Reincarnations of massive stars in active galactic nucleus discs

Jiao-Zhen She; Jing-Tong Xing; Tong Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Reincarnations of massive stars in active galactic nucleus discs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that a core-collapse supernova embedded in an AGN accretion disc can, through shell backflow and shear-limited Hill accretion, seed a compact gas cloud that grows and collapses into a second generation of massive stars.

desk verdict A competent semi-analytic feasibility study of SNR-triggered star formation in AGN discs, but the Hill-capture growth step is inconsistent with the seed cloud's own non-self-gravitating state, so the quoted yields are probably optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29075 v1 pith:7WWRLYBC submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Jing-Tong Xing , Tong Liu , Jiao-Zhen She This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords AGNdiscscore-collapsesupernovaesupernovaremnantsstarformationHillaccretionseedcloudcollapsetop-heavyinitialmassfunctionblackhole

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 builds a semi-analytical model of a core-collapse supernova exploding inside the dense gas of an active galactic nucleus disc. It argues that efficient radiative cooling compresses or skips the classic adiabatic phase, driving the remnant into a radiative snowplow; once the hot interior loses pressure support, partial backflow of cooled shell material can assemble a small seed cloud. That cloud then grows by shear-limited Hill capture from the surrounding disc gas until gravitational, tidal, shear, photoionization, and magnetic criteria are simultaneously met, at which point it collapses into a top-heavy population of massive stars. The yield depends sharply on the black hole mass and explosion radius: from less than one massive star per event for a 10^6 solar-mass black hole to several hundred for 10^8 solar masses. If correct, embedded supernovae act as a localized gas-recycling channel for second-generation star formation in AGN discs.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a four-stage SNR evolution (free expansion, Sedov-Taylor, pressure-driven snowplow, momentum-conserving snowplow) in which efficient cooling compresses or bypasses the adiabatic stage; the termination point is when shell pressure equals ambient disc pressure. The seed cloud is initialized with f_seed = 10^-3 of the cooled shell mass after a 'backflow' time (not followed hydrodynamically). Growth is via shear-limited Hill accretion—capture of disc gas within the cloud's Hill sphere, whose radius is set by the black hole's tidal field—giving an accretion rate proportional to cloud mass and hence exponential growth with timescale t_growth = 3M•/(π fcav ρd Ω RI^3). Col

What would settle it

A 3D radiation-MHD simulation of a 10^51 erg core-collapse supernova embedded in a standard self-gravitating AGN disc at M• = 10^8 solar masses and R = 10^4.5 Rg, run past the snowplow phase, that fails to produce any bound central over-density with mass ≳ 10^-3 of the shell mass would falsify the seed step; equivalently, a measured f_seed below ~10^-5 would push the exponential growth window past the local dynamical time in low-mass systems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim: a core-collapse supernova embedded in an AGN disc can, after radiative cooling drives the remnant into the snowplow stages, seed a compact cloud through partial backflow of cooled shell material (seed mass = 10^-3 of shell mass). The cloud grows by shear-limited Hill capture at a rate proportional to its own mass, so its mass increases exponentially until six criteria (Jeans, virial, tidal, shear, photoionization, magnetic mass-to-flux) are simultaneously satisfied. The yield depends strongly on SMBH mass and radius: below one massive star per event for 10^6 solar masses, and several to several hundred per event for 10^8 solar masses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the uncalibrated seed-formation step: after the remnant loses pressure support, partial backflow must assemble a bound, pressure-confined seed cloud with mass at least f_seed = 10^-3 of the shell mass; the paper explicitly notes that simulations do not yet provide a calibrated seed-formation efficiency for AGN-disc conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a 10^8-solar-mass black hole, each embedded supernova is expected to produce roughly 14 to 1000 stars (about 5 to 370 of them above 8 solar masses), depending on explosion radius; the stellar mass produced per initial shell mass reaches ~36.
For a 10^6-solar-mass black hole, the expected number of massive stars per event is below one, so this recycling channel cannot by itself explain metal enrichment in low-mass AGNs.
Because the Hill-capture accretion rate is proportional to cloud mass, the final collapse mass grows exponentially with time, making the outcome exponentially sensitive to the ratio of available growth time to the growth timescale.
With a top-heavy IMF (slope Γ=1), stars above 8 solar masses account for ~37% of stars by number but ~92% of the stellar mass, so the second-generation population's feedback and supernova budget are dominated by massive stars.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: if the recycling channel operates, a single AGN disc patch could sustain successive generations of massive stars from one initial supernova, effectively amplifying the local core-collapse rate before the gas reservoir is exhausted.
Inference: the exponential growth prescription makes the high-yield end of the model sensitive to any process that truncates growth (orbital migration, tidal stripping, or photoevaporation), so the largest quoted yields likely act as upper bounds rather than typical expectations.
Inference: a direct numerical measurement of the seed-formation efficiency f_seed in disc conditions—not yet available—would sharply constrain this channel; values much below 10^-3 would suppress collapse in low-mass SMBH systems while preserving it at high masses.
Inference: observationally, repeated local starbursts of this kind could imprint multiple young stellar populations with correlated ages in the AGN broad-line region, offering a possible spectroscopic signature of recycled star formation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth a read if you work on star formation or SNR physics in AGN discs. What's new is the quantitative end-to-end channel: an embedded CCSN cools radiatively, the shell backflows, a seed cloud forms, grows by shear-limited accretion, and collapses into a second generation of massive stars. The authors do a solid job with the SNR stage equations, check the radiative diffusion time, and are honest that this is a localized recycling channel, not the dominant mode. The yield tables as a function of SMBH mass and radius give a concrete benchmark that people will quote.

