Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing the detectability of electromagnetic signatures from Galactic isolated black holes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Isolated black holes, normally quiet, should become detectable multiwavelength emitters when they cross dense molecular cloud cores.

desk verdict A careful, honest modeling paper with concrete multiwavelength predictions for isolated black holes, but the radio/mm/gamma detectability claims rest entirely on an assumed persistent outflow that is plausible, not yet verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23427 v2 pith:4V6EGGKB submitted 2025-06-29 astro-ph.HE

Javier Rodrigo Martinez , Valenti Bosch-Ramon , Florencia Laura Vieyro , Santiago del Palacio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords isolatedblackholesaccretionoutflowsmolecularcloudsmultiwavelengthemissiongammarayscosmicprimordial
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 isolated stellar-mass black holes, which are expected to be numerous in the Galaxy but have never been detected electromagnetically, should become observable when they cross a very dense medium such as the core of a molecular cloud. In that setting the accretion flow is hot and radiatively inefficient, producing thermal emission that can reach the mid-infrared and hard X-rays, while the interaction of a launched outflow with the surrounding gas creates a shocked structure emitting in radio and millimetre bands. Relativistic particles that escape into the cloud can additionally produce gamma rays. If the model is right, the only confirmed isolated black hole, the microlensing event MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, may be detectable in radio and infrared, and the search for such objects should concentrate on dense cloud cores. The same framework yields a small but non-negligible contribution of isolated black holes to very high energy Galactic cosmic rays and a constraint on primordial black holes as dark matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is a semi-analytical three-zone radiation model: an advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF), a shocked outflow–medium interaction tube, and particles diffusing through a molecular cloud. The ADAF is fed by Bondi–Hoyle accretion and radiates through synchrotron, bremsstrahlung, and Compton upscattering. The outflow is treated as a collimated, moderately relativistic flow that is deflected by ambient ram pressure; a multi-zone tube then follows the shocked gas through successive cells, computing pressure, density, velocity, and magnetic field, and from them the thermal free–free, synchrotron, and hadronic emission. The power that drives the whole emission budget is tied to accretion through the scaling $L_{\rm out}=c_{\rm eff}\,\dot{M}_{\rm IBH}c^{2}$, with $c_{\rm eff}<1$, which is what connects the detectability predictions to the assumed accretion rate.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a targeted radio and millimetre search at the position of a microlensing-selected isolated black hole candidate that is inferred to lie inside a dense molecular cloud core. For the paper's reference parameters, the model predicts a compact, resolved structure with peak surface brightness of roughly 300 microjansky per beam at 15 GHz and 85 microjansky per beam at 100 GHz; a non-detection at several times those levels, once the dense core is confirmed independently, would rule out the outflow–medium emission component. Similarly, the predicted mid-infrared and hard X-ray accretion component could be tested by stacking observations of a sample of such candidates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an isolated stellar-mass black hole moving supersonically through a dense molecular cloud core becomes a multiwavelength source: accretion onto the hole forms an advection-dominated flow whose thermal synchrotron and Comptonised emission is visible in the mid-infrared and hard X-rays; a relativistic outflow colliding with the ambient gas produces a shocked interaction structure emitting thermal free-free and non-thermal synchrotron radiation in radio and millimetre bands; and protons and electrons that escape into the cloud and diffuse through it produce gamma rays via proton-proton collisions and bremsstrahlung. Applying the model to the microlensing object MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, the paper infers that radio and infrared detection is plausible if that object sits in a dense medium. It further derives that Galactic IBHs could supply about 0.1% of cosmic rays above 50 GeV and about 1% above 1 PeV, and that primordial black holes with efficient electron acceleration in outflow shocks would be ruled out as a major dark matter component.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an isolated black hole accreting at about one thousandth of the Eddington rate launches persistent, moderately relativistic outflows with total power near $10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and speed near $0.5c$, a behaviour borrowed from X-ray binaries; if isolated black holes launch much weaker outflows or none, the predicted radio, millimetre, and gamma-ray emission largely disappears, leaving only the accretion component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An isolated black hole crossing a molecular cloud core becomes a multiwavelength source, with the accretion flow bright enough for current mid-infrared and hard X-ray instruments out to several kiloparsecs.
