Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Two radio flares from the nucleus of NGC 4845, separated by about 1513 days, are best explained as a star that returns to its black hole each orbit and is only partially torn apart, making IGR J12580+0134 a candidate repeating partial tidal

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:49 UTC pith:5THMIUIK

load-bearing objection New VLA/VLASS epochs make IGR J12580+0134 a plausible repeating-pTDE candidate, but the paper's central 'more natural' claim is asserted rather than tested, and a 0.3c/0.03c inconsistency in the text blurs the energetics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22040 v3 pith:5THMIUIK submitted 2026-02-25 astro-ph.HE

IGR J12580+0134: A Possible Repeated Partial Tidal Disruption Event Inferred from Late-Time Radio Re-brightenin

Po Ma , Shao-Yu Fu , Linhui Wu , Wei-Hua Lei , Qiang Yuan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords partial tidal disruption eventrepeating TDEIGR J12580+0134NGC 4845radio rebrighteningsynchrotron afterglowsupermassive black holemulti-wavelength monitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper reinterprets the late-time radio re-brightening of the nuclear transient IGR J12580+0134 in NGC 4845. It argues that the two radio flares, with L-band peaks separated by about 1513 days, are more naturally explained as a repeating partial tidal disruption event (pTDE) than as the earlier proposal that the initial outflow ran into dense circumnuclear gas. In a pTDE, the same star survives each close passage and loses only a fraction of its mass, so each orbit can produce a new flare. The authors model the second flare as a non-relativistic outflow at about 0.03c with roughly 10^50 erg of kinetic energy, implying only about 0.06 solar masses were stripped, and show the inferred orbit is consistent with capture by the black hole through the tidal breakup of a stellar binary. If correct, this would make IGR J12580+0134 one of the few known repeating TDE systems and a direct probe of stellar orbits around a supermassive black hole.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the 2011 X-ray/radio tidal disruption event in NGC 4845 did not end with the first flare. Archival and newly analyzed radio data show a second, well-defined L-band flare peaking in May 2016, about 1513 days after the first, and a possible third late-time rebrightening. Modeling the second flare with a synchrotron afterglow framework yields a sub-relativistic outflow (velocity about 0.03c) with an isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy of roughly 3 x 10^50 erg expanding into a constant-density medium, requiring only about 0.06 solar masses of ejected material. Because the recurrence timescale and energy budget match what a surviving, partially stri

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are: (1) the assumption that the observed 1513-day separation between the two L-band radio peaks equals the orbital period of the returning star — the paper writes this as ΔT_obs = T_orb - T_peak,1 + T_peak,2 and then assumes the two fallback-to-radio delays are equal — and (2) the synchrotron afterglow model for the second flare, which converts radio light curves into outflow velocity, kinetic energy, and ambient density. The orbital consequences come from requiring the pericenter of a very eccentric orbit (e ≈ 0.997) to reach the tidal radius, and from the scenario in which the star was captured by the black hole when a stellar binary was tidally separated. Togethe

Load-bearing premise

The paper's period of 1513 days is read directly off the spacing of the two radio peaks, which equates the radio-peak delays of the two flares; the authors themselves note those delays should differ because the star is spun up and loses mass, so if the second flare's radio peak lagged the first by a different interval, the period—and everything derived from it—shifts.

What would settle it

Continue monitoring the source in the L band: if the pTDE picture is right, a third flare should appear roughly 1513 days after the 2016 peak (i.e., around 2020, with subsequent episodes following the same cadence) with comparable luminosity and spectral evolution. If instead the source decays monotonically after the 2016 flare with no such recurrence, the outflow-interaction explanation is favored.