The soft spots are real and in proportion. First, the seed-formation efficiency f_seed = 1e-3 is explicitly uncalibrated, and the stellar yields scale directly with f_star = 0.3. Those are acknowledged and addressable. More concerning is the Hill-capture prescription in Eq. (14). The seed cloud is described as pressure-confined and not fully self-gravitating, but the accretion rate assumes a self-gravitating point mass whose Hill radius is the capture radius. For a pressure-confined cloud with M_seed ~ 0.1-1 Msun and sound speed a few km/s, the Bondi radius is orders of magnitude smaller than the Hill radius. The formula thus overestimates the bound-gas flux in the early growth phase, and the exponential growth that drives the collapse masses in Table 4 rests on an untested unit-capture assumption. The sensitivity study varies fcav and a, but not the accretion law itself. The paper's own Section 4 defers this to future 3D radiation-MHD simulations, which is exactly the unresolved step required for the central claim.

That said, the paper is not incoherent. The authors engage seriously with the prior simulations and flag the major simplifications. The issue is a load-bearing approximation that needs to be justified or replaced with a Bondi-limited or pressure-assisted capture prescription. It's a fixable problem, but it changes the headline numbers.

For peer review: yes, send it out. A good referee can push for the accretion-law treatment, and the paper's framework will be a useful reference in the literature. I would not cite the yield tables as-is, but I would bring this to a reading group to discuss how easily semi-analytic models can hide assumptions in accretion prescriptions.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-analytic channel for second-generation massive-star formation in AGN discs. After a core-collapse supernova explodes inside the disc, the remnant is argued to cool efficiently, enter radiative snowplow phases, and then undergo partial shell backflow that seeds a compact, pressure-confined cloud. The cloud is assumed to grow by shear-limited Hill capture (exponential growth) until it simultaneously satisfies Jeans, virial, tidal, shear, photoionization, and magnetic-supercriticality criteria. Using a Sirko-Goodman disc model, the authors compute collapse masses for three SMBH masses and three explosion radii, convert them into expected stellar populations under a top-heavy IMF, and find event yields from below one to several hundred massive stars. The paper explicitly frames the mechanism as a localized recycling channel rather than a global star-formation mode.

