Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 76 references

Radio Core Size of Low-luminosity Active Galactic Nuclei under the MAD-jet model

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetically arrested disk plus jet model reproduces the observed radio core size scaling of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei and predicts that nonthermal electrons in the disk are radiatively suppressed above a narrow luminosity thr

desk verdict A useful MAD-jet framework for radio core sizes, but the synchrotron-boiler threshold claim has a load-bearing internal inconsistency that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21966 v1 pith:XFKHY43I submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Yue Xu , Fu-Guo Xie This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords low-luminosityactivegalacticnucleimagneticallyarresteddiskradiocoresizeshiftjetcompositionpower-lawelectronssynchrotronboilerM104
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that in low-luminosity active galactic nuclei, the radio core size measured as a function of frequency can reveal where the radio emission originates and whether the jet's electrons are nonthermal. Using a coupled magnetically arrested disk and relativistic jet model, the authors reproduce the observed size∝ν^(−1) scaling for M104 between 1 and tens of GHz, provided more than half of the jet electrons follow a power-law energy distribution. They also show that at higher frequencies, disk emission overtakes jet emission and the size-frequency slope flattens. Their central prediction is that for systems with L_bol/L_Edd above about (3–8)×10^(−6), power-law electrons in the disk are rapidly cooled into a thermal distribution by the 'synchrotron boiler' effect, so a purely thermal disk model is sufficient. If correct, radio core-size measurements become a practical diagnostic of jet composition and of whether nonthermal electrons survive in accretion disks.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is the cooling-break Lorentz factor γ_cooling, computed by equating the synchrotron cooling time to the inflow time of the disk (or the dynamical time of the jet). It sets how much of any power-law electron population survives to radiate. Around this, the model assembles an analytic magnetically arrested disk (with thermal and optional power-law electrons) plus a conical internal-shock jet, and computes core size as a VLBI-like cumulative intensity radius for the disk and a FWHM of the jet emissivity along its axis. The relative fluxes and sizes of the two components then produce the frequency-dependent core size and core shift.

What would settle it

Measure the radio core size-frequency slope in a jet-dominated LLAGN whose spectrum independently shows nonthermal jet emission; if the slope is distinctly shallower than about −1 (for example near −0.2) for such a source, the claim that more than 50% power-law electrons produce size∝ν^(−1) is wrong. Conversely, for a LLAGN near L_bol/L_Edd ≈ 10^(−5)–10^(−6), a flat MAD-like size slope or a hard X-ray tail from power-law electrons would indicate that the synchrotron-boiler suppression threshold is too aggressive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the MAD-jet model explains the size-frequency relation of LLAGN radio cores as a two-component story: below a shift frequency (~30–40 GHz for M104) the jet dominates, and its size scales as ν^(−0.9) to ν^(−1) only if at least half of the jet electrons are nonthermal; a thermal jet gives a much shallower slope (~ν^(−0.23)). Above the shift frequency the magnetically arrested disk dominates, with a flatter size slope. The same model reproduces M104's broadband spectrum and core size. The second claim is that in the disk, strong radiative cooling ('synchrotron boiler') thermalizes power-law electrons whenever L_bol/L_Edd ≳ (3–8)×10^(−6), so mo