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

If this is right

  • If IGR J12580+0134 is a repeating pTDE, the same black hole should produce further radio flares roughly every 1513 days as the surviving star returns, making future reactivation episodes predictable in time.
  • The 2016 radio flare without a bright X-ray counterpart would be understood as a natural consequence of low-mass fallback during partial stripping, rather than as evidence against renewed accretion.
  • Repeating pTDEs turn radio light curves into a direct probe of the orbit and mass-loss history of a star around a supermassive black hole, complementary to single-flare TDE studies.
  • The inferred ~0.06 solar masses stripped during the second encounter implies that radio observations can reveal episodic mass loss even when X-ray emission is faint or obscured, widening the search for pTDEs.
  • The recurrence timescale places IGR J12580+0134 alongside other known repeating pTDE candidates, whose periods range from about 115 days to roughly 6000 days.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the two radio peaks must each lag their fallback peak by a delay that the paper itself notes should differ (the star spins up and loses mass), the true orbital period may deviate from 1513 days; the value is best treated as an estimate, not a measured period.
  • The same 'two radio bumps separated by years' pattern, when found in other late-time radio re-brightening TDEs, could serve as a relatively cheap screen for new repeating pTDE candidates before deeper X-ray follow-up.
  • If successive passages strip progressively less mass, a natural prediction is that each subsequent radio flare should be fainter or less energetic than the last; the current data hint at this pattern but do not establish it.
  • A key alternative — that the 2016 flare is a delayed forward-shock brightening from the 2011 event — is most sharply distinguished from the pTDE scenario by the shape of the late-time decline and by the presence or absence of further flares, so continued monitoring after each flare will discriminate better than peak timing alone.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes multi-epoch VLA/VLASS and X-ray data for the nuclear transient IGR J12580+0134 in NGC 4845. It identifies an L-band radio peak in 2012 (associated with the 2011 TDE) and a rebrightening peak in 2016, separated by about 1513 days, plus a possible later rebrightening. The 2016 flare is modeled with a synchrotron afterglow framework (PyFRS) using MCMC, fixing the ambient-density slope k=0 and outflow velocity v=0.03c, yielding E_iso ~ 3e50 erg and an inferred outflow mass ~0.19 M_sun. From these energetics the paper estimates a second-encounter disrupted mass M_2 ~ 0.06 M_sun and argues that the recurrence timescale and radio energetics make IGR J12580+0134 a candidate repeating partial tidal disruption event (pTDE), more natural than the earlier outflow–CNM interaction interpretation. The paper also discusses the lack of X-ray/optical counterparts and possible explanations.