  • The outflow–medium interaction structure is resolved and detectable with radio interferometers and ALMA at distances up to a few kiloparsecs, and fainter analogues become reachable with next-generation radio facilities.
  • Relativistic protons escaping into the cloud produce gamma rays through proton–proton collisions; a detection near 2 kpc would imply the local isolated black hole density is at the higher end of current estimates.
  • Galactic isolated black holes could contribute roughly 0.1% of cosmic rays above 50 GeV and about 1% above 1 PeV, making them a small but relevant high-energy source population.
  • For MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, the model predicts that radio and infrared detection is plausible provided the black hole lies in a dense medium, while remaining consistent with existing X-ray and radio upper limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension of the model is that blind radio and millimetre surveys of molecular cloud cores in the Galactic plane could uncover isolated black holes without relying on microlensing alerts, since the predicted surface brightness exceeds the cloud background at high angular resolution.
  • If future observations systematically fail to find the predicted sources in cores within a few kiloparsecs, the most likely resolution is a lower outflow power or a lower isolated black hole number density rather than a failure of the accretion model.
  • The same outflow–medium machinery, applied to black holes at high redshift, would predict that efficient electron acceleration produces ionising radiation that constrains primordial black hole dark matter; this paper's PBH argument gives a concrete quantitative route to that constraint.
  • The predicted spectrum closely resembles a low-hard state microquasar but without periodic variability, offering a practical way to distinguish an isolated black hole from a binary system in follow-up observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a semi-analytical model for the electromagnetic emission of an isolated stellar-mass black hole (IBH) accreting from the interstellar medium, with focus on an IBH crossing a molecular cloud core. It couples a Bondi-Hoyle accretion prescription with an assumed two-sided outflow, a multi-zone description of the shocked outflow/medium interaction tube, and one-zone models for particles diffusing into the cloud core and outer cloud. From these ingredients it computes thermal and non-thermal spectra from the ADAF, the interaction structure, and the diffuse region, and compares them with instrument sensitivities. The model is then applied to MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, used to estimate a possible IBH contribution to Galactic cosmic rays, and extended to primordial black holes. The headline claims are that an IBH in a dense core can be detected in the mid-IR and hard X-rays from accretion, in radio and millimetre bands from the interaction structure, and possibly in gamma rays from pp interactions of diffusing protons, with borderline radio/IR detectability for the microlensing IBH.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the paper provides a concrete, falsifiable multiwavelength search strategy for IBHs and identifies molecular cloud cores as the most promising targets. Its strengths are the transparent semi-analytical framework, a single table of parameters, explicit instrument-sensitivity comparisons, and the use of the MOA/OGLE upper limits as consistency checks rather than fits. The paper also honestly flags several phenomenological choices. The significance is necessarily conditional because the radio/mm/gamma-ray predictions are powered by an assumed persistent outflow whose existence for IBHs is not yet established; the more robust ADAF component alone would still produce the IR/X-ray detectability claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1, Table 1, Eqs. (41)–(46)] The radio, millimetre, and gamma-ray detectability claims (Sect. 4.2–4.3, Fig. 2) are powered entirely by the assumed persistent outflow with Lout ≈ 10^36 erg s^-1 and vout ≈ 0.5c. The abstract states that outflow formation is assumed, and the derivation of Lout from Eq. (4) of Heinz & Grimm (2005) is not shown. Equations (42), (45), and (46) show that Lff ∝ Lout, Lsyn ∝ Lout^1.5, and Lpp ∝ Lout, so if isolated black holes do not launch such outflows the multiwavelength claim reduces to the ADAF component. Please either provide a physical justification for applying X-ray binary jet scaling to IBHs, or explicitly re-scope the conclusions as conditional on outflow formation and propose an observational discriminant (for example, the ratio of radio/mm structure flux to ADAF flux) that would distinguish the two cases.
