spectral Energy Distribution of Binary Massive Black Hole Accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWSTXQQV

@misc{pith2026260721956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Distinctive Evolution and Spectral Energy Distribution of Binary Massive Black Hole Accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWSTXQQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21956}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Binary (super-)massive black holes (BHs) are expected to reside in the center of some galaxies. In this work, we re-visit accretion onto binary massive BHs, incorporating recent advances in both accretion theory and the mass transfer rate between the two massive BHs. We focus on relatively bright systems with an Eddington ratio of 0.1 for a binary with total BH mass $10^8\,M_\odot$, but consider a wide range of mass ratios $10^{-4} \le q \le 0.5$. The binary system consists of two mini-disks surrounding two individual BHs and a circumbinary disk surrounding the mass center of binary BHs. Depending on the mass ratio, the two mini-disks can be hot accretion flows, standard thin (cold) disks, or Slim disks. The radiative contributions from all three disks, each potentially in different accretion modes, are taken into account self-consistently. The spectral energy distributions of the binary BH system show universal ``notch'' features from the near-infrared to ultraviolet bands, caused by the gap or cavity in the accretion disk, consistent with previous studies. Binary with different mass ratios exhibit distinct spectral energy distribution properties, offering opportunities for testing (identifying candidates) with future broad band (infrared up to X-rays) observations. We also investigate the evolution of these binary systems, and find that, for systems with initial mass ratios $q \lesssim \text{a few} \times 10^{-3}$, the mass ratio evolves toward an equilibrium value $q \sim 10^{-3}$. For binary BH systems with a larger initial mass ratio, their mass ratio instead evolves toward unity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21956 by Fu-Guo Xie, Luis C. Ho, Ya-Ping Li, Yinhao Wu, Yue Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic plot of accretion onto binary massive BHs. Left panel: the “gap case”, where a low-mass-ratio secondary BH clears a narrow annular gap in the disk. Right panel: the “circumbinary disk (CBD) case”, where the binary BHs opens a wider central cavity. In both panels, the two BHs (shown by black “•”s) are separated by a distance asep, and orbit their mass center (shown as “×” mark, for the gap case,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panel: Absolute accretion-rate ratio M˙ s/M˙ p as a function of the mass ratio q. The black dashed line shows the result from D. Lai & D. J. Mu˜noz (2023). The cyan, magenta, and yellow dashed curves correspond to the models of Y.-P. Li et al. (2023) for different disk aspect ratios h = 10−3 (cyan), 3 × 10−3 (magenta) and 0.01 (yellow), respectively. The gray solid and dotted curves show, respectively,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radiative efficiency ϵ (defined as Lbol/Mc ˙ 2 ) as a function of accretion rate in Eddington unit ˙m = M /˙ M˙ Edd (Note that M˙ Edd = 10LEdd/c2 is adopted). Depending on m˙ , there are three accretion regimes, i.e. HAF (cyan), SSD (magenta), and Slim (yellow). The steep increase in ϵ at the bright end of the HAF regime is because of strong Compton scattering effect when the optical depth is high (F.-G. X… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bolometric luminosity ratio Lbol,s/Lbol,p of the secondary to primary mini-disks as a function of the mass ratio. The gray solid curve represents out fitting. The cyan, magenta, and yellow dash curves correspond to models with disk aspect ratio h = 10−3 , 3 × 10−3 and 0.01, respectively. The black hole spin is set to a ⋆ = 0.5 and the total binary accretion rate is ˙mbin = 0.1. gas, most emission of this b… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SEDs for a binary BH system with a mass ratio q = 0.5. The system has a total binary mass Mbin = 108M⊙ and an accretion rate ˙mbin = 0.1. The plot shows the total SEDs for different orbital separations (asep = 50, 100, 2×103 , 104 , 5 × 104Rg), represented by solid lines in red, orange, cyan, blue, and purple, respectively. Each SED (colored solid line) is the superposition of three components: cb-disk （do… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SEDs of binary BH accretion systems with mass ratio q = 0.01 (left panel, transitional case), q = 10−3 (middle panel, gap case), q = 10−4 (right panel, gap case), respectively. Each system has a total BH mass Mbin = 108M⊙, an accretion rate m˙ bin = 0.1, and a binary separation asep = 2000Rg. The line-style conventions used to represent the different disk components are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SEDs for binary massive BH systems whose merger time is approximately 100yr. The total BH mass of binary BHs is Mbin = 108M⊙, and the total accretion rate ˙mbin = 0.1. On top of each panel label the mass ratio of the binary BH system, i.e. q = 0.5 (top left, CBD case), 10−3 (top right, gap case), 0.1 (bottom left, CBD case), 0.01 (bottom middle, transitional case), and 10−4 (bottom right, gap case). The se… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panel: Accretion rates of the primary mini-disk (pri-disk, dot-dashed curve) and the secondary mini-disk (sec-disk, solid) as a function of the binary mass ratio q. Bottom panel: Evolutionary tracks of the mass ratio q for different initial values, i.e. q0 = 1 × 10−4 (blue curve), 2 × 10−3 (cyan), 3 × 10−3 (yellow), 0.01 (orange), 0.1 (red), respectively. The and dot-dashed and solid gray lines show t… 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

