Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Variability in Black Hole Accretion: Dependence on Rotational and Magnetic Energy Balance

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the onset of strong variability in black hole accretion flows is controlled by the initial ratio of rotational to magnetic energy, and that all hot accretion flows, given enough time, develop intermittent jets.

desk verdict Clean parameter study with an honest but bold extrapolation; worth refereeing, with the universal-intermittency claim needing to be framed as conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13441 v1 pith:2GQP5QD7 submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.HE

Hyerin Cho , Ramesh Narayan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blackholeaccretionhotflowsGRMHDsimulationsjetintermittencymagneticallyarresteddiskBlandford-Znajekmechanismangularmomentumtransportplasmabeta
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

This paper asks why some black hole accretion simulations settle into steady jets while others develop strong variability, and it proposes that the deciding factor is the balance between rotation and magnetic field in the initial state. Using general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of large rotating tori, the authors show that enlarging the torus alone does not create variability: weakly magnetized tori ($\beta_{\max}=100$) stay calm for $2.8\times10^5$ gravitational times. Strongly magnetized tori ($\beta_{\max}=1$) instead develop swings of over three orders of magnitude in jet efficiency and reversals in the direction of gas rotation. The paper introduces $R$, the initial ratio of rotational kinetic to magnetic energy, and shows that larger $R$ delays the onset of strong variability. If the trend holds, every hot accretion flow, in simulations and in Nature, will eventually develop intermittent jets when evolved long enough.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless ratio $R\equiv \epsilon_{\rm rot}/\epsilon_{\rm mag}=\beta r^2\Omega^2/(2T)$ evaluated at the characteristic radius and midplane of the initial state, together with the companion diagnostic $t_{\rm var}/t_{\rm char}$, the time when strong variability first appears divided by the free-fall time at that radius. The simulations separate the two variables that Bondi-like initial conditions vary together: torus size ($r_{\max}=500\,r_g$ versus the usual $\sim20\,r_g$) and initial magnetization, measured by plasma-$\beta$, the gas-to-magnetic pressure ratio ($\beta_{\max}=100$ versus $\beta_{\max}=1$). The strongly magnetized runs still obey the Blandford–Znajek relation between jet efficiency and magnetic flux, and the paper derives a magnetospheric radius $r_M\approx \phi_{b,0}\,r_g/\sqrt{8\pi^2 T_0}$ at which the flux profile switches from flat split-monopole scaling to $\phi_b\propto r$, marking a radially extended magnetically arrested state (MAD, where the field is strong enough to impede accretion). The Figure 14 trend of $t_{\rm var}/t_{\rm char}$ against $R$ is the piece of machinery that carries the universality claim.

What would settle it

Run the weakly magnetized large-torus model ($\beta_{\max}=100$, $R\approx300$) for about $3\times10^6$ gravitational times, ten times the present runtime, using an acceleration scheme that preserves the accretion dynamics; if strong variability in $\phi_b$, $\eta$, or $\Omega$ has not appeared by the time predicted by the Figure 14 extrapolation, the universality claim is falsified. A controlled series at fixed radius, geometry, and resolution that varies only the initial rotation over $R\approx0$--$300$ and fails to show a monotonic delay would also falsify the proposed causal role of $R$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the onset of strong variability and jet intermittency in magnetized hot accretion flows is controlled by $R$, the ratio of rotational kinetic energy to magnetic energy in the initial state. The new runs modify the standard rotating torus in two separate ways: increasing the pressure maximum to $500\,r_g$ while keeping a weak field reproduces the quiet behavior of smaller tori, ruling out dynamic range alone as the cause; raising the initial field strength to plasma-$\beta\approx1$ with the same large torus reproduces the intermittency and angular-velocity reversals seen in recent quasi-spherical simulations. The jet, even in its chaotic phases, continues to follow the Blandford–Znajek efficiency–flux relation. Compiling their data with previous studies, the paper finds a monotonic trend of longer normalized onset time with larger $R$, and extrapolates that the quiet $R\approx300$ torus would become intermittent after roughly ten times its simulated $2.8\times10^5\,t_g$ runtime. The conclusion is that intermittent jets are a late-time universal phase of hot accretion, not a peculiarity of any particular initial condition.