  2. [§3.3.2–3.3.4] The post-shock advection velocity v1 = 0.1c (Eqs. 9–10) and the assumed tube disruption at ~15 zout (Sect. 3.3.3) are free parameters that set the density, residence time, and non-thermal particle content of the shocked outflow. The paper states that results are not severely affected by v1 variations and compares with the non-mixing Rankine-Hugoniot case, but the quantitative fluxes in Figs. 2 and 5 still depend on these choices. A compact parameter scan (e.g., v1 = 0.03c–0.3c and disruption distances 5–30 zout) would show whether the claimed VLA/ALMA detection levels survive over the plausible range.
  3. [§3.3.4, §3.4, §4.3, §4.5] The hadronic gamma-ray signal and the diffuse core emission rely on a dense-wall target density n = 5×10^5 cm^-3 (Eq. 29) and on Bohm diffusion in the core, which the paper explicitly labels as upper limits or optimistic. The 'borderline detectability with CTA' statement and the ~1% cosmic-ray contribution at 1 PeV additionally assume that 10% of Lout goes into relativistic protons. Because these are upper-limit estimates, the text should state the scaling of Lpp and of the CR injection with the wall density, diffusion coefficient, and proton fraction, so the reader can judge how much the detection claim weakens under less optimistic assumptions.
  4. [§4.6, Fig. 6] The MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 radio and infrared detectability prediction assumes a dense environment with n_med = 10^2 cm^-3, and the paper notes that this is uncertain (Kimura et al. 2025). Even under that assumption the predicted signals are only borderline. The abstract's statement that radio and infrared detection is 'plausible' should be softened or accompanied by a quantitative estimate of how likely a dense environment is along the line of sight.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3.4] The target density is written as n = 5×ncore = 5×10^5 cm^3; the units should be cm^-3.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] There is a typo: 'on-sourve time' should read 'on-source time'.
  3. [§4.5] The sentence 'The majority of these of these objects' contains a duplicated phrase, and the density unit 'cm^-2' in the same paragraph should be 'cm^-3'.
  4. [§1] The remark that multiple black hole systems 'may not differ too strongly' from the IBH scenario is vague; please add a reference or a one-sentence justification, or remove it.
  5. [§3.3.1] The parameter ε = Mdot_out/Mdot_IBH is used in Eq. (5) but defined only afterwards; define it before the equation.
  6. [Fig. 6] The spectrum is labeled unabsorbed, but the text discusses core absorption; a sentence indicating which predicted bands in Fig. 6 are affected by absorption would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed detectability is a conditional forward-model prediction, not a fit or a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper is a forward-modeling study. Its key quantities (Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate, ADAF spectrum via Gutiérrez et al. 2021, outflow power via Heinz & Grimm 2005, injection efficiencies eta_NT and eta_B) are fixed inputs before the emission calculation; none of the claimed predictions (radio/mm from the shocked outflow, gamma rays from diffusing protons, IR/X-ray from the ADAF) is obtained by inverting or fitting the same data it purports to predict. The MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 upper limits are used only as posterior consistency checks and are not fed back into the model. The scaling relations in Sect. 4.4 express how the output luminosities depend on the input Mdot and Lout; they are model consequences, not a reconstruction of inputs from outputs. The outflow assumption is explicitly flagged in the abstract ('assumed the formation of an outflow') and in Sect. 3.3.1, and the 1% cosmic-ray estimate is explicitly conditional on assumed efficiencies and source counts. Self-citations (Bosch-Ramon 2022 for lambda_acc; del Palacio et al. 2018 and Martinez et al. 2022 for the multi-zone technique) supply parameter values or numerical methods with external anchors; they do not smuggle the target conclusion in. The acknowledged uncertainties (Sect. 4.4: Mdot 'somewhat unconstrained'; Sect. 3.4: Bohm diffusion 'optimistic') are limitations on robustness, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 11 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unusually large number of hand-set parameters (12 listed, several inherited from the authors' own prior work) and on the assumed existence of powerful outflows from low-accretion IBHs. The paper is transparent about these choices, but the resulting detectability predictions are scenario-level rather than robust population-level statements.