124 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  3. [3]

    2015, ApJL, 813, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 813, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/l41 2015

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  5. [5]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  6. [6]

    A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G

    Apostolatos, T. A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G. J., & Thorne, K. S. 1994, PhRvD, 49, 6274, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6274 Evolution and SED of bMBH Accretion19

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.49.6274 1994

  7. [7]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651, doi: 10.1086/173679

    doi:10.1086/173679 1994

  8. [8]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1996, ApJL, 467, L77, doi: 10.1086/310200

    doi:10.1086/310200 1996

  9. [9]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad90b8 2024

  10. [10]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

  11. [11]

    N., Ni, Q., Yang, G., et al

    Brandt, W. N., Ni, Q., Yang, G., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.06542, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1811.06542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.06542 2018

  12. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1026

    Britzen, S., Fendt, C., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1026

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1026 2018

  13. [13]

    2007, ApJL, 659, L5, doi: 10.1086/516712 Cevallos Soto, A., & Zhu, Z

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007, ApJL, 659, L5, doi: 10.1086/516712 Cevallos Soto, A., & Zhu, Z. 2026, ApJ, 998, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae355c

    doi:10.1086/516712 2007

  14. [14]

    Charisi, M., Haiman, Z., Schiminovich, D., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty516

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty516 2018

  15. [15]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9594

    Chen, Y., Yu, Q., & Lu, Y. 2020, ApJ, 897, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9594

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9594 2020

  16. [16]

    2025, MNRAS, 540, 1998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf867

    Chen, Y.-X., Wu, Y., Li, Y.-P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf867

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf867 2025

  17. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2269

    Choksi, N., Chiang, E., Fung, J., & Zhu, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2269

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2269 2023

  18. [18]

    2004, in SF2A-2004: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed

    Collin, S., & Kawagachi, T. 2004, in SF2A-2004: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed. F. Combes, D. Barret, T. Contini, F. Meynadier, & L. Pagani, 335

    2004

  19. [19]

    M., Schluns, K., Greene, J

    Comerford, J. M., Schluns, K., Greene, J. E., & Cool, R. J. 2013, ApJ, 777, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/64

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/64 2013

  20. [20]

    2006, Icarus, 181, 587, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.007 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al

    Crida, A., Morbidelli, A., & Masset, F. 2006, Icarus, 181, 587, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.007 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2809-0 D’Angelo, G., Kley, W., & Henning, T. 2003, ApJ, 586, 540, doi: 10.1086/367555

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.007 2006

  21. [21]

    H., Ho, L

    Davari, R. H., Ho, L. C., Mobasher, B., & Canalizo, G. 2017, ApJ, 836, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/75 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101525, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    C., Tripathi, P., Papadakis, I

    Dewangan, G. C., Tripathi, P., Papadakis, I. E., & Singh, K. P. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1113 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Pasquato, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2390 D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1113 2021

  23. [23]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 2379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw792 D’Orazio, D

    Farris, B. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw792 D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2015, Nature, 525, 351, doi: 10.1038/nature15262

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw792 2016

  24. [24]

    C., D’Orazio, D., Derdzinski, A., et al

    Duffell, P. C., D’Orazio, D., Derdzinski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab95

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab95 2020

  25. [25]

    C., & MacFadyen, A

    Duffell, P. C., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2013, ApJ, 769, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/41

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/41 2013

  26. [26]

    C., Dittmann, A

    Duffell, P. C., Dittmann, A. J., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a7e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a7e 2024

  27. [27]

    G., et al

    Ebisuzaki, T., Makino, J., Tsuru, T. G., et al. 2001, ApJL, 562, L19, doi: 10.1086/338118

    doi:10.1086/338118 2001

  28. [28]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  29. [29]

    A., Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M., Boroson, T. A., Halpern, J. P., & Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23 2012

  30. [30]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/134 2014

  31. [31]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2015a, MNRAS, 446, L36, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu160

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu160

  32. [32]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2015b, MNRAS, 447, L80, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu184

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu184

  33. [33]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2002

  34. [34]

    L., Gross, A

    Fu, H., Steffen, J. L., Gross, A. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab364

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab364 2018

  35. [35]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 2093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1473

    Fu, Y.-X., Li, Y.-R., Wang, J.-M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1473

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1473 2025

  36. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/88

    Fung, J., Shi, J.-M., & Chiang, E. 2014, ApJ, 782, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/88

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/88 2014

  37. [37]