Significance. If established, this would add IGR J12580+0134 to the small but growing sample of repeating pTDE candidates, with a recurrence period of about 4.1 yr and a radio-dominated late-time flare, providing a useful target for long-term monitoring and a test of partial-disruption recurrence models. The paper's strengths include the compilation of a long-baseline multi-frequency radio dataset, the addition of new VLA/VLASS epochs, the use of a public afterglow modeling code with MCMC sampling, and an independent spectral-index consistency check. However, because the outflow velocity is fixed rather than constrained, the recurrence period is inferred under an unvalidated peak-delay assumption, and the competing CNM-interaction scenario is not quantitatively fitted to the same data, the central 'more natural' pTDE claim is not yet supported at the level the paper claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs §3.2/§4.1] The header abstract states v~0.3c, while the full-text abstract, §4.1, and §3.2 fix v=0.03c in the MCMC analysis. This is not a cosmetic discrepancy: M_out and M_2 in Eq. (9) scale as v^-2, and the 'characteristic velocity' is an input rather than an output of the fit. All radio-energetics and partial-disruption-mass arguments therefore depend on this fixed, disputed value. Please correct the inconsistency and, ideally, marginalize over v or justify the fixed value directly from the data.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The 1513-day peak separation is used as the orbital period after acknowledging that Delta T_obs = T_orb - T_peak,1 + T_peak,2 and that the two peak delays generally differ. The subsequent semimajor-axis, eccentricity (e~0.9974), and Hills-mechanism consistency checks all inherit this equality. Since the 2012 radio peak is tied to the original TDE outflow and the 2016 peak is modeled with a different, non-relativistic outflow, there is no justification for assuming T_peak,1 = T_peak,2. Please provide an uncertainty range or a physical argument; otherwise the inferred period and all orbital parameters carry an unquantified systematic error.
  3. [§§4.1, 5] The paper's central comparative claim—that a repeating pTDE is 'more natural' than the Perlman et al. (2022) outflow–CNM interaction interpretation—is not tested. The second flare is fitted only with the PyFRS afterglow model; the competing model is neither fitted to the same VLA light curves nor shown to be unable to produce a rebrightening peaking ~1513 days after the first event. A concrete delayed-shock or density-encounter model would be needed to support 'more natural'. Without this, the comparison is an assertion rather than a result.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] The numerical mass estimates are internally inconsistent with the stated inputs. Setting E_true ~ 0.5 M_out v^2 ~ E_iso with v=0.03c and E_iso=2.99e50 erg gives M_out ~0.37 M_sun (or ~0.12 M_sun for E_iso=1e50), not 0.186 M_sun as printed; the coefficient 0.062 in Eq. (9) differs from 2E_iso/v^2 by a factor of about two. Moreover, f_M and xi are free efficiencies, so M_2 can vary by orders of magnitude. Please clarify the beaming/energy-conversion convention and propagate uncertainties, or present the mass argument only as a rough scaling.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains raw placeholder text (e.g., '/uni00000014/...') and is unreadable. The figure/caption needs to be regenerated.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 heading is typeset as 'T able 1'; also check the alignment of the table columns.
  3. [Abstract/body consistency] The abstract mentions a possible third late-time rebrightening flare, but the body does not identify or analyze this third flare explicitly. Please add a pointer to the relevant figure/table or remove the claim.
  4. [Language and references] Minor language issues: §2.1 has 'theVery Large Array Sky Survey' (missing space) and §4.2 has 'we can compute a upper limit' (should be 'an upper limit'). Some references contain malformed volume/page data (e.g., Wang et al. 2025, Science Advances, '11, 25.9068'); please check all entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 1513-day recurrence is read from the light curve, and the fixed-velocity afterglow assumptions are stated as assumptions rather than disguised predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central inference chain is not circular. The ~1513 day recurrence is read directly from the L-band light curve (Table 2) and is not defined by the pTDE model; Eq. (1) explicitly separates T_orb from the radio-peak delays and acknowledges that T_peak,1 and T_peak,2 will generally differ, so taking T_orb ≈ ΔT_obs is a stated assumption about equal delays, not a definitional identity. The Hills-mechanism consistency check uses standard published relations (Eqs. 3–8) and external M_BH–σ constraints rather than the paper's own conclusions. The afterglow/MCMC modeling of the second flare fixes v = 0.03c as an input, and the E_iso/M_2 estimates in Eq. (9) are explicitly conditional on that assumption; the paper does not present v as an independent prediction, so no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Lei et al. 2016, Yuan et al. 2016) are prior published models/data, not unverified uniqueness claims, and the central candidate claim does not reduce to them. The main weaknesses—an abstract/body velocity inconsistency (0.3c vs 0.03c) and the lack of a quantitative fit of the competing outflow–CNM model—are correctness and evidence limitations, which the paper itself partly acknowledges (sparse coverage, non-identical peak delays), not circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The argument rests on the standard afterglow model, the assumed equality of peak delays, hand-fixed v and t0, and the Hills mechanism. These are external inputs or assigned values; the paper contributes new data and an interpretation rather than a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (6)
  • Outflow velocity v = 0.03c (fixed)
    Fixed in §4.1 to reduce degeneracy; later reported as a model constraint and used to convert Eiso to mass in §3.2.
  • Ambient density profile index k = 0 (assumed constant-density ISM)
    Fixed in §4.1; no direct evidence for k=0 beyond simplicity.
  • Second-flare zero-point time t0 = MJD 57340
    Presumed onset of the second radio flare, chosen by hand in §4.1; shifts the modeled rise and therefore affects Eiso and n.
  • MCMC afterglow parameters (E_iso, n, p, epsilon_e, epsilon_B) = E_iso ≈ 2.99e50 erg; p ≈ 2.7 (see Fig. 3b)