Load-bearing premise

The claimed luminosity threshold for killing power-law electrons rests on an assumed disk thickness H/R = 0.5 and a viscous radial-velocity formula; since the threshold scales as (H/R)^3, a thinner magnetically arrested disk would move the threshold up by roughly an order of magnitude, weakening the headline suppression claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured slope of radio core size versus frequency below the shift frequency becomes a composition diagnostic: a slope near −1 means the jet is dominated by nonthermal electrons, while a slope near −0.2 suggests a mostly thermal jet.
  • Above the shift frequency, the MAD dominates and the size slope flattens, giving observers a direct way to identify the frequency at which the accretion disk overtakes the jet in radio.
  • For systems above L_bol/L_Edd ≈ (3–8)×10^(−6), the synchrotron-boiler effect predicts power-law electrons in the disk are strongly suppressed, so thermal-only disk models should suffice for most LLAGNs and hard-state X-ray binaries.
  • The shift frequency ν_shift depends mainly on black hole mass and the jet-to-disk mass-loss ratio, varying only weakly with X-ray luminosity, so high-frequency core-size observations can probe the accretion–ejection coupling.
  • M104's observed core size and spectrum, including the break near 30–40 GHz, are reproduced by the coupled model, supporting the MAD picture over a conventional weak-field hot flow for this source.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the size-slope diagnostic could be tested immediately with existing VLBI data on a few nearby LLAGNs below their shift frequency, since the predicted difference between a −0.2 and a −1 slope is large enough to distinguish.
  • Because γ_cooling is independent of black hole mass, the same thermalization threshold should apply to stellar-mass black holes in the hard state; radio core-size and X-ray observations of X-ray binaries could extend the test across mass scales.
  • The quantitative threshold is sensitive to disk thickness; if a thinner MAD (H/R ≈ 0.3) is closer to reality, the luminosity above which power-law electrons are killed shifts up by almost an order of magnitude, leaving a wider population of sources in which nonthermal disk electrons might be visible.
  • The general LLAGN predictions inherit the empirical radio–X-ray–mass correlation for jet power, so sources that deviate from that correlation should have different shift frequencies and are natural targets for checking the assumed jet–disk coupling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a coupled magnetically arrested disk (MAD) plus internal-shock jet model and uses it to predict the broadband spectrum and the frequency-dependent radio core size of LLAGNs. The model is first applied to M104, where the accretion rate is adjusted to reproduce the radio luminosity and the resulting SED and size are compared with observations. The authors then generalize to a 10^9 Msun black hole, normalizing the jet power through the empirical Merloni et al. (2003) Fundamental Plane. They report that a size–frequency slope d ∝ nu^{-0.94} is obtained when more than ~50% of the jet electrons follow a power-law distribution, that a jet-to-MAD transition occurs at a few tens of GHz, and that power-law electrons in the MAD are radiatively suppressed for L_bol/L_Edd ≳ (3–8)×10^-6, favoring a purely thermal MAD.