Significance. If the proposed pathway holds, it would identify a novel, localized gas-recycling loop in AGN discs: each embedded CCSN could re-process swept-up and re-filled gas into a new collapsing cloud, potentially contributing to the top-heavy massive-star population and metal enrichment in galactic nuclei. The manuscript has clear strengths: the SNR stage equations in Sec. 3.1 are standard and internally consistent; the diffusion check in Table 3 supports efficient radiative cooling for the fiducial 10^8 M_sun cases; the collapse mass is an emergent outcome of the growth ODEs rather than an input; and the authors are transparent about the uncalibrated nature of f_seed and f_star. However, the central quantitative claim depends on an untested unit-capture accretion prescription and on an uncalibrated seed-formation efficiency, so the event-level yields in Table 4 are not yet robust enough to establish the mechanism's importance without further work.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (14)-(16)] The accretion rate Mdot_acc = π fcav ρd Ω R_H^3 assumes that all gas entering the Hill sphere is captured at the shear rate, which is appropriate for a self-gravitating point mass whose Bondi radius exceeds its Hill radius. The seed cloud, however, is explicitly described as 'pressure-confined and tidally limited' and not fully self-gravitating (Sec. 3.1, after Eq. 13). For such a cloud, the gravitational capture radius is the Bondi radius r_B = G M_cl / c_s,d^2, which for the fiducial seed masses is orders of magnitude smaller than R_H, so Eq. (14) overestimates the bound-gas flux by roughly (R_H/r_B)^2. No cooling, angular-momentum loss, or sticking mechanism is specified to make Hill-sphere gas become bound to a non-self-gravitating pressure-confined cloud. The sensitivity study in Sec. 3.3 varies fcav and a but not the accretion law, so the exponential growth (Eq. 16) and all Table 4
[Sec. 3.1, f_seed and Table 4] The seed-cloud mass M_seed = f_seed M_shell with f_seed = 1e-3 is explicitly uncalibrated, as the authors state that the existing simulations 'do not provide a calibrated seed-formation efficiency for AGN-disc conditions.' Because the growth is exponential (Eq. 16) and the collapse time depends logarithmically on the initial mass, the resulting collapse masses and hence the event-level yields in Table 4 are directly sensitive to this assumption. If f_seed is orders of magnitude smaller, collapse is delayed or does not occur within the relevant timescale; if larger, yields increase. The paper should at minimum provide a sensitivity study over f_seed, and ideally calibrate it against the Romano et al. (2024) simulations or bound it with physical arguments about backflow mass and shell fragmentation. As it stands, the headline quantitative range ('less than one' to 'several hundred' massive
[Table 4 and Eq. (24)] The event-level yields (M_star,event, N_total, N_0.1-1, etc.) are presented as single-valued predictions with no uncertainty ranges. They depend on f_star = 0.3 (an assumed integrated cloud-to-star efficiency), on f_seed, and on the unvaried Hill-capture accretion law. The authors do state that f_star is assumed, but the table does not allow the reader to see how the conclusions change if f_star or f_seed take other plausible values. At minimum, propagating the uncertainty in f_seed and f_star, or presenting yields as functions of these parameters, would make the claims in Sec. 4 ('from less than one... to several hundred') appropriately qualified. Without this, the quantitative comparison across SMBH masses overstates the model's predictive power.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (12)] The backflow velocity uses the maximum of three speeds, including a gravitational infall speed (2GM_shell/R_MCS)^{1/2}. For the fiducial parameters M_shell is likely small and the sound speed dominates; it would be helpful to state which term dominates in the quoted t_backflow = 5.5-233 yr, since this affects the assumed seed initialization time.
[Figure 3] The axis label 'AU' is used for radius but the x-axis is time in years. Please clarify the units in the caption to avoid confusion.
[Table 1] The stage abbreviations FREE, ST, PDS, MCS are defined in the text but not in the table caption. Adding the full names in the caption or a footnote would improve readability.
[Sec. 1 and Sec. 4] The terms 'reincarnations' and 'second-generation SF' are used interchangeably. The paper would benefit from a brief definition of 'second-generation' in the introduction to connect the metaphor with the quantitative model.
[Sec. 4, magnetic criterion] The magnetic field estimate B_d = (2 Mdot c / R_I^2)^{1/2} is appropriate for a globally ordered field, but the paper notes that small-scale dynamo and reconnection diffusion could change λ_B. Given that the magnetic criterion is close to critical in some cases (Figure 6), adding a short discussion of how λ_B would shift under a turbulent field would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No formal circularity: collapse masses emerge from the growth ODE and joint collapse criteria; f_seed and f_star are explicitly labeled inputs/assumptions, and self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. SNR stage times are set by standard cooling/pressure-balance equations (Eqs. 2-10), not by the final stellar yields. The seed mass is parameterized as Mseed = fseed*Mshell with fseed = 1e-3, and the paper explicitly states that the motivating simulations 'do not provide a calibrated seed-formation efficiency for AGN-disc conditions' (Sec. 3.1). Cloud growth is then integrated from Eq. (16), Mcl = Mseed exp[(t - t_implosion)/t_growth], with t_growth from Eq. (15) determined by ambient disc quantities and fcav; collapse is read off the first simultaneous satisfaction of the Jeans, virial, tidal, shear, photoionization, and magnetic criteria. No equation forces Mcollapse to equal Mseed, Mshell, or f_star by construction; the dependence runs through an ODE. Event yields in Table 4 use M_star,event = f_star * M_cl with f_star = 0.3, and the paper explicitly labels f_star as 'an assumed integrated cloud-to-star conversion factor used to normalize the IMF. It is not a prediction of the present model.' Thus the uncalibrated f_seed and assumed f_star are acknowledged input assumptions, i.e., parametric uncertainty and caveats, not a concealed refit. Self-citations (e.g., Xing et al. 2025, Liu et al. 2021) are contextual and not load-bearing. The Bondi-radius-versus-Hill-radius concern raised about Eq. (14) is a physical modeling risk, because the seed is described as pressure-confined and not fully self-gravitating, but it does not make any output equal to an input by construction; it is a correctness/falsifiability concern rather than circularity. The score of 2 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and the paper's own clearly flagged parameter dependencies.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard SNR scalings, the SG disc model, and several hand-chosen efficiencies and thresholds. The most consequential uncalibrated inputs are f_seed and f_star: they directly control the initial cloud mass and the final stellar yield. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (9)

