Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 83 references

A hybrid SMBH spin model with Kerr ISCO closure prevents overestimation of jet-axis wandering while the cold-gas reservoir stays stable across prescriptions.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 17:00 UTC pith:6JPWZOJN

load-bearing objection The hybrid spin model is the new piece, but its claim to superiority rests on an untested assumption that parsec-scale torque directions reach the ISCO unchanged. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2605.27502 v1 pith:6JPWZOJN submitted 2026-05-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

BlackHoleWeather -- Spin-coupled chaotic cold accretion across the meso-scale: Morphology and thermodynamics

Olmo Piana , Massimo Gaspari , Filippo Barbani , Vieri Cammelli , Giovanni Stel , Davide M. Brustio , Valeria Olivares , Francesco Salvestrini
show 5 more authors
Ashkbiz Danehkar Francesco Tombesi Pasquale Temi Filippo M. Maccagni Martin Fournier
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords chaotic cold accretionSMBH spin evolutionjet feedbackhydrodynamical simulationsISCO closuremultiphase gas inflowturbulence regulationblack hole feeding
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.

The paper introduces a time-dependent model that connects resolved multiphase gas feeding at meso scales to unresolved angular-momentum transfer at the innermost stable circular orbit. Simulations of group atmospheres with jet feedback compare fixed-axis, direct, and hybrid spin prescriptions. The amount of cold gas available remains nearly the same whether the jet is fixed, spin-coupled, or rapidly reorienting. The hybrid approach, which keeps torque direction from the resolved flow but scales its strength to match relativistic limits, controls central accretion, jet efficiency, and feedback geometry more realistically than the direct method. Turbulence sets the coherence of angular momentum delivery: low-turbulence runs maintain longer feeding bridges and faster spin evolution, while stronger turbulence fragments inflows and cancels torques.

Core claim

We introduce a time-dependent SMBH spin model linking resolved multiphase feeding at meso scales to unresolved relativistic angular-momentum transfer at the ISCO. The hybrid prescription preserves the resolved torque direction while filtering its magnitude through a Kerr ISCO closure. Applied to low- and high-turbulence group setups, the cold-gas reservoir proves nearly independent of whether the jet is fixed, spin-coupled, or rapidly reorienting, yet the spin prescription modulates the inner feeding-feedback coupling, central accretion, jet efficiency, and feedback geometry. The hybrid model stays bracketed by analytic limits, whereas the direct model overestimates spin variability and jet-

What carries the argument

The hybrid prescription that preserves resolved torque direction from multiphase inflow while filtering magnitude through Kerr ISCO closure, thereby linking meso-scale feeding to relativistic angular-momentum transfer.

Load-bearing premise

Resolved multiphase inflow and angular-momentum direction below parsec scales can be directly linked to unresolved relativistic angular-momentum transfer at the ISCO by preserving torque direction while filtering magnitude through Kerr closure.

What would settle it

Long-term radio monitoring or X-ray spin measurements in a real galaxy group showing jet-axis wandering or spin variability rates that match the direct model's overestimation rather than the hybrid model's bounded behavior.

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

If this is right

  • The cold-gas reservoir remains nearly independent of fixed, spin-coupled, or rapidly reorienting jet prescriptions.
  • The spin prescription controls inner feeding-feedback coupling, modulating central accretion, jet efficiency, and feedback geometry.
  • Low-spin SMBHs are easier to reorient because misaligned torques act on a smaller angular-momentum reservoir.
  • Low-turbulence inflows preserve longer feeding bridges and drive faster spin evolution, while stronger turbulence fragments the inflow and enhances torque cancellation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the hybrid closure is required, direct spin-evolution models in the literature may systematically overestimate jet precession rates in observed groups.
  • Turbulence-regulated coherence implies that jet direction statistics in clusters could serve as a proxy for unresolved intragroup turbulence levels.
  • The independence of the cold reservoir from spin evolution suggests that total feedback energy budgets remain robust even when jet axes wander.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a time-dependent SMBH spin model that couples resolved multiphase CCA torques at meso scales (~0.1 pc) to unresolved relativistic angular-momentum transfer at the ISCO via three prescriptions (fixed-axis, direct, and hybrid). GPU hydrodynamical simulations of group atmospheres with jet feedback show that the cold-gas reservoir is nearly independent of the jet prescription, while the hybrid model (preserving resolved torque direction but filtering magnitude via Kerr ISCO closure) brackets analytic limits and avoids the overestimation of spin variability and jet-axis wandering seen in the direct model. Turbulence regulates angular-momentum coherence, with low-turbulence runs preserving longer feeding bridges and faster spin evolution; low-spin SMBHs are easier to reorient.