Significance. The paper is valuable because it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions that link the growing high-frequency VLBI/ALMA observations of LLAGNs to the physics of MADs and jets. If the central claims hold, the radio size–frequency slope becomes a diagnostic of the non-thermal electron fraction in jets, and the luminosity threshold identifies the regime in which thermal MAD models suffice. The M104 comparison is a genuine two-observable check (SED plus size), and the jet size–frequency slope is an actual model output rather than a fitted relation. The model is fully specified and the assumptions are largely transparent. The main weakness is that the quantitative suppression threshold, one of the headline conclusions, rests on a simplified cooling estimate that is not self-consistent with the MAD stress model used elsewhere in the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (6), Fig. 7] The central suppression threshold quoted in the abstract and §5 is based on gamma_cooling computed with the viscous radial velocity V_R ≈ −alpha_vis(H/R)^2 R Omega_K (Eq. 5). This is inconsistent with the MAD stress model of §2.1, where accretion is driven by the ordered B_z B_phi stress and interchange instability, with alpha_vis only mimicking unresolved turbulent stress. The inflow time in a MAD need not be the alpha-viscosity time, so Eq. (6) is not a consequence of the model. Moreover, H/R = 0.5 and beta_tot = 6 are fixed in §4.2 without derivation, although §2.1 describes a MAD whose structure varies with radius and accretion rate. Because gamma_cooling ∝ alpha_vis^2 (1+beta_tot) (H/R)^3 R/Mdot, the threshold L_bol/L_Edd ≈ (3–8)×10^-6 can shift by a factor of several under plausible changes (e.g., lowering H/R from 0.5 to 0.3 changes gamma_cooling by a factor of 4.6). The acknowled
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 2 caption, §4.1] The general predictions in Figs. 3–6, including the shift frequency nu_shift and the claim that MAD emission dominates at high radio frequencies with a flatter size slope, depend on normalizing the jet power through the empirical M03 Fundamental Plane. The jet power is manually adjusted to satisfy this relation, and for M104 the accretion rate is adjusted to fit the radio luminosity, with xi_pl,jet = 80% adopted because it is difficult to constrain. The size–frequency slope in Fig. 6 is a genuine model output and is not compromised by this normalization, but the relative jet/MAD fluxes, and hence nu_shift and the high-frequency size behavior, are. The paper should include a sensitivity test showing how nu_shift and the high-frequency size slope change when mdot_jet is varied within the FP scatter or deviates from the FP; without this, the claimed generality of the jet-to-MAD transition i
  3. [§3 and §4.1, Fig. 6] The abstract states that the model 'successfully reproduce[s] a size ∝ nu^{-1} scaling'. The model’s jet-dominated size for xi_pl,jet = 80% is d_jet ∝ nu^{-0.94} (Fig. 6, top panel), whereas the observed M104 size below ~30–40 GHz is d_core ∝ nu^{-1.13±0.04} (Sec. 3). The difference of ~0.2 in the power-law index is not discussed and the model slope lies outside the reported observational error. The claim of consistency is therefore quantitatively loose. Please provide a more careful comparison, e.g., fitting the model and the data over the same frequency range, including the MAD contribution, and stating the model uncertainty, before claiming successful reproduction of the size–frequency relation.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1 vs §2.1] Table 1 lists p_pl,mad = 2.2, but §2.1 states that the intrinsic MAD power-law index is fixed to p_mad = 2.5. Please reconcile this inconsistency.
  2. [§3] Typo: 'an testbed' should be 'a testbed'.
  3. [§2.1] Typo: 'which is an good approximation' should be 'which is a good approximation'.
  4. [§4.2] The text says cooling is important 'as long as mdot_0 > 1×10^-7', while Fig. 7 and the abstract quote a threshold of L_bol/L_Edd ≈ (3–8)×10^-6. Clarify the conversion between mdot_0 and L_bol/L_Edd used to obtain the stated luminosity threshold.
  5. [Fig. 8 caption] Mathematical notation such as 'νL ν ∝ν ∼+0.23' and 'νL ν ∝ν ∼−0.246' should be typeset as νL_ν ∝ ν^{+0.23} and νL_ν ∝ ν^{-0.246}.
  6. [§4.1, Fig. 6] The text says 'the jet size show no significant differences if xi_pl,jet ≳ 50%', but only the 10% and 80% cases are shown. It would be helpful to show a 50% case or state the range over which the slope is insensitive.
  7. [§2.4] The size definition differs between MAD (diameter at half-maximum of cumulative flux) and jet (FWHM of dL/dz), and observed core sizes are usually obtained from Gaussian fits. A brief discussion of how these definitions compare to observational size measurements would improve the quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline size∝ν^-1 condition is partly imposed: ξ_pl,jet=80% is chosen 'to ensure' the slope, so the abstract's 'if >50% PL' is an input condition rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3 (M104 setup) and Sec. 4.1 / Fig. 6; cf. Abstract]
    "With our own preference, we adopt ξ_pl,jet = 80% (see Figure 6 below.) … In this work, our fiducial jet model takes ξ_pl,jet = 80% (adopted as a representative of the 50−100% range), to ensures a d_jet ∼ν−1 size-frequency relationship below∼30 GHz."