    Fitted to sparse radio light curves; these values support the energetics used in §3.2.
  • Mass/energy conversion efficiencies f_M and xi = not constrained (appear in Eq. 9)
    Convert Eiso to disrupted mass M2; the quoted 0.062 M_sun estimate depends on implicit values of these efficiencies.
  • Penetration factor beta_* = 0.7
    Adopted in Eq. (8) for the eccentricity estimate; not measured for this source.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The standard synchrotron afterglow model (PyFRS) describes the radio emission from a non-relativistic outflow in a constant-density medium.
    Used throughout §4.1; alternative emission mechanisms or density profiles are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The radio light-curve peaks trace the fallback-rate peaks, and the delay between fallback peak and radio peak is the same for both flares.
    Required in Eq. (1) to equate the 1513-day peak separation with the orbital period; §3.1 notes the delays 'will generally not be identical' but then assumes they cancel.
  • domain assumption The Hills mechanism can capture a star into a ~1500-day orbit around the ~10^6 M_sun black hole in NGC 4845.
    Borrowed from binary-disruption theory in §3.1; no binary is observed in this galaxy and the required parameters are not directly constrained.
  • domain assumption The disk emission subtraction and the X-ray column density adopted from prior work (Irwin et al. 2015; Nikolajuk & Walter 2013; Danehkar 2025) are correct.
    The nucleus fluxes in Table 2 and the optical extinction argument in §4.2 depend on these adopted values.
  • domain assumption The 2023 NICER faint flares are related to the same accretion flow/central black hole.
    Adopted from Danehkar (2025) and used to support intermittent low-level accretion; no independent spectral/timing analysis is performed here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19455 in / 17628 out tokens · 165148 ms · 2026-08-02T20:49:29.608755+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Repeating partial tidal disruption events (pTDEs) provide a direct probe of stellar orbits and episodic mass loss around supermassive black holes, but robust identification requires multi-band and multi-epoch evidence. %consistent with a single physical origin. We investigate whether the late-time radio rebrightening of the nuclear transient IGR~J12580+0134 in NGC~4845 can be explained as a repeating pTDE, using multi-epoch Karl G.\ Jansky VLA observations together with X-ray constraints from \textit{Swift}/XRT and \textit{NICER}. Through a systematic analysis of the radio data, we identify two well-defined radio flares and a possible third late-time rebrightening flare. Modeling the second flare with a synchrotron afterglow framework using Markov Chain Monte Carlo fitting is consistent with a sub-relativistic outflow with a characteristic velocity of order ${v \simeq 0.3c}$, an isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy of order ${10^{50}}$ erg, and an approximately constant-density circumnuclear medium. No significant contemporaneous brightening is detected by \textit{Swift}/XRT during the 2016 radio flare, while faint \textit{NICER} flares in 2023 suggest intermittent low-level accretion. We also considered several possible interpretations for the late-time radio rebrightening, and found that the repeated pTDE scenario provides a more natural overall explanation for the observed phenomenology. Given the currently sparse data coverage, continued sensitive radio and X-ray monitoring will be essential to test this interpretation and to search for future reactivations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22040 by Linhui Wu, Po Ma, Qiang Yuan, Shao-Yu Fu, Wei-Hua Lei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SDSS image showing the location of NGC 4845 at RA = 12h 58m01s , Dec = +01°34′ 33′′. The im￾age was obtained from the SDSS SkyServer Navigate tool (https://skyserver.sdss.org/dr18/VisualTools/navi2). 2.2. X-ray Data IGR J12580+0134 was first identified as a luminous X￾ray flare in the nucleus of NGC 4845, consistent with a TDE. The event was traced by follow-up XMM-Newton observations in January 2011 and i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multi-wavelength light curves of IGR J12580+0134, combining X-ray and radio data. Radio fluxes are plotted for L-band (black hexagons), C-band (pink diamonds), S-band (green triangles), and X-band (purple thin diamonds). Red stars represent the 2011 X-ray flare in the 17.3-80 keV band (data from M. Niko lajuk & R. Walter 2013). The Swift/XRT observation (0.5–7 keV) is shown as magenta squares. A faint X-ra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Modeling results for the second radio flare of IGR J12580+0134. The left panel shows the best-fit radio light curves at 1.5, 3, and 6 GHz overlaid on the observational data from E. S. Perlman et al. (2022), where the flux densities at 3 and 6 GHz are scaled down by factors of 10 and 102 for clarity. The right panel presents the posterior distributions of the synchrotron afterglow parameters derived from MC… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radio spectral fits of IGR J12580+0134 at two different epochs: 2016-05-21 (blue) and 2019-04-21 (orange). The data points represent observed flux densities at multiple frequencies, while the dashed lines show the best-fit pow￾er-law models. The shaded regions indicate the 1σ confi￾dence intervals propagated from the uncertainty in the spec￾tral index β. The steeper slope observed in 2019 suggests a signif… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear interpolation of L-band flux at MJD 58594. Red circles denote the observed L-band flux densities at two epochs, and the blue square represents the interpo￾lated value at the target date, yielding a flux of 62.0 mJy. The vertical dashed line marks the interpolation time. This value is used to reconstruct the broadband spectrum at a common epoch with the S-band measurement. Using the spectral energy d… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optical light curve of IGR J12580+0134 in the ASAS-SN V band. The purple points show the ASAS-SN V -band flux density as a function of MJD. The dashed horizontal line indicates the weighted mean baseline flux (F0 = 23.24 mJy), and the shaded region represents the ±3σ dispersion around this baseline. No significant optical vari￾ability beyond the 3σ level is detected during the second radio flare. We note t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B

    Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 81

    2020

  2. [2]

    R., Smith, A

    Angus, C. R., Smith, A. J., Magill, D., et al. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04406

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  4. [4]

    R., Nixon, C., & Pasham, D

    Bandopadhyay, A., Coughlin, E. R., Nixon, C., & Pasham, D. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 80

    2024

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 581, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525965

    Campana, S., Mainetti, D., Colpi, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525965

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525965 2015

  6. [6]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  7. [7]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a7

    Chen, J.-H., & Shen, R.-F. 2021, ApJ, 914, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a7 2021

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    Chen, J.-H., Shen, R.-F., & Liu, S.-F. 2023, ApJ, 947, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6 2023

  9. [9]

    1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol

    Clark, B. 1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 89, no. 3, Sept. 1980, p. 377, 378., 89, 377

    1980

  10. [10]

    J., Cotton, W., Greisen, E., et al

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W., Greisen, E., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 1693

    1998

  11. [11]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab412d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab412d 2019

  12. [12]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 517, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac106

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac106 2022

  13. [13]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Cufari, M., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 929, L20

    2022

  14. [14]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce7e

    Danehkar, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce7e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce7e 2025

  15. [15]

    A., Nixon, C

    Evans, P. A., Nixon, C. J., Campana, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y 2023

  16. [16]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  17. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8886

    Fu, S.-Y., Xu, D., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8886

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8886 2024

  18. [18]

    2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 141

    Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., Zou, Y.-C., Wu, X.-F., & Zhang, B. 2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 141

    2013

  19. [19]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    doi:10.1086/312840 2000

  20. [20]

    1995, A&A, 299, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9505085

    Grupe, D., Beuermann, K., Mannheim, K., et al. 1995, A&A, 299, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9505085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9505085 1995

  21. [21]

    2015, ApJL, 803, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L28

    Grupe, D., Komossa, S., & Saxton, R. 2015, ApJL, 803, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L28

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/l28 2015

  22. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4530

    Grupe, D., Komossa, S., & Wolsing, S. 2024, ApJ, 969, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4530

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4530 2024

  23. [23]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/25 2013

  24. [24]

    R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al

    Guolo, M., Pasham, D. R., Zajaˇ cek, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 347, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4 2024

  25. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 2023

  26. [26]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 055004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac5800

    Hampel, J., Komossa, S., Greiner, J., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 055004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac5800

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac5800 2022

  27. [27]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687

    1988

  28. [28]

    T., Auchettl, K., Hoogendam, W

    Hinkle, J. T., Auchettl, K., Hoogendam, W. B., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Shen, R.-F., Wang, T., & Sheng, Z. 2023, ApJL, 956, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5 2023

  30. [30]

    2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/164

    Irwin, J., Krause, M., English, J., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/164

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/164 2013

  31. [31]

    A., Henriksen, R

    Irwin, J. A., Henriksen, R. N., Krause, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/172

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/172 2015

  32. [32]

    A., Beck, R., Benjamin, R

    Irwin, J. A., Beck, R., Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/43

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/43 2012

  33. [33]

    Ji, S., Wang, Z., Zhu, L., Geier, S., & Gupta, A. C. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09408

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    1999, A&A, 343, 775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141

    Komossa, S., & Bade, N. 1999, A&A, 343, 775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9901141 1999

  35. [35]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020

  36. [36]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 816, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/20

    Lei, W.-H., Yuan, Q., Zhang, B., & Wang, D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 816, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/20