Load-bearing premise

The universality conclusion rests on extrapolating the monotonic $t_{\rm var}/t_{\rm char}$--$R$ trend of Figure 14, which is compiled from simulations with different codes, resolutions, magnetic geometries, and variability criteria, to a weakly magnetized large torus ($R\approx300$) that showed no variability in $2.8\times10^5$ gravitational times; if the trend is an artifact of heterogeneous setups or the delay does not continue monotonically, the claim that all flows eventually become intermittent fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Steady jets seen in standard small-torus simulations are a finite-time stage: any run with $R\gtrsim500$ that is extended long enough should eventually switch to intermittent behavior, at a time set by $R$.
  • Jet feedback on a black hole's host galaxy would be strongly time-variable rather than constant, so feedback prescriptions that assume steady jet power would misestimate energy deposition over long intervals.
  • The measured density profile $\rho(r)\propto r^{-1.1}$ for prograde spins and $\rho(r)\propto r^{-0.8}$ for retrograde gives a quantitative target that analytic models of hot accretion flows must reproduce.
  • The accretion-rate suppression factors (about 1.6 for $a_*=0.5$ and 2.5 for $a_*=0.9$ relative to $a_*=0$) are predictions that can be checked with larger-scale or observationally constrained simulations of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei.
  • The derived relation between horizon magnetic flux and magnetospheric radius explains the transition from split-monopole to radial scaling of magnetic flux and identifies a magnetically arrested zone extending to $r\sim3000\,r_g$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the universality claim would run the quiet $R\approx300$ standard torus for roughly $3\times10^6\,t_g$ using an accelerated scheme; the Figure 14 trend predicts variability onset near that duration, and a quiet run would undercut the extrapolation.
  • If $R$ is the controlling parameter, then real accretion flows with slow rotation or strong seed fields should show jet flickering sooner than rotation-dominated flows, meaning the duty cycle of active galactic nucleus jet intermittency could be inferred from the angular momentum supply of the inflowing gas.
  • A controlled simulation series with a single code, fixed geometry and resolution, varying only the initial rotation between $R\approx0$ and $R\approx300$, would isolate whether the compiled trend is causal or a selection effect of heterogeneous setups.
  • Observationally, nearby low-luminosity black holes may show jet state switching on timescales long compared with the orbital time at the Bondi radius; current monitoring campaigns are probably too short to catch a full cycle, so the claim is primarily a prediction for longer-duration monitoring.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates why Bondi-like GRMHD simulations show intermittent jets and angular-velocity reversals while standard Fishbone-Moncrief torus simulations remain quiescent. The authors run large tori (pressure maximum at 500 rg) for 2.8e5 gravitational times with weak initial fields (βmax = 100) for spins a* = 0, 0.5, 0.9, and -0.9, finding steady accretion, BZ-consistent jet efficiencies, spin-dependent accretion suppression, and a density slope ρ ∝ r^-1.1. With βmax = 1, the same tori show large fluctuations in efficiency and magnetic flux, angular-velocity reversals, and extended MAD zones. The authors then introduce a parameter R, the initial rotational-to-magnetic energy ratio evaluated at (r_char, π/2), compile Table 3, and present Figure 14 as evidence that the onset time of strong variability, tvar/tchar, increases with R. From this trend they predict that all hot accretion flows, including the weakly magnetized tori simulated here, will eventually become intermittent if evolved long enough. The controlled torus simulations are valuable, but the universal intermittency claim rests on a heterogeneous compilation with censored lower-bound anchors, and the strongly magnetized runs use lower numerical resolution without a convergence test.