    The abstract advertises 'We successfully reproduce a size∝ν^{-1} scaling between 1 GHz and tens of GHz, if more than 50% of electrons in jet follow a power-law (PL) distribution' as the paper's headline success. But the body states that the fiducial jet model adopts ξ_pl,jet=80% precisely 'to ensures a d_jet ∼ν−1 size-frequency relationship.' Thus the >50%-PL condition is not an independent prediction; it is the input value selected to make the claimed scaling come out. The size calculation itself is a genuine radiative-transfer output (slope −0.94 at 80% vs −0.23 at 10%), so the circularity is partial: the scaling is not forced by an identity, but the headline condition is imposed rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is largely self-contained: the MAD and jet spectra are computed from the stated radiative-transfer equations, and the size-frequency slope is an output rather than a re-statement of an input. The M104 mdot_0 is fitted to the radio luminosity, but the size prediction uses that same fit in a non-trivial way, so this is standard model calibration, not circularity. The MAD model is adopted from prior work by the same authors (Xie & Zdziarski 2019; Xie et al. 2023), but that work is grounded in external GRMHD simulations and standard jet models, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. No uniqueness theorem or imported ansatz is used to forbid alternatives. The synchrotron-boiler suppression threshold rests on fixed assumptions (H/R=0.5, β_tot=6, α-viscosity radial velocity in a MAD), which is a correctness/robustness concern rather than a circular one. The one genuine circular element is the jet composition claim: ξ_pl,jet=80% is chosen 'with our own preference' and specifically to produce the d_jet∼ν^{-1} scaling, while the abstract presents the resulting 'if >50% PL' condition as a successful reproduction. Because this concerns a headline claim but the underlying calculation is independent and transparent, a score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on ~11 free or externally normalized parameters. The size-slope reproduction (>50% PL electrons) is paid for by an explicitly chosen fraction; the M104 fit is paid for by mdot_0 adjusted to the radio luminosity; the boiler threshold is paid for by fixed H/R and β_tot in a cooling estimate that uses an α-viscosity radial velocity inside a magnetically stressed disk. No invented entities; MAD-pl is an electron-population scenario within an established flow.

free parameters (11)
  • ξ_pl,jet = 80% fiducial (threshold >50%)
    Energy fraction of power-law electrons in the jet. The flagship ν^{-1} slope holds only for ξ_pl,jet ≳ 50%; value chosen 'with our own preference' (Sec. 3), not derived.
  • mdot_0 (M104) = (6.5/8.5/11)×10^{-4} for s = 0.5/0.3/0.1
    Accretion rate at 200 R_g; 'Accretion rates are adjust to fit the radio luminosity' (Fig. 2 caption). Degenerate with outflow index s.
  • s = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 tested; 0.1 for general LLAGNs
    Outflow parameter in the Mdot(R) profile of Eq. (1); admitted as poorly constrained and affects M104 X-ray flux by a factor 2–3.
  • H/R = 0.5 fixed
    Aspect ratio in the γ_cooling estimate (Eq. 6); dependence on mdot neglected (Sec. 4.2). Since γ_cooling ∝ (H/R)³, this choice controls the L/L_Edd ≈ 3–8×10^{-6} suppression threshold.
  • β_tot = 6
    Total plasma beta assumed in Eq. (6) and Fig. 7; not derived from the MAD model, which uses β_z0 = 1 and β_t = 10.
  • ξ_pl,mad = 1% and 5% scenarios
    Assumed energy fraction of power-law electrons in MAD for the scenario calculations of Figs. 8–10.
  • mdot_jet = 8.1×10^{-7} (ξ=80% case)
    Jet mass-loss rate set by manual adjustment to the empirical M03 Fundamental Plane (Sec. 2.3); accretion-ejection coupling not derived from first principles.
  • ϵ_e, ϵ_B = 0.02, 0.02
    Shock-to-electron and shock-to-magnetic energy fractions (Table 1), inherited from Xie et al. 2016; shape the jet spectrum.
  • α_vis = 0.3
    Viscosity parameter used in the MAD setup and in Eq. (5); inherited from Xie & Zdziarski 2019.
  • Γjet = 10 (general), 1.02 (M104)
    Bulk Lorentz factor. M104's slow jet (V ≈ 0.2c) from Hada et al. 2013 / Yan et al. 2024; the general LLAGN case assumes the radio-loud typical value, which the summary states is needed for the ξ_pl,jet dependence.
  • δ = 0.1
    Electron viscous-heating fraction (Table 1); standard hot-flow parameter inherited from prior work.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Xie & Zdziarski (2019) analytic MAD structure: B_z ∝ R^{-1.1}, P_m = 2, κ_φ = −0.5, β_z0 = 1, separate electron/ion energy equations
    Backbone of all MAD emission/size calculations (Sec. 2.1, Table 1). Adopted from a paper co-authored by the present second author; not re-derived or machine-checked here.
  • domain assumption Internal-shock conical jet (Spada 2001; Yuan 2005; Xie 2016): constant Γ, half-opening 0.1 rad, no acceleration/collimation
    Jet emission and size structure (Sec. 2.2). The BZ-jet picture is asserted; no jet dynamics are solved.
  • domain assumption M03 Fundamental Plane log L_R = 0.6 log L_X + 0.78 log M_BH + const sets the MAD-jet coupling
    mdot_jet chosen to place models on the FP (Sec. 2.3). All general LLAGN predictions (Figs. 3–6) inherit this empirical scaling.
  • standard math Blandford & Königl (1979) self-absorbed jet scalings z ∝ ν^{-1}
    The size/location scalings the paper reproduces; assumed framework for interpreting the jet core (Sec. 2.4).
  • domain assumption Synchrotron boiler: PL electrons below the thermal-peak energy are totally thermalized (Malzac & Belmont 2009)
    Used to set γ_pl,min and to justify the suppression claim (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 8).
  • standard math Standard synchrotron self-absorption and Compton formulae (Rybicki & Lightman 1979)
    Radiative transfer used throughout; unverified background.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-Newtonian potential, non-spinning BH (Xie & Zdziarski 2019)
    MAD model limitation; spin effects on MAD flux and energy extraction are not included (Sec. 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio Core Size of Low-luminosity Active Galactic Nuclei under the MAD-jet model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFKHY43I