f_seed = 1e-3
Seed-cloud mass fraction of the cold shell mass; adopted without calibration; directly sets the initial M_cl and therefore the collapse time and mass.
f_shell = 0.8
Fraction of swept-up gas assumed to be in the cold radiative shell; motivated by Falle (1975) but not derived for AGN-disc conditions.
f_cav = 1
Cavity density factor in the Hill-accretion rate; fiducial value corresponds to efficient re-filling; sensitivity down to 1e-4 is explored.
a = 1/8
Cloud mass-radius index in R_cl ∝ M_cl^a; chosen inside 0 < a < 1/3; controls how quickly the cloud density grows during accretion.
f_star = 0.3
Integrated cloud-to-star conversion efficiency; assumed and used to normalize the IMF; directly scales all quoted N_star values.
Z_prime = 5
Metallicity in solar units used in the low-temperature cooling function; chosen to represent metal-rich BLR gas.
U_crit = 1e-2
Ionization-parameter threshold for photoionization survival; order-of-magnitude diagnostic, not calibrated.
Gamma_IMF = 1
Slope of the top-heavy IMF; adopted from Toyouchi et al. (2022); the number of massive stars is sensitive to it.
Q_AGN = 1e54 photons/s
Fixed ionizing photon production rate used for the U_AGN diagnostic; noted as a conservative baseline.

assumptions (7)

standard math Standard SNR power-law scalings for free expansion, Sedov-Taylor, pressure-driven snowplow, and momentum-conserving snowplow stages.
Used throughout Section 3.1, following Cioffi et al. (1988), Draine (2011), and Kim & Ostriker (2015).
domain assumption Sirko & Goodman (2003) AGN disc model with alpha = 0.01, Eddington ratio 0.5, and radiative efficiency 0.1 provides the ambient density, temperature, and pressure at R > 1e4 R_g.
All SNR and cloud calculations evaluate ambient conditions from the SG disc profiles in Figure 2; the numerical profiles are not independently verified here.
domain assumption Radiative losses are computed with optically thin cooling functions even though the disc and shell are optically thick.
The paper checks t_diff/t_exp < 1 for the fiducial 10^8 M_sun models but cautions that photon diffusion may delay cooling for lower-SMBH-mass or more optically thick cases.
ad hoc to paper Partial backflow of cooled shell fragments and re-filling gas forms a compact pressure-confined seed cloud.
This is the central unmodeled step: the seed-cloud mass is parameterized as M_seed = f_seed M_shell with f_seed = 1e-3, and the paper states simulations do not provide a calibrated efficiency.
domain assumption Cloud growth is governed by local 3D Hill capture in a sheared disc flow rather than global viscous accretion.
Used to derive the exponential growth law in Section 3.2; plausible for a cloud embedded in a sheared disc but not directly simulated.
domain assumption Magnetic flux is frozen into the cloud during compression, giving B_cl = B_d (rho_cl/rho_d)^(2/3).
Ideal flux-freezing is explicitly acknowledged as a simplification; dynamo amplification and reconnection diffusion are not included.
domain assumption The AGN-disc stellar IMF is top-heavy with slope Gamma = 1.
Adopted from Toyouchi et al. (2022); the stellar number fractions and the massive-star fraction depend on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reincarnations of massive stars in active galactic nucleus discs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WWRLYBC