Significance. If the universal intermittency prediction holds, it would have a significant impact on how persistent jets from hot accretion flows are interpreted: many systems currently classified as stable SANE/MAD tori would be in a pre-intermittent state. The paper's strengths are its controlled modification of FM torus initial conditions, the long simulation time that avoids gas depletion, the confirmation of the BZ η-φb relation in the new runs, the improved measurement of the density slope, and the simple organizing parameter R that connects diverse simulation studies. At the same time, the central extrapolation to all hot accretion flows is not directly supported by any simulation at high R; the weakly magnetized runs are lower bounds, and the trend in Figure 14 is assembled from heterogeneous data. The manuscript deserves major revision rather than rejection because the core simulation results are clearly presented and the extrapolation could in principle be strengthened by additional robustness tests and more cautious claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, §4] The strongly magnetized models are run at a lower grid resolution (192 × 128 × 128) than the standard models (288 × 192 × 144), and no convergence study is presented for the βmax = 1 runs. Since the paper's central contrast is between weak and strong initial magnetization, the resolution difference is a confounding factor: variability amplitudes, flux eruption sizes, and the extent of the MAD zone could all depend on resolution. Please include a resolution test for at least one βmax = 1 model (e.g., a0β1 or a.9β1), or justify quantitatively that the lower-resolution grid does not change the qualitative variability outcome.
  2. [§5, Figure 14] The trend in Figure 14 is compiled from simulations that differ in codes, grid resolutions, initial magnetic field geometries, initial rotation profiles, variability definitions, and runtimes, and R is evaluated at a single point (r_char, π/2) using order-of-magnitude estimates (Eq. 19). The text acknowledges that R is crude, but no robustness analysis is given. For example, the trend's dependence on the censored lower-bound points, on the choice of r_char, and on the temperature normalization in Eq. (20) is not quantified. Please add sensitivity tests (e.g., refit the trend after removing the 'Most GRMHD' aggregate and the R ≈ 300 lower-bound point) or otherwise demonstrate that the monotonic R-tvar relation is not an artifact of the heterogeneous compilation.
  3. [§5] The weakly magnetized tori with R ≈ 300 show no strong variability through 2.8 × 10^5 tg, so their tvar values are only lower bounds. The paper then predicts that these runs would show variability if evolved more than ten times longer, which is an extrapolation beyond any existing data point and assumes monotonicity of the R-tvar relation. The statement in §5 that these tori 'will finally end up with strong variability' is an inference from the trend, not a demonstrated result, and the 'Most GRMHD' row with R ≳ 500 is a bundled aggregate with no stated runtime. Please present the high-R anchors explicitly as censored data, label the universal intermittency claim as a prediction with falsifiable conditions, and discuss alternative possibilities such as a saturation or threshold in the delay time.
  4. [§5, Table 3] The R = 0 simulations are shown as small pink dots in Figure 14, yet these non-rotating points anchor the low-R end of the trend and are central to its visual support. As the text notes, R loses all information about magnetic energy when ϵ_rot = 0, so the physical variable being ordered is not well defined for these runs. The paper also excludes systems with r_char < 100 rg based on Galishnikova et al. (2025), but the sensitivity of the trend to this cut is not tested. Please assess whether the R-tvar trend still holds when the R > 0 points are analyzed alone, and state the selection criteria for included points before rather than after the compilation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The word 'accrretion' in the paragraph describing grid parameters should be 'accretion'.
  2. [§3.1] The word 'noteworth' in the paragraph discussing the absence of wild swings in η and φb should be 'noteworthy'.
  3. [§3.4] The word 'diffference' in the discussion of the retrograde model's Lorentz factor should be 'difference'.
  4. [§5, Table 3] The formatting of Table 3 is difficult to parse, especially the 'initial rotation' and 'initial β' columns; aligning the entries and using a clearer notation for FM torus versus Bondi-like initial rotation would improve readability.
  5. [§4.3, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) is presented as a quantitative derivation of the magnetospheric radius, but its normalization depends on φb,0 and T0 taken from Cho et al. (2023, 2024); please state this dependence explicitly at the point of use so the formula is not read as parameter-free.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the R–tvar trend is an empirical compilation with R defined independently of variability outcome, and the BZ benchmark provides external grounding.