@misc{pith2026260721966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio Core Size of Low-luminosity Active Galactic Nuclei under the MAD-jet model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFKHY43I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21966}
}
abstract

After decades of efforts, there are now fruitful high-resolution radio observations of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (LLAGNs), and the observed frequency has extended from $\sim$10 GHz up to $\sim$200 GHz. In this work, based on a model that combines a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) and a Blandford-Znajek-like jet, we carried out detailed analysis on size and location of the radio core of LLAGNs. The radio core size of nearby LLAGN M104 is re-visited based on this new model. We successfully reproduce a $size\propto\nu^{-1}$ scaling between 1 GHz and tens of GHz, if more than $50\%$ of electrons in jet follow a power-law (PL) distribution. We further confirm that, at high radio frequencies emission from MAD exceeds that from jet, and a flatter size-frequency slope is observed. The impact of PL electrons in MAD is also investigated. For those $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd} \gtrsim (3-8)\times 10^{-6}$ LLAGNs and black hole binaries in their hard state, PL electrons are expected to be highly suppressed due to strong radiative cooling (so-called `synchrotron boiler' effect).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Cumulative monochromatic radiation distribution νLν,MAD(> R) (from infinity to radius R) of MAD, as a function of radius R. The BH mass is 109 M⊙ and the accretion rate at 200 Rg is ˙m0 = 1 × 10−4 . As specified in color, several radio frequencies are considered, i.e., 22, 86, 230, 340 GHz. Two different electron populations are investigated, one for purely thermal electrons (ξpl,mad = 0), and the other … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Theoretical modelling of M104 under the MAD.th-jet model. For simplicity, we only show cases with viewing-angle i = 65◦ . Left panel: broadband SED. Here the red dots are gathered by X. Yan et al. (2024). The cyan dashed, the blue dotted, and the black solid lines represent emission from MAD (outflow parameter s = 0.5), jet, and MAD+jet (total), respectively. Right panel: the radio core size (note that Rg ≈ 1×10−3 m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectrum of LLAGNs under the MAD.th-jet model (only thermal electrons in MAD). The emission from MAD.th is shown in solid curves, where from top to bottom, are results for ˙m0 = 1 × 10−2 , 3.16 × 10−3 , 1 × 10−3 , 3.16×10−4 , 1×10−4 , respectively. The dashed lines with the same color represent the jet emission that follows the M03 FP. 10 37 10 38 10 39 10 40 LR, mad (ergs s 1 ) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s p e c t r al in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral index of the radio emission of MAD αs as a function of 5 GHz radio luminosity of MAD LR, mad(caution that jet emission at this frequency is not included). The red and blue curves, represent αs derived at 1-20 GHz and 20-500 GHz, respectively. The solid and the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the “shift”/critical frequency νshift (below which the jet emission dominates) as a function of the 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity. The BH mass of the LLAGN is assumed to be 109M⊙. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The radio core size (top panel) and location (bottom panel) of LLAGNs under the MAD.th-jet model. We take ˙m0 = 1×10−4 and a M03 FP, i.e. ˙mjet = 8.1×10−7 for ξpl,jet = 80% (shown by blue circles) and ˙mjet = 1.03 × 10−6 for ξpl,jet = 10% (shown by red circles). The pr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated Lorentz factor due to synchrotron cooling effect (γcooling) of PL electrons in MAD as a function of radius R. Lines from bottom to top represent MADs whose ˙m0 = 1 × 10−4 , 1 × 10−5 , and 1 × 10−6 , respectively. Clearly, ‘synchrotron boiler’ effect cools mos…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radio size of MAD in LLAGNs. Here we take cases of ˙m0 = 1 × 10−4 (see light-green curves in the left panel for the SED) for illustration. Blue and red filled squares represent the radio size of MAD with ξpl,mad = 0 and ξpl,mad = 1% (cooling included), respectively. We…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Broadband SED of MAD models under different setups of PL electrons. From top to bottom, lines with the same color represent MADs whose accretion rates are m˙ 0 = 1 × 10−2 , 1 × 10−3 , 1 × 10−4 , and 1 × 10−5 , respectively. Solid and dashed lines are for cases that on…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Balokovi´ c, M., Chandra, S., et al