@misc{pith2026260729075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reincarnations of massive stars in active galactic nucleus discs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WWRLYBC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29075}
}

read the original abstract

The origin and evolution of massive stars in active galactic nucleus (AGN) discs remain uncertain. We develop a semi-analytical model that follows the evolution of an embedded core-collapse supernova (CCSN) remnant and the subsequent formation and growth of a compact gas cloud. In the dense disc environment, efficient radiative cooling can strongly compress or bypass the Sedov-Taylor stage and drive the remnant rapidly into radiative snowplow evolution. After the remnant loses its interior pressure support, partial backflow of cooled shell fragments and refilling gas may initialize a pressure-confined and tidally limited seed cloud. The cloud then grows through shear-limited Hill capture until the gravitational, tidal, shear, photoionization, and magnetic conditions for collapse are simultaneously satisfied. The outcome depends strongly on the supermassive black-hole (SMBH) mass and explosion radius. Models with the lowest SMBH mass yield fewer than one massive star per event on average, whereas the most massive SMBH models can produce from several to several hundred. For a top-heavy initial mass function, massive stars dominate the resulting stellar mass and feedback budget. Embedded supernovae may therefore provide a localized gas-recycling channel for second-generation massive-star formation in AGN discs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29075 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Schematic illustration of the proposed SNR-induced gas-recycling and star-formation channel in an AGN disc. The remnant evolves through the hydrodynamic and radiative expansion phases before the loss of interior pressure support allows partial backflow of cooled shell material and refilling disc gas. A compact seed cloud may subsequently form, grow through local Hill accretion, and collapse into second-generation st… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Profiles of AGN disc quantities: density ρd, temperature Td, sound speed cs, scale height Hd, opacity κd, optical depth τd, surface density Σd, and Toomre parameter Q, shown from left to right and from top to bottom. Blue, orange, and yellow curves correspond to M• = 106 , 107 , and 108M⊙, respectively. The dashed horizontal line in the Q panel marks Q = 1. 2 MODEL SETUP AND INITIAL CONDITIONS We use the AGN disc mo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the time evolution of the SNR radius for the local spherical models with different SMBH masses and explosion radii. The curves clearly illustrate the sequence of evolutionary stages, including free expansion, ST stage, PDS stage, MCS stage, and the estimated onset of the subsequent implosion phase. The markers denote the corresponding transition times. Since the radial environmental asymmetry across the remna… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Time evolution of the SNR mass at RI = 105Rg for different SMBH masses. The initially flat segment corresponds to the ejecta-dominated phase, while the later rapid increase is caused by swept-up disc gas. The markers denote the same evolutionary transition times as in …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cloud mass evolution for the fiducial SMBH mass M• = 108M⊙ at three explosion radii. Solid curves show the cloud mass Mcl, while dotted curves show the corresponding Jeans mass MJeans. Downward triangles mark the first time at which all collapse criteria are simultane…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Time evolution of the individual collapse and survival criteria for seed clouds embedded in the AGN disc, shown for the fiducial SMBH mass M• = 108M⊙ and three explosion radii. The panels show the Jeans ratio Mcl/MJeans, virial parameter αvir, tidal ratio Rcl/RH, shear…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Sensitivity of the seed-cloud collapse time to the cavity density factor fcav and the cloud mass-radius index a. The three panels correspond to M• = 106 , 107 , and 108 M⊙. Colors indicate the initial radius RI = 104 , 104.5 , and 105 Rg, while different marker shapes …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

J., 2007, A&A, 462, L17

Alves J., Lombardi M., Lada C. J., 2007, A&A, 462, L17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066389 Andr´ e P., Di Francesco J., W ard-Thompson D., Inutsuka S.- I., Pudritz R. E., Pineda J. E., 2014, prpl.conf,

doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066389 2007
[4]

doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 Baruteau C., Cuadra J., Lin D. N. C., 2011, ApJ, 726,

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 2011
[5]