full rationale

The central proposed parameter R (Eq. 19) is computed directly from initial conditions (β, Ω, T at rchar) and is not defined in terms of the variability outcome; tvar/tchar is an independently measured onset time (or a lower bound for runs that remain steady). Figure 14 is therefore an empirical correlation, not an identity. The weakly magnetized runs are steady through 2.8e5 tg, and the prediction that they would become variable after >10x longer is an extrapolation beyond the data, which is a scientific risk rather than a circularity. The strongly magnetized runs' variability is a direct simulation result. The BZ efficiency check (Eq. 16 vs Figures 2 and 10) anchors the simulations to an external theoretical benchmark. The only near-self-citation is in Section 4.3: Eq. 17 uses φ_b0≈30 and T0≈0.1 from the authors' prior Cho et al. (2023, 2024) simulations to estimate rM≈10.7rg. That is a side consistency check, not the load-bearing claim, and the inputs are prior independent simulation measurements rather than outputs of the present runs, so it does not make the derivation circular. No step in the paper reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction or renames a fitted parameter as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ideal GRMHD model and on the comparability of heterogeneous simulations in Table 3. No new physical entities are introduced; R is an initial-condition diagnostic and r_M is a derived scale. The r_M estimate uses normalizations from prior simulations by the same group.

free parameters (2)
  • phi_b,0 (horizon magnetic flux normalization) = ~30 (range 20-50)
    Input to the r_M estimate in Eq 17; adopted from Cho et al. (2023, 2024) simulations, not measured in the new runs of this paper.
  • T_0 (horizon temperature normalization) = ~0.1
    Input to Eq 17; adopted from Cho et al. (2023, 2024). Because r_M scales inversely with sqrt(T0), this normalization sets the predicted magnetospheric radius at about 10.7 rg.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal GRMHD equations describe hot accretion flows (Eqs 1-6); radiative cooling is negligible.
    Standard for RIAF/ADAF simulations; all results depend on it. Invoked throughout Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The Fishbone-Moncrief torus with an embedded poloidal field loop is a valid initial condition, including at beta_max = 1 where it is far from MHD equilibrium.
    The beta = 1 runs are the key variability experiments; the initial state is not in dynamical equilibrium, so the transient may influence the reported variability. Section 2.
  • domain assumption gamma_ad = 13/9.
    Equation of state for the plasma; the authors note Gammie (2025) argues gamma = 5/3 may be more appropriate. Section 2.
  • standard math The BZ efficiency formula (Eq 16) with k about 0.05 from Tchekhovskoy et al. (2010, 2011) applies to these simulations.
    Used to interpret the eta-phi_b correlation in Figures 2 and 10; assumes a specific field geometry and the BZ process.
  • ad hoc to paper Heterogeneous simulations in Table 3 are comparable; their variability outcomes can be ordered by the single parameter R computed at one point (r_char, pi/2).
    The central Figure 14 trend assumes other differences (code, resolution, magnetic geometry, boundary conditions) are subdominant. Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variability in Black Hole Accretion: Dependence on Rotational and Magnetic Energy Balance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GQP5QD7

@misc{pith2026250713441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variability in Black Hole Accretion: Dependence on Rotational and Magnetic Energy Balance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GQP5QD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13441}
}
abstract