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/1/20 2016

  37. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25877

    Li, D., Zhang, W., Yang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25877

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25877 2025

  38. [38]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e 2024

  39. [39]

    J., et al

    Liu, Z., Ryu, T., Goodwin, A. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348682

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348682 2024

  40. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2203 2023

  41. [41]

    2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 2014

  42. [42]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16867

    Makrygianni, L., Arcavi, I., Newsome, M., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16867

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad022

    Malyali, A., Liu, Z., Rau, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad022

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad022 2023

  44. [44]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/l4

    Mandel, I., & Levin, Y. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/l4

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/l4 2015

  45. [45]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 13

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184 2013

  46. [46]

    2007, in ASP Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in ASP Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI (ADASS XVI), ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell (Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 127 Niko lajuk, M., & Walter, R. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A75

    2007

  47. [47]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18124

    Pasham, D., Coughlin, E., Guolo, M., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18124

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 125

    2021

  49. [49]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac480c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac480c 2022

  50. [50]

    V., Auchettl, K., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Auchettl, K., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd455

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd455 2023

  51. [51]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 204, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/19 2013

  52. [52]

    S., Meyer, E

    Perlman, E. S., Meyer, E. T., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 126

    2017

  53. [53]

    S., Meyer, E

    Perlman, E. S., Meyer, E. T., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bba 2022

  54. [54]

    L., & Colpi, M

    Pfister, H., Volonteri, M., Dai, J. L., & Colpi, M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1962

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1962 2020

  55. [55]

    1989, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol

    Phinney, E. 1989, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol. 136, Cambridge University Press, 543–553

    1989

  56. [56]

    Predehl, P., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, A&A, 293, 889

    1995

  57. [57]

    Quinlan, G. D. 1996, New Astronomy, 1, 35, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00003-6

    doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(96)00003-6 1996

  58. [58]

    Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 532, A71

    2011

  59. [59]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523

    1988

  60. [60]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020a, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce

  61. [61]

    2019, ApJL, 871, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafc64

    Shen, R.-F. 2019, ApJL, 871, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafc64

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aafc64 2019

  62. [62]

    J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcc19

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcc19 2025

  63. [63]

    C., & Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2281 2016

  64. [64]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Kesden, M., et al

    Stone, N. C., Vasiliev, E., Kesden, M., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00651-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00651-4 2020

  65. [65]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01824

    Sun, J., Guo, H., Gu, M., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01824

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    2024, Astronomy & amp; Astrophysics, 692, A262, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452380 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T

    Sun, L., Jiang, N., Dou, L., et al. 2024, Astronomy & amp; Astrophysics, 692, A262, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452380 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W.-S., Onori, F., Hung, T., &

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452380 2024

  67. [67]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    Arcavi, I. 2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z 2020

  68. [68]

    M., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al

    Veres, P. M., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.17419

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    2011, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 3108, 1

    Walter, R., Bordas, P., Bozzo, E., et al. 2011, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 3108, 1

    2011

  70. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb

    Wang, M., Ma, Y., Wu, Q., & Jiang, N. 2024, ApJ, 960, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb 2024

  71. [71]

    2025, Science Advances, 11, 25.9068, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady9068

    Wang, Y., Lin, Z., Wu, L., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, 25.9068, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady9068

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.ady9068 2025

  72. [72]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26561

    Wang, Y., Wang, T., Huang, S., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26561

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1976

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1976 2019

  74. [74]

    R., Pasham, D

    Wevers, T., Coughlin, E. R., Pasham, D. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f36

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f36 2023

  75. [75]

    2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/81

    Wiegert, T., Irwin, J., Miskolczi, A., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/81

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/81 2015

  76. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 1569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1423

    Wu, X.-J., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1423

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1423 2018

  77. [77]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    Yao, Y., Chornock, R., LeBaron, N., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    2024

  78. [78]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12691

    Yao, Y., Sun, L., Wu, T., et al. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y., Ravi, V., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf216 2023

  80. [80]

    C., Wang, J., & Li, H

    Yu, N., Ho, L. C., Wang, J., & Li, H. 2022, ApJS, 261, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac626b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac626b 2022

Showing first 80 references.