G., Lorimer D

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1428 Lyne A. G., Lorimer D. R., 1994, Natur, 369,

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1428 1994
[15]

C., Spitzer L., 1976, ApJ, 210,

doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/abca88 Mouschovias T. C., Spitzer L., 1976, ApJ, 210,

doi:10.3847/1538- 1976
[16]

S., Caban F., Ford K

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896 Fabj G., Nasim S. S., Caban F., Ford K. E. S., McK- ernan B., Bellovary J. M., 2020, MNRAS, 499,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896 2020
[19]

J., Cantiello M., Perna R., Samsing J., 2 025, ApJ, 981,

doi:10.1086/192093 Fabj G., Dittmann A. J., Cantiello M., Perna R., Samsing J., 2 025, ApJ, 981,

doi:10.1086/192093
[27]

J., 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation , Cam- bridge University Press Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A

doi:10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch002 Armitage P. J., 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation , Cam- bridge University Press Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, 47,

doi:10.2458/azu 2010
[28]

R., 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei , Wiley- VCH Bellovary J

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/28 Beckmann V., Shrader C. R., 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei , Wiley- VCH Bellovary J. M., Mac Low M.-M., McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., 2016, ApJL, 819, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17 Bertoldi F., McKee C. F., 1990, ApJ, 354,

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/1/28 2012

Show all 62 references

[29]

T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium, Princeton University Press Elvis M., Wilkes B

doi:10.1146/annurev-a stro- 081811-125514 Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium, Princeton University Press Elvis M., Wilkes B. J., McDowell J. C., Green R. F., Bech- told J., Willner S. P., Oey M. S., et al., 1994, ApJS, 95,

2011 doi
[36]

doi:10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001 Liu T., Qi Y.-Q., Cai Z.-Y., Sun M., Qu H.-M., Song C.-Y., 2021 , ApJ, 920,

2017 doi
[49]

J., 1984, ARA&A, 22,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a43 Rees M. J., 1984, ARA&A, 22,

1984 doi
[51]

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x Romano L. E. C., Behrendt M., Burkert A., 2024, ApJ, 965,

2012
[55]

F., 2013, MNRAS, 433,

doi:10.1093/mnras/172.1.55 Faucher-Gigu` ere C.-A., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., 2013, MNRAS, 433,

2013 doi
[56]

doi:10.1086/163605 Sirko E., Goodman J., 2003, MNRAS, 341,

2003 doi
[62]

doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190 Qi Y.-Q., Liu T., Cai Z.-Y., Sun M., 2022, ApJ, 934,

1996
[63]

C., Vestergaard M., Ba˜ nados E., Willott C

doi:10.3847/15 38- 4357/acdf48 W ang S., Jiang L., Shen Y., Ho L. C., Vestergaard M., Ba˜ nados E., Willott C. J., et al., 2022, ApJ, 925,

2022 doi
[84]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa 618e Jim´ enez S., Tenorio-Tagle G., Silich S., 2019, MNRAS, 488,

2019 doi
[88]

S., W ang J.-M., 1999, ApJ, 521,

doi:10.3847/153 8- 4357/ad3c3a Cheng K. S., W ang J.-M., 1999, ApJ, 521,

1999 doi
[99]

C., 2017, ApJ, 846,

doi:10.1088/0 004- 637X/802/2/99 Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., 2017, ApJ, 846,

2017 doi
[121]

doi:10.3847/1 538- 4357/ac3a69 W ang Y., Zhu Z., Lin D. N. C., 2024, MNRAS, 528,

2024 doi
[127]

F., Cowie L

doi:10.1038/369127a0 McKee C. F., Cowie L. L., 1975, ApJ, 195,

1975 doi
[133]

I., Syunyaev R

doi:10.3847/ 1538- 4357/aa8599 Kolykhalov P. I., Syunyaev R. A., 1980, SvAL, 6, 357 Krolik J. H., 1999, Active Galactic Nuclei: From the Central Black Hole to the Galactic Environment , Princeton University Press Krumholz M. R., Burkhart B., Forbes J. C., Crocker R. M., 2018 ,...