Most general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of black hole (BH) hot accretion flows are initialized with small rotating tori and produce stable jets with only small fluctuations. However, recent studies using larger scale Bondi-like initial conditions have reported intermittent jet activity and loss of coherent rotation. To investigate the differences, we modify the standard torus setup across four BH spins: $a_*=0$, $0.5$, $0.9$, $-0.9$. First, we increase the torus size significantly (pressure maximum at 500 gravitational radii), allowing long simulations ($2.8\times10^5$ gravitational times) without gas depletion. These runs reproduce the weak variability seen in smaller tori, indicating that a larger dynamic range alone does not cause strong fluctuations. We observe moderate suppression of the accretion rate by factors of $\sim 1.6, ~2.5$ for BH spins $a_*=0.5,~0.9$, respectively, compared to $a_*=0$. Also, the density profile scales as $\rho(r)\propto r^{-1.1}$ for prograde BHs. Next, we considerably strengthen the initial magnetic field in the large torus by setting the plasma-$\beta\approx 1$. This induces strong variability in the evolution. The jet efficiency in the $a_*=0.9$ model, for instance, now varies by over 3 orders of magnitude, and gas rotation reverses directions. Combining these results with prior studies, we propose that a key parameter is the ratio $R$ between the rotational and magnetic energies in the initial state. Strong variability appears later in models with a larger value of $R$. The implication is that all simulations, and by extension all hot accretion flows in Nature, will ultimately develop intermittent jets if evolved long enough.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the mass accretion rate M˙ at the horizon rH, feedback efficiency η at r = 10 rg, dimensionless magnetic flux ϕb at rH, and the shell-averaged angular velocity ⟨Ω⟩ divided by the Keplerian angular velocity ΩK at r = 10 rg. The four standard torus simulations listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation between the efficiency η(t, 10 rg) and the magnetic flux parameter ϕb(t, rH) for the four standard weakly magnetized simulations listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Poloidal slice of (t, φ)-averaged u r of the (left half ) retrograde a∗ = −0.9 (run a − 0.9β100) and (right half ) prograde a∗ = 0.9 (run a.9β100) models. Inflowing (outflowing) regions are shown in blue (red). Although both models have the same magnitude of the BH spin, the in￾flowing θ range is wider for the retrograde a∗ = −0.9 run, possibly because of the weaker feedback efficiency η in this model. This geometri… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density profiles in torus simulations. (a) Radial profiles of the t, θ, φ-averaged density ⟨ρ¯⟩(r) in the a∗ = 0 small torus (pressure maximum rmax at 42.43 rg shown as a dashed vertical line) simulation described in Narayan et al. (2022), time￾averaged over 6 time chu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Equatorial slices at the last timestep, t = 2.8 × 105 tg, of a∗ = 0 BH simulations with (left) weakly magnetized (β ∼ 100, model a0β100) and (right) strongly magnetized (β ∼ 1, model a0β1) tori. The flux eruptions, distinguished as low density regions, reach farther ou…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of the accretion rate M˙ on the BH spin a∗. The accretion rate profiles M˙ (r) for a∗ = 0 (black), a∗ = 0.5 (blue), and a∗ = 0.9 (red) are normalized by the accretion rate of the non-spinning BH (a∗ = 0). The solid lines are for the standard (βmax = 100) run…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The distribution of the time- and ϕ-averaged Lorentz factor Γ in the poloidal plane in the strongly mag￾netized a∗ = 0.9 model (a.9β1) during two selected time periods: (left) t = 1.3×105−1.6×105 tg, when fluid counter￾rotates with respect to the BH spin and feedback …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Correlation between magnetic flux ϕb(rH) and the polar velocity ⟨|u θ |⟩(2 rg). There seems to be a cleaner correlation for all 4 spins (shown in different colors) com￾pared to the correlation between ϕb and Ω in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plot of the normalized time at which strong vari￾ability (in ϕb, η or Ω) is first observed, tvar/tchar, against the initial rotational to magnetic energy ratio, R, for the stud￾ies included in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bridging Scales in Black Hole Accretion and Feedback: Relativistic Jet linking the Horizon to the Host Galaxy

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For a spin a*=0.9 black hole fed by hot gas, the relativistic jet's time-averaged feedback efficiency is about 30 percent and independent of the Bondi radius, with accretion suppressed as Mdot/Mdot_B proportional to R...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1995, ApJL, 438, L37, doi: 10.1086/187709

    Regev, O. 1995, ApJL, 438, L37, doi: 10.1086/187709

    doi:10.1086/187709 1995

  2. [2]