    Algaba, J. C., Balokovi´ c, M., Chandra, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450497 ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450497 2024

  2. [2]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    2012, ApJL, 745, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    Asada, K., & Nakamura, M. 2012, ApJL, 745, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l28 2012

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Bandyopadhyay, B., Xie, F.-G., Nagar, N. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2874

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2874 2019

  5. [5]

    E., Tzioumis, T., Uttley, P., et al

    Bell, M. E., Tzioumis, T., Uttley, P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 402, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17692.x

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  7. [7]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  8. [8]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    C., Falcke, H., Herrnstein, R

    Bower, G. C., Falcke, H., Herrnstein, R. M., et al. 2004, Science, 304, 704, doi: 10.1126/science.1094023

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al

    Bower, G. C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/69

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Chael, A., & Narayan, R. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 311.04

    2018

  4. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    Chatterjee, K., & Narayan, R. 2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Contopoulos, I., Gabuzda, D., & Kylafis, N., eds. 2015, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 414, The Formation and Disruption of Black Hole Jets, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10356-3

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 1545, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1545

    Ding, J., Yuan, F., & Liang, E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1545, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1545

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Flohic, H

    Eracleous, M., Hwang, J. A., & Flohic, H. M. L. G. 2010, ApJS, 187, 135, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/135 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Falcke, H., K¨ ording, E., & Nagar, N. M. 2004, NewAR, 48, 1157, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.029 Fern´ andez-Ontiveros, J. A., L´ opez-L´ opez, X., & Prieto, A. 2023, A&A, 670, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243547 G¨ ultekin, K., Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., et al. 2009, A...

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., Liu, Y.-H., & Li, X. 2014, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2014, APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, GM10.005

    2014

  12. [20]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/6

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Nagai, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/6

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJ, 487, 568, doi: 10.1086/304638

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    Howes, G. G. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L104, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00958.x

    2010

  16. [24]

    Jones, S., McHardy, I., & Maccarone, T. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2810

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    S., & Toma, K

    Kimura, S. S., & Toma, K. 2020, ApJ, 905, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc343

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Miller, J

    King, A. L., Miller, J. M., Reynolds, M. T., et al. 2013, ApJL, 774, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L25

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Miller, J

    King, A. L., Miller, J. M., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/19

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    Konigl, A. 1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    1981 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Sokolovsky, K

    Kutkin, A. M., Sokolovsky, K. V., Lisakov, M. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2133