1980
[161]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d1 Liu T., Gu W.-M., Zhang B., 2017, NewAR, 79,

2017 doi
[167]

B., Raizer Y

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adﬀ71 Zel’dovich Y. B., Raizer Y. P., 1967, Physics of Shock Waves and High-Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena, Academic Press Zhou S., Sun M., Liu T., W ang J.-M., W ang J.-X., Xue Y., 2024, ApJL, 966, L9. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3c3f Zhu J.-P., Yang Y.-...

1967 doi
[168]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c05 Romano L. E. C., Burkert A., Behrendt M., 2024, ApJL, 971, L44 . doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6a57 Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative Processes in As- trophysics, Wiley-Interscience MNRAS 000, 1-14 (2026) 14 J.-T. Xing et al. Santos-Lima R.,...

2024 doi
[173]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905373 Levin Y., 2007, MNRAS, 374,

2007 doi arXiv
[180]

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191403 W ang J.-M., Liu J.-R., Ho L

doi:10.1086/306909 Vigna-G´ omez A., Willcox R., Tamborra I., Mandel I., Renzo M ., W agg T., Janka H.-T., et al., 2024, PhRvL, 132, 191403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191403 W ang J.-M., Liu J.-R., Ho L. C., Li Y.-R., Du P., 2021, ApJL, 91 6, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b4...

2024 doi
[188]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd0a Chen Y.-X., Lin D. N. C., 2024, ApJ, 967,

2024 doi
[191]

doi:10.1051/0 004- 6361/201424556 Janka H.-T., 2013, MNRAS, 434,

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14359.x Iﬀrig O., Hennebelle P., 2015, A&A, 576, A95. doi:10.1051/0 004- 6361/201424556 Janka H.-T., 2013, MNRAS, 434,

2008
[247]

B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J

doi:10.1086/133140 Pollack J. B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J. J., Podolak M., Greenzweig Y., 1996, Icarus, 124,

1996 doi
[252]

doi:10.1086/166834 Collin S., Zahn J.-P., 1999, A&A, 344, 433 Collin S., Zahn J.-P., 2008, A&A, 477,

1999 doi
[268]

M., 2012, ARA&A, 50,

doi:10.1086/159632 Crutcher R. M., 2012, ARA&A, 50,

2012 doi
[326]

E., Ferland G

doi:10.1086/154835 Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei , 2nd ed., University Sci- ence Books Owen J. E., Lin D. N. C., 2023, MNRAS, 519,

2006 doi
[352]

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.352 Chen Y.-X., Jiang Y.-F., Goodman J., 2025, ApJ, 987,

2025 doi
[397]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3506 Paardekooper S.-J., Baruteau C., Crida A., Kley W., 2010, MN - RAS, 401,

2010 doi
[419]

L., McKee C

doi:10.1051/000 4- 6361:20078191 Cowie L. L., McKee C. F., 1977, ApJ, 211,

1977 doi
[442]

I., 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechan- ics, Academic Press Serrano-Hern´ andez D

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/442 Sedov L. I., 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechan- ics, Academic Press Serrano-Hern´ andez D. B., Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez S., Jim´ enez S., Silich S., W ¨unsch R., 2025, A&A, 695, A271. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202449717 Shakura N. I....

1959 doi
[471]

B., Sigurdsson S., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 27

doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351 Repetto S., Davies M. B., Sigurdsson S., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 27

2012
[481]

A., Hawley J

doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1998, RvMP, 70,

1998
[501]

1365- 8711.2003.06431.x Syer D., Clarke C

doi:10.1046/j. 1365- 8711.2003.06431.x Syer D., Clarke C. J., Rees M. J., 1991, MNRAS, 250,

2003
[502]

A., 1982, ApJ, 258,

doi:10.1086/30 7572 Chevalier R. A., 1982, ApJ, 258,

1982 doi
[505]

doi:10.1093/mnras/250.3.505 Terlevich R., Tenorio-Tagle G., Franco J., Melnick J., 1992 , MN- RAS, 255,

1992 doi
[515]

doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2006.11155.x Li F.-L., Liu Y., Fan X., Hu M.-K., Yang X., Geng J.-J., W u X.-F ., 2023, ApJ, 950,

2006
[529]

A., Rice W

doi:10.1086/1 68713 Bonnell I. A., Rice W. K. M., 2008, Sci, 321,

2008 doi
[565]

doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., Lyra W., Perets H. B., 2012, MNRAS, 425,