free parameters (12)
  • lambda_acc = 0.1
    Reduction factor on Bondi-Hoyle accretion from mechanical feedback; chosen from Bosch-Ramon (2022); every luminosity scales with it.
  • v1 (post-shock advection velocity) = 0.1 c
    Free parameter fixing post-shock density via energy conservation; affects escape timescales and non-thermal emission.
  • eta_B = 0.1
    Ratio of magnetic to thermal pressure at the deflection point; sets B1 and hence synchrotron and maximum particle energies.
  • eta_NT = 0.1
    Fraction of shock power into non-thermal particles; scales all non-thermal luminosities linearly.
  • v_out = 0.5 c
    Unshocked outflow speed adopted from persistent jets in X-ray binaries; sets outflow momentum and deflection locations.
  • theta = 60 degrees
    Outflow inclination; mean of a random orientation distribution; affects ram-pressure balance and structure morphology.
  • chi = 0.2 rad
    Outflow half-opening angle; smaller values weakly change results, larger values reduce accretion via mechanical feedback.
  • proton-to-electron power split = 0.9 / 0.1
    Fraction of non-thermal luminosity to protons versus electrons; controls gamma-ray versus synchrotron and IC emission.
  • target density for pp and bremsstrahlung = 5e5 cm^-3
    Phenomenological dense-wall density; the authors explicitly label these predictions as upper limits.
  • tube disruption distance = 15 zout ~ 0.05 pc
    Assumed length before the shocked outflow mixes with the cloud; affects the injected luminosity and structure emission.
  • magnetic field in cloud core / outer cloud = 100 uG / 10 uG
    Assumed fields for synchrotron emission and Bohm diffusion timescales in the molecular cloud.
  • reference distance = 2 kpc
    Fiducial distance for sensitivity comparisons; all fluxes scale as d^-2.
assumptions (11)
  • standard math Bondi-Hoyle cylindrical accretion rate and accretion radius formulas (Eqs. 1-2).
    Standard accretion theory used to compute Mdot_IBH, but its application to supersonic IBH motion assumes a steady, uniform flow.
  • domain assumption The accretion flow develops a two-temperature ADAF with the spectrum from Gutierrez et al. (2021).
    The ADAF model is taken as valid at Mdot ~ 1e-3 Mdot_Edd; the numerical code is not public, so the spectra cannot be independently reproduced.
  • domain assumption Low-accretion black holes launch persistent outflows with Lout ~ 1e36 erg/s and vout ~ 0.5c.
    Based on X-ray binary scaling (Heinz & Grimm 2005; Saikia et al. 2019); if outflows are absent or much weaker, the interaction-structure claims collapse.
  • domain assumption Mechanical feedback reduces the accretion rate by a factor lambda_acc = 0.1 (Bosch-Ramon 2022).
    Self-cited prior modeling; the value is plausible but not measured, and all luminosities scale with it.
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration injects an E^-2 power law with exponential cutoff and a 90/10 proton/electron split.
    Standard DSA assumption; the proton/electron split is a free choice that affects gamma-ray versus synchrotron predictions.
  • domain assumption Particles diffuse under Bohm diffusion in the cloud core and outer cloud.
    Explicitly called optimistic by the authors; slower diffusion lengthens residence times and boosts gamma-ray emission.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy is conserved across the shock during mass loading, with velocity v1 treated as a free parameter (Eqs. 9-10).
    The post-shock density and all downstream structure depend on this phenomenological assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The outflow tube disrupts at ~15 zout (0.05 pc) and injects particles into the cloud.
    Disruption distance is assumed based on instability arguments; earlier disruption would reduce the injected luminosity.
  • ad hoc to paper Protons and electrons interact with dense walls of density n = 5e5 cm^-3 for pp and bremsstrahlung losses.
    The authors label these predictions as upper limits because only a fraction of particles may interact with the dense walls.
  • standard math The Saha equation describes hydrogen ionization in the shocked medium.
    Used for H-alpha and H-beta emission calculations; standard plasma physics.
  • domain assumption CMB constraints on PBH ionizing luminosity from Piga et al. (2022) apply to the modeled PBH emission.
    External constraint used to convert the modeled ionizing luminosity into a dark-matter fraction bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the detectability of electromagnetic signatures from Galactic isolated black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4V6EGGKB