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    S., & Toma, K

    Kuze, R., Kimura, S. S., & Toma, K. 2024, ApJ, 977, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f4

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Kravchenko, E

    Lisakov, M. M., Kravchenko, E. V., Pushkarev, A. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1bd

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Cohen, M

    Lister, M. L., Cohen, M. H., Homan, D. C., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 1874, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1874

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/17

    Liu, H., & Wu, Q. 2013, ApJ, 764, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/17

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    1997, ApJ, 490, 605, doi: 10.1086/304908 14

    Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 605, doi: 10.1086/304908 14

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, MNRAS, 392, 570, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14142.x

    Malzac, J., & Belmont, R. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 570, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14142.x

    2009

  29. [37]

    1997, ApJ, 489, 791, doi: 10.1086/304817

    Manmoto, T., Mineshige, S., & Kusunose, M. 1997, ApJ, 489, 791, doi: 10.1086/304817

    1997 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    2012

  31. [39]

    B., & Steiner, J

    Menezes, R. B., & Steiner, J. E. 2015, ApJ, 808, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/27

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    B., Steiner, J

    Menezes, R. B., Steiner, J. E., & Ricci, T. V. 2013, ApJL, 765, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L40

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    2003

  34. [42]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed

    Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed. M. A

    1998

  36. [44]

    Bj¨ ornsson, & J

    Abramowicz, G. Bj¨ ornsson, & J. E. Pringle, 148–182, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803141

    doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Doeleman, S

    Raymond, A. W., Doeleman, S. S., Asada, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5bdb

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  41. [49]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  42. [50]

    W., & Stone, J

    Sharma, P., Quataert, E., Hammett, G. W., & Stone, J. M. 2007, ApJ, 667, 714, doi: 10.1086/520800

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Lobanov, A. P. 2011, A&A, 532, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016072

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x

    Spada, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., & Celotti, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x

    2001

  46. [54]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d8f

    Sutter, J., & Fadda, D. 2022, ApJ, 941, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d8f

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  48. [56]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2737

    Veledina, A., & Poutanen, J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2737

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Stone, J

    White, C. J., Stone, J. M., & Quataert, E. 2019, ApJ, 874, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c0c

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca534

    Xie, F.-G., Narayan, R., & Yuan, F. 2023, ApJ, 942, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca534

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    A., & Yuan, F

    Xie, F.-G., Nied´ zwiecki, A., Zdziarski, A. A., & Yuan, F. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 170, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16135.x

    2010

  53. [61]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, L110, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu068

    Xie, F.-G., Yang, Q.-X., & Ma, R. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L110, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu068

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2956

    Xie, F.-G., & Yuan, F. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2956

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b90

    Xie, F.-G., & Yuan, F. 2017, ApJ, 836, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b90

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Xie, F.-G., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2019, ApJ, 887, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5848

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Ma, R., & Yang, Q.-X

    Xie, F.-G., Zdziarski, A. A., Ma, R., & Yang, Q.-X. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2132

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a2

    Yan, X., Lu, R.-S., Jiang, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a2

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Yuan, Y.-F., & White, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaea4

    Yang, Q.-R., Liu, R.-Y., & Wang, X.-Y. 2025, ApJ, 980, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaea4

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    2005, ApJ, 620, 905, doi: 10.1086/427206

    Yuan, F., Cui, W., & Narayan, R. 2005, ApJ, 620, 905, doi: 10.1086/427206

    2005 doi

  63. [71]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    2003 doi

  65. [73]

    2004, ApJ, 606, 894, doi: 10.1086/383117

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2004, ApJ, 606, 894, doi: 10.1086/383117

    2004 doi

  66. [74]

    2014, Nature, 510, 126, doi: 10.1038/nature13399

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, Nature, 510, 126, doi: 10.1038/nature13399

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Sikora, M., Pjanka, P., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Zdziarski, A. A., Sikora, M., Pjanka, P., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv986

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Stawarz, L., Pjanka, P., & Sikora, M

    Zdziarski, A. A., Stawarz, L., Pjanka, P., & Sikora, M. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu420

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.