    Balbus, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 453, 380, doi: 10.1086/176397

    work page doi:10.1086/176397 1995

  3. [3]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 2002, ApJ, 573, 749, doi: 10.1086/340767

    work page doi:10.1086/340767 2002

  4. [4]

    C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J

    Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3790

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3790 2022

  5. [5]

    S., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1974, Ap&SS, 28, 45, doi: 10.1007/BF00642237 —. 1976, Ap&SS, 42, 401, doi: 10.1007/BF01225967

    doi:10.1007/bf00642237 1974

  6. [6]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Chan, H.-S., Dhang, P., Dexter, J., & Begelman, M. C. 2025, ApJ, 985, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce7f

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    S., Narayan, R., et al

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Narayan, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13887

    Natarajan, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13887

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    G., & Moncrief, V

    Fishbone, L. G., & Moncrief, V. 1976, ApJ, 207, 962, doi: 10.1086/154565

    1976 doi

  10. [18]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  11. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926

    Galishnikova, A., Philippov, A., Quataert, E., Chatterjee, K., & Liska, M. 2025, ApJ, 978, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Gammie, C. F. 2025, ApJ, 980, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaea3

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81e

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.16802, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16802

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    1977, ApJ, 214, 840, doi: 10.1086/155314

    Ichimaru, S. 1977, ApJ, 214, 840, doi: 10.1086/155314

    1977 doi

  18. [26]

    V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M

    Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042, doi: 10.1086/375769

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86

    Jacquemin-Ide, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Kaaz, N., Murguia-Berthier, A., Chatterjee, K., Liska, M. T. P., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2023, ApJ, 950, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Kim, Y., & Most, E. R. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 083025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083025

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, NewAR, 92, 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

    Komissarov, S., & Porth, O. 2021, NewAR, 92, 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

    2021

  23. [31]

    Komissarov, S. S. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 343, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02244.x

    1999

  24. [32]

    M., Dai, L., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Kwan, T. M., Dai, L., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2023, ApJL, 946, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc334

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

    Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., Bromberg, O., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    R., et al

    Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., Most, E. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.23888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.23888

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2022, ApJL, 936, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7bed

    Lalakos, A., Gottlieb, O., Kaaz, N., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7bed

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    2014, PhRvD, 89, 024041, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.024041

    Tchekhovskoy, A., & Narayan, R. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 024041, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.024041

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    C., & Gammie, C

    McKinney, J. C., & Gammie, C. F. 2004, ApJ, 611, 977, doi: 10.1086/422244

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 —. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 798, doi: 10.1086/309268 —. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    F., & Kulkarni, A

    Narayan, R., Sądowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    2012

  34. [42]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 Rotational and Magnetic Effects on BH Accretion V ariability 21 —

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381 Rotational and Magnetic Effects on BH Accretion V ariability 21 —. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1994 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Wong, S

    Pen, U.-L., Matzner, C. D., & Wong, S. 2003, ApJL, 596, L207, doi: 10.1086/379339

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    Porth, O., Chatterjee, K., Narayan, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2000, ApJ, 539, 809, doi: 10.1086/309267

    Quataert, E., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 809, doi: 10.1086/309267

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Begelman, M

    Rees, M. J., Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Phinney, E. S. 1982, Nature, 295, 17, doi: 10.1038/295017a0

    1982 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Quataert, E., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., White, C. J., & Blaes, O. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab311

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C

    Ressler, S. M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx364

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    M., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., White, C. J., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2020, ApJL, 896, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9532

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Lightman, A

    Shapiro, S. L., Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1976, ApJ, 204, 187, doi: 10.1086/154162

    1976 doi

  43. [51]

    Shvartsman, V. F. 1971, Soviet Ast., 15, 377 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., &

    1971

  44. [52]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Zhu, Y

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Zhu, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts632

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    C., & Narayan, R

    Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 372, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012040, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012040

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50 —. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2010

  47. [55]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace892

    Xu, W. 2023, ApJ, 954, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace892

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.