@misc{pith2026250623427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the detectability of electromagnetic signatures from Galactic isolated black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4V6EGGKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23427}
}
read the original abstract

Context: A large number of isolated black holes (IBHs) are expected to populate the Galaxy. However, only one has been confirmed by the analysis of a microlensing event, and no confirmed emission detection from an IBH has been reported so far. Aims: We analysed the detectability of electromagnetic signatures from IBHs moving in the Galaxy. Methods: We considered accretion from the interstellar medium onto an IBH and assumed the formation of an outflow. We modelled the accretion process and the interaction of the outflow with the surrounding medium on large scales, including mechanical feedback on the accretion process. Furthermore, we also calculated the emission from three different regions: the accretion region, the radiation from the outflow medium interaction structure, and the emission of relativistic particles that diffuse in the surrounding medium. Results: Multiwavelength emission associated with Galactic IBHs can be detected in systems moving through a very dense medium. Thermal emission from accretion could be observed in the mid infrared and in hard X rays with current and forthcoming observatories. Thermal and non thermal emission from the outflow medium shock could also be detected in the radio and millimetre ranges. Moreover, detection of the emission from particles diffusing in a dense medium could be feasible in gamma rays. Applying our model to the IBH associated with the gravitational microlensing event MOA2011BLG191 OGLE2011BLG0462, we inferred that radio and infrared detection of the IBH is plausible. Also, we derived that IBHs could be modest Galactic cosmic ray contributors, potentially reaching a 1% contribution at 1 PeV. Finally, by extending our model to primordial black holes, we conclude that efficient leptonic acceleration in their outflow medium interactions would rule them out as a major dark matter component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch (not to scale) of the modelled system. The IBH ac￾cretes and an ADAF forms. An outflow is launched forming an angle θ with the IBH direction of motion. The forward outflow is deflected by the medium pressure at zforward, while the rear outflow is deflected at zrear. Particles are accelerated via diffusion mechanisms at the deflection points. The shocked material convects away until being disrupted, and energe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectrum of an IBH inside a molecular cloud core for the parameters listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Characteristic timescales for protons (top panel) and electrons (bottom panel) at the deflection point of the forward outflow. Elec￾trons reach maximum energies of Emax,e ∼ 60 TeV, while protons reach Emax,p ∼ 100 TeV. Protons escape from the structure without radiating significantly. Along the tube, the most energetic electrons suffer signif￾icant synchrotron cooling. structure could be resolved with VLA and with A… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated emission maps at 15 GHz (left) and at 100 GHz (right panel) with beam sizes of 0.13”×0.13” and 0.042”×0.042”, respectively. The forward interaction structure is a bright arc. The black dot shows the position of the IBH, and the green left-arrow shows its dire…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MOA-2011-BLG-191/OGLE-2011-BLG-0462 unabsorbed pre￾dicted spectrum. The interaction structure, accretion, and total emis￾sion are shown in light blue, light red and dark red, respectively. The 3–σ upper limits from the TGSS, RACS and VLASS catalogues are shown with gre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. A Space Mission to Earth's Nearest Black Hole: Reality or Science Fiction?

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An interstellar nanocraft mission to a nearby black hole is technologically speculative but potentially feasible within decades and could deliver precision strong-field tests of General Relativity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Romero, G

    Abaroa, L. & Romero, G. E. 2024, A&A, 691, A73

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    & Kamionkowski, M

    Agol, E. & Kamionkowski, M. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 553

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    & Petruk, O

    Bandiera, R. & Petruk, O. 2004, A&A, 419, 419

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Barkov, M. V . & Bosch-Ramon, V . 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3479

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Barkov, M. V . & Khangulyan, D. V . 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1351

    2012

  6. [6]

    V ., Khangulyan, D

    Barkov, M. V ., Khangulyan, D. V ., & Popov, S. B. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 589

    2012

  7. [7]

    Benaglia, P., del Palacio, S., Hales, C., & Colazo, M. E. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2514

    2021

  8. [8]

    B., et al

    Bird, S., Cholis, I., Muñoz, J. B., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 201301

    work page 2016

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Blandford, R. D. & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

    1999

  2. [10]

    M., Wright, E

    Blondin, J. M., Wright, E. B., Borkowski, K. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 1998, ApJ, 500, 342

    1998

  3. [11]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    1952

  4. [12]

    & Hoyle, F

    Bondi, H. & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273

    1944

  5. [13]

    2022, A&A, 660, A5

    Bosch-Ramon, V . 2022, A&A, 660, A5

    2022

  6. [14]

    & Barkov, M

    Bosch-Ramon, V . & Barkov, M. V . 2016, A&A, 590, A119

    2016

  7. [15]