    Gaskell, C. M. 1996, ApJL, 464, L107, doi: 10.1086/310119

    work page doi:10.1086/310119 1996

  38. [38]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.09674, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1809.09674 Gierli´ nski, M., Middleton, M., Ward, M., & Done, C. 2008, Nature, 455, 369, doi: 10.1038/nature07277

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.09674 2018

  39. [39]

    Pfeiffer, H. P. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 064060, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064060

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.064060 2014

  40. [40]

    Graham, A. W. 2004, ApJL, 613, L33, doi: 10.1086/424928

    doi:10.1086/424928 2004

  41. [41]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1726

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1726 2015

  42. [42]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.251102 2020

  43. [43]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca480 2023

  44. [44]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 G¨ urkan, M. A., Freitag, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 632, doi: 10.1086/381968 20

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 2020

  45. [45]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    doi:10.1086/186171 1991

  46. [46]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 023004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023004

    Haiman, Z. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 023004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.023004 2017

  47. [47]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1952, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952

    Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Menou, K. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1952, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1952 2009

  48. [48]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., Menou, K., Lippai, Z., & Frei, Z. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2008

  49. [49]

    Hayasaki, K., Mineshige, S., & Ho, L. C. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1134, doi: 10.1086/588837

    doi:10.1086/588837 2008

  50. [50]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae548d

    Haiman, Z. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae548d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae548d 2026

  51. [51]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 2020

  52. [52]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 219, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/219

    Ji, X., Ge, J.-Q., Lu, Y.-J., & Yan, C.-S. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 219, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/219

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/219 2021

  53. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1804

    Ji, X., Zheng, Z.-Y., Wu, Q., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1804

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1804 2023

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad063d

    Jiang, W., Shen, Z., Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad063d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad063d 2023

  55. [55]

    D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al

    Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al. 2015, ApJL, 806, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L15

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/l15 2015

  56. [56]

    D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al

    Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 43, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw037

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psw037 2016

  57. [57]

    D., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., & Tanigawa, T

    Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., & Tanigawa, T. 2017, PASJ, 69, 97, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx114

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx114 2017

  58. [58]

    D., Tanaka, H., & Szuszkiewicz, E

    Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 2018, ApJ, 861, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d9 2018

  59. [59]

    Z., Haiman, Z., Sesana, A., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Haiman, Z., Sesana, A., & Hernquist, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz150

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz150 2019

  60. [60]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/320343 2001

  61. [62]

    The Stellar-Dynamical Search for Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic Nuclei

    Kormendy, J. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0306353

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0306353 2004

  62. [63]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  63. [64]

    M., Davelaar, J., Haiman, Z., et al

    Krauth, L. M., Davelaar, J., Haiman, Z., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103014

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103014 2024

  64. [65]

    Kubli, N., Mayer, L., Deng, H., & Lin, D. N. C. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag024

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag024 2026

  65. [66]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2140

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2140

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2140 2019

  66. [67]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.15608 2021

  67. [68]

    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

  68. [69]

    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

  69. [70]

    Lai, D., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-022933

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-022933 2023

  70. [71]

    Li, Y.-P., Chen, Y.-X., & Lin, D. N. C. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3049 2023

  71. [72]

    Li, Y.-P., Chen, Y.-X., Lin, D. N. C., & Zhang, X. 2021a, ApJ, 906, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc88310.1002/essoar.10504346.1

    arXiv

  72. [73]

    M., Li, S., Li, H., & Li, J

    Li, Y.-P., Dempsey, A. M., Li, S., Li, H., & Li, J. 2021b, ApJ, 911, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abed48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abed48

  73. [74]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 063074, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063074

    Li, Y.-P., Yang, H., & Pan, Z. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 063074, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063074

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063074 2025

  74. [75]

    Lin, D. N. C., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E. H. Levy & J. I. Lunine, 749

    1993

  75. [76]

    R., & Pringle, J

    Lodato, G., Nayakshin, S., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1392, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15179.x

    arXiv 2009

  76. [77]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010 LUVOIR

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010 LUVOIR. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.06219

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.06219 2016

  77. [78]

    N., Kokubo, E., Inutsuka, S.-I., & Matsumoto, T

    Machida, M. N., Kokubo, E., Inutsuka, S.-I., & Matsumoto, T. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1227, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16527.x

    arXiv 2010

  78. [79]

    1997, ApJ, 490, 605, doi: 10.1086/304908

    Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 605, doi: 10.1086/304908

    work page doi:10.1086/304908 1997

  79. [81]

    2007, Science, 316, 1874, doi: 10.1126/science.1141858

    Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Madau, P., et al. 2007, Science, 316, 1874, doi: 10.1126/science.1141858

    doi:10.1126/science.1141858 2007

  80. [82]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 53, doi: 10.1086/522691

    Merritt, D., Mikkola, S., & Szell, A. 2007, ApJ, 671, 53, doi: 10.1086/522691

    doi:10.1086/522691 2007

Showing first 80 references.