2012 arXiv
[713]

doi:10.1093/mnras/255.4.713 Toomre A., 1964, ApJ, 139,

1964 doi
[715]

F., Ostriker E

doi:10.1086/15 3373 McKee C. F., Ostriker E. C., 2007, ARA&A, 45,

2007 doi
[769]

M., van Steenberg M

doi:10.1086/157924 Shull J. M., van Steenberg M. E., 1985, ApJ, 298,

1985 doi
[771]

P., Anderson P

doi:10.1086/164214 Cox D. P., Anderson P. R., 1982, ApJ, 253,

1982 doi
[790]

F., McKee C

doi:10.1086/160126 Cioﬃ D. F., McKee C. F., Bertschinger E., 1988, ApJ, 334,

1988 doi
[978]

C., 2015, ApJ, 802,

doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1749 Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., 2015, ApJ, 802,

2015 doi
[1060]

J., Egger R., 2000, A&A, 361, 3 03 Burrows A., Hayes J., 1996, PhRvL, 76,

doi:10.1126/science.1160653 Breitschwerdt D., Freyberg M. J., Egger R., 2000, A&A, 361, 3 03 Burrows A., Hayes J., 1996, PhRvL, 76,

2000 doi
[1217]

N., Tominaga N., 2022, MN- RAS, 512,

doi:10.1086/147861 Toyouchi D., Inayoshi K., Ishigaki M. N., Tominaga N., 2022, MN- RAS, 512,

2022 doi
[1355]

doi:10.1093/mnras/st t1106 Janka H.-T., 2017, ApJ, 837,

2017 doi
[1950]

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15782.x Panamarev T., Kocsis B., 2022, MNRAS, 517,

2009
[1970]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stt866 Federrath C., 2015, MNRAS, 450,

2015 doi
[2573]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stac640 Ulmer A., 1999, ApJ, 514,

1999 doi
[2608]

doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3004 Falle S. A. E. G., 1975, MNRAS, 172,

1975 doi
[2716]

K., Wijers R

doi:10.1093/mnras/sty852 Lee H. K., Wijers R. A. M. J., Brown G. E., 1999, ASPC, 190,

1999 doi
[4035]

doi:10.1093/mnras/s tv941 Gessner A., Janka H.-T., 2018, ApJ, 865,

2018 doi
[4958]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stae321 Xing J.-T., Liu T., Huang B.-Q., Sun M., 2025, ApJ, 991,

2025 doi
[6205]

M., 1993, PASP, 105,

doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3050 Peterson B. M., 1993, PASP, 105,

1993 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J., 2007, A&A, 462, L17

Alves J., Lombardi M., Lada C. J., 2007, A&A, 462, L17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066389 Andr´ e P., Di Francesco J., W ard-Thompson D., Inutsuka S.- I., Pudritz R. E., Pineda J. E., 2014, prpl.conf,

doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066389 2007

[2] [4]

doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 Baruteau C., Cuadra J., Lin D. N. C., 2011, ApJ, 726,

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 2011

[3] [5]

G., Lorimer D

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1428 Lyne A. G., Lorimer D. R., 1994, Natur, 369,

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1428 1994

[4] [15]

C., Spitzer L., 1976, ApJ, 210,

doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/abca88 Mouschovias T. C., Spitzer L., 1976, ApJ, 210,

doi:10.3847/1538- 1976

[5] [16]

S., Caban F., Ford K

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896 Fabj G., Nasim S. S., Caban F., Ford K. E. S., McK- ernan B., Bellovary J. M., 2020, MNRAS, 499,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896 2020

[6] [19]

J., Cantiello M., Perna R., Samsing J., 2 025, ApJ, 981,

doi:10.1086/192093 Fabj G., Dittmann A. J., Cantiello M., Perna R., Samsing J., 2 025, ApJ, 981,

doi:10.1086/192093

[7] [27]

J., 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation , Cam- bridge University Press Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A

doi:10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch002 Armitage P. J., 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation , Cam- bridge University Press Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, 47,

doi:10.2458/azu 2010

[8] [28]

R., 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei , Wiley- VCH Bellovary J

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/28 Beckmann V., Shrader C. R., 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei , Wiley- VCH Bellovary J. M., Mac Low M.-M., McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., 2016, ApJL, 819, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17 Bertoldi F., McKee C. F., 1990, ApJ, 354,

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/1/28 2012