    & Bellomo, N

    Bosch-Ramon, V . & Bellomo, N. 2020, A&A, 638, A132

    2020

  8. [16]

    2016, Phys

    Carr, B., Kühnel, F., & Sandstad, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 083504

    2016

  9. [17]

    Carr, B. J. & Hawking, S. W. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 399

    1974

  10. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 136 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya, B

    Chen, K., Ren, J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2023, ApJ, 948, 136 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya, B. S., Agudo, I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array

    2023

  11. [19]

    F., McKee, C

    Cioffi, D. F., McKee, C. F., & Bertschinger, E. 1988, ApJ, 334, 252

    1988

  12. [20]

    & García-Bellido, J

    Clesse, S. & García-Bellido, J. 2017, Physics of the Dark Universe, 15, 142

    2017

  13. [21]

    Crutcher, R. M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 706 del Palacio, S., Bosch-Ramon, V ., Müller, A. L., & Romero, G. E. 2018, A&A, 617, A13

    1999

  14. [22]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973

    1983

  15. [23]

    W., Thomson, A

    Duchesne, S. W., Thomson, A. J. M., Pritchard, J., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e034

    2023

  16. [24]

    A., Narayan, R., Cui, W., Grove, J

    Esin, A. A., Narayan, R., Cui, W., Grove, J. E., & Zhang, S.-N. 1998, ApJ, 505, 854

    1998

  17. [25]

    P., Maccarone, T

    Fender, R. P., Maccarone, T. J., & Heywood, I. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1538

    2013

  18. [26]

    2002, in SF2A-2002: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed

    Ferrando, P. 2002, in SF2A-2002: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed. F. Combes & D. Barret, 271 Ferrière, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031

    2002

  19. [27]

    Fujita, Y ., Inoue, S., Nakamura, T., Manmoto, T., & Nakamura, K. E. 1998, ApJ, 495, L85 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    1998

  20. [28]

    A., Black, J

    Grenier, I. A., Black, J. H., & Strong, A. W. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 199 Gutiérrez, E. M., Vieyro, F. L., & Romero, G. E. 2021, A&A, 649, A87

    2015

  21. [29]

    V ., Alexashov, D

    Gvaramadze, V . V ., Alexashov, D. B., Katushkina, O. A., & Kniazev, A. Y . 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4421

    2018

  22. [30]

    & Grimm, H

    Heinz, S. & Grimm, H. J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 384 Hörandel, J. R. 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 19, 193

    2005

  23. [31]

    Hummer, D. G. & Storey, P. J. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 801

    1987

  24. [32]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A78

    2017

  25. [33]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V . V . 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 034018

    2006

  26. [34]

    S., Kashiyama, K., & Hotokezaka, K

    Kimura, S. S., Kashiyama, K., & Hotokezaka, K. 2021, ApJ, 922, L15

    2021

  27. [35]

    S., Murchikova, L., & Sahu, K

    Kimura, S. S., Murchikova, L., & Sahu, K. C. 2025, ApJ, 986, 135

    2025

  28. [36]

    Kin, K., Kuze, R., & Kimura, S. S. 2025, ApJ, 985, 251

    2025

  29. [37]

    E., Christensen, F

    Koglin, J. E., Christensen, F. E., Craig, W. W., et al. 2005, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5900, Op- tics for EUV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy II, ed. O. Citterio & S. L. O’Dell, 266–275 Körding, E. G., Fender, R. P...

    2005

  30. [38]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

    2020

  31. [39]

    J., Alves, J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., Alves, J., & Lada, E. A. 1999, in The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium, ed. V . Ossenkopf, J. Stutzki, & G. Winnewisser, 161

    1999

  32. [40]

    Lam, C. Y . & Lu, J. R. 2023, ApJ, 955, 116

    2023

  33. [41]

    Y ., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y ., Lu, J. R., Udalski, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, L23

    2022

  34. [42]

    D., & Armitage, P

    Li, X., Chang, P., Levin, Y ., Matzner, C. D., & Armitage, P. J. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2327

    2020

  35. [43]

    Mackey, J., Langer, N., & Gvaramadze, V . V . 2013, MNRAS, 436, 859

    2013

  36. [44]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    2011

  37. [45]

    R., del Palacio, S., & Bosch-Ramon, V

    Martinez, J. R., del Palacio, S., & Bosch-Ramon, V . 2023, A&A, 680, A99

    2023

  38. [46]

    R., del Palacio, S., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Romero, G

    Martinez, J. R., del Palacio, S., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Romero, G. E. 2022, A&A, 661, A102

    2022

  39. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 1251

    Matsumoto, T., Teraki, Y ., & Ioka, K. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1251

    2018

  40. [48]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol

    McKinnon, M., Beasley, A., Murphy, E., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 81

    2019

  41. [49]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 62

    Mereghetti, S., Sidoli, L., Ponti, G., & Treves, A. 2022, ApJ, 934, 62

    2022

  42. [50]

    & Bosch-Ramon, V

    Molina, E. & Bosch-Ramon, V . 2018, A&A, 618, A146

    2018

  43. [51]

    2019, A&A, 629, A129

    Molina, E., del Palacio, S., & Bosch-Ramon, V . 2019, A&A, 629, A129

    2019

  44. [52]

    & McCammon, D

    Morrison, R. & McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, 270, 119

    1983

  45. [53]

    V ., Zhekov, S

    Myasnikov, A. V ., Zhekov, S. A., & Belov, N. A. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 1021

    1998

  46. [54]

    & Watson, A

    Nagano, M. & Watson, A. A. 2000, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72, 689

    2000

  47. [55]

    1995, Nature, 374, 623

    Narayan, R., Yi, I., & Mahadevan, R. 1995, Nature, 374, 623

    1995

  48. [56]

    V ., Galli, D., & Caselli, P

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V ., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2018, A&A, 614, A111

    2018

  49. [57]

    & Ricotti, M

    Park, K. & Ricotti, M. 2013, ApJ, 767, 163

    2013

  50. [58]

    Piga, L., Lucca, M., Bellomo, N., et al. 2022, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2022, 016 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A45

    2022

  51. [59]

    J., Ormes, J

    Ryan, M. J., Ormes, J. F., & Balasubrahmanyan, V . K. 1972, Phys. Rev. Lett., 28, 985

    1972

  52. [60]

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

    1979

  53. [61]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 104

    2025

  54. [62]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 83

    2022

  55. [63]

    M., Bramich, D

    Saikia, P., Russell, D. M., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 21

    2019

  56. [64]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  57. [65]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4036

    Scarcella, F., Gaggero, D., Connors, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4036

    2021

  58. [66]

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

    1973

  59. [67]

    J., Davidson, D

    Sokolowski, M., Tingay, S. J., Davidson, D. B., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e015

    2022

  60. [68]

    Stahler, S. W. & Palla, F. 2004, The Formation of Stars

    2004

  61. [69]

    R., Blondin, J

    Stevens, I. R., Blondin, J. M., & Pollock, A. M. T. 1992, ApJ, 386, 265

    1992

  62. [70]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol

    Tomsick, J., Zoglauer, A., Sleator, C., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 98

    2019

  63. [71]

    & Kawanaka, N

    Tsuna, D. & Kawanaka, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2099

    2019

  64. [72]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 791

    Tsuna, D., Kawanaka, N., & Totani, T. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 791

    2018

  65. [73]

    V ., Fedorova, A

    Tutukov, A. V ., Fedorova, A. V ., & Cherepashchuk, A. M. 2011, Astronomy Reports, 55, 247 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1992, Endpoints of stellar evolution: the incidence of stellar mass black holes in the Galaxy., In ESA, Environment Observation and Climate Modelling Through Int...

    2011

  66. [74]

    Whittet, D. C. B., Bode, M. F., Longmore, A. J., et al. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 321

    1988

  67. [75]

    & Narayan, R

    Yuan, F. & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529 Zel’dovich, Y . B. & Novikov, I. D. 1967, Soviet Ast., 10, 602

    2014

  68. [76]

    & Fryer, C

    Zhang, W. & Fryer, C. L. 2001, ApJ, 550, 357 Article number, page 14 of 15 J. R. Martinez et al.: Probing the detectability of electromagnetic signatures from Galactic isolated black holes 10□6 10□3 100 103 106 ϵ [eV] 1020 1025 1030 1035 1040 ϵL(ϵ) [erg s □1] Chandra JWST NEOW...

    1973

Pith tools

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