Significance. If the hybrid prescription is valid, the work supplies a practical scale-bridging technique for incorporating relativistic ISCO effects into large-scale galaxy simulations, clarifying how turbulence controls feeding-feedback geometry and jet reorientation. The explicit comparison of prescriptions and the finding that the cold reservoir is robust to spin coupling are concrete advances.

major comments (1)
  1. [Model introduction and hybrid prescription (abstract; methods section on spin evolution)] Model introduction and hybrid prescription (abstract; methods section on spin evolution): The central claim that the hybrid model brackets analytic limits while the direct model overestimates variability rests on the assumption that angular-momentum direction resolved at ~0.1 pc persists unaltered to the ISCO. No derivation or cross-check against relativistic MHD is supplied for the direction-preserving step; this is load-bearing for the superiority conclusion and requires either justification or a concrete test.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Model introduction and hybrid prescription (abstract; methods section on spin evolution): The central claim that the hybrid model brackets analytic limits while the direct model overestimates variability rests on the assumption that angular-momentum direction resolved at ~0.1 pc persists unaltered to the ISCO. No derivation or cross-check against relativistic MHD is supplied for the direction-preserving step; this is load-bearing for the superiority conclusion and requires either justification or a concrete test.

    Authors: We agree that the direction-preserving step in the hybrid prescription is a key assumption and that additional justification would strengthen the manuscript. The physical motivation is that the net angular momentum vector delivered by the resolved CCA torques at meso scales represents the torque applied to the SMBH; between ~0.1 pc and the ISCO, in the absence of other significant torques (such as from the disk or magnetic fields not resolved here), this direction is expected to be conserved while the magnitude is limited by the relativistic ISCO conditions in the Kerr metric. The hybrid model thus preserves the direction from the hydrodynamical simulation while capping the magnitude to avoid unphysical spin evolution. We will revise the methods section to include a dedicated paragraph providing this derivation based on angular momentum conservation and will reference supporting analytic work on scale-bridging in accretion. A full relativistic MHD simulation bridging these scales is beyond the scope of the current study but represents an important avenue for future validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation references external Kerr ISCO physics without reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper defines a hybrid spin model that preserves resolved meso-scale torque direction while applying a magnitude filter from external Kerr ISCO closure, then compares it to fixed and direct prescriptions. The central results (cold-gas reservoir independence, hybrid bracketing analytic limits, turbulence regulating coherence) follow from the hydrodynamical runs and the stated model distinctions rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. No equations or claims in the abstract or described setup reduce the output quantities to the inputs by algebraic identity or statistical forcing. The derivation remains self-contained against the external relativistic reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; limited visibility into parameters. Turbulence level appears as a controlled variable in low/high setups. Kerr ISCO used as closure.

free parameters (1)
  • turbulence level
    Low- and high-turbulence group setups used to test effects on feeding bridges and torque cancellation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Kerr metric ISCO closure filters torque magnitude while preserving direction
    Invoked in hybrid prescription to connect resolved torques to unresolved ISCO transfer.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5912 in / 1234 out tokens · 56651 ms · 2026-06-29T17:00:04.029825+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Supermassive black hole (SMBH) spin is a key but poorly constrained ingredient of the feeding-feedback loop. Chaotic cold accretion (CCA) of cold gas clouds delivers rapidly varying three-dimensional torques that drive spin evolution and jet-axis reorientation, and in turn spin regulates jet power. We introduce a time-dependent SMBH spin model linking resolved multiphase feeding at meso scales to unresolved relativistic angular-momentum transfer at the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). We perform GPU-accelerated hydrodynamical simulations of a group atmosphere with jet feedback and SMBH spin evolution, resolving multiphase inflow and angular-momentum direction below parsec scales. We compare fixed-axis, direct, and hybrid prescriptions, with the latter preserving the resolved torque direction while filtering its magnitude through a Kerr ISCO closure. We then apply the hybrid model to low- and high-turbulence group setups. The cold-gas reservoir is nearly independent of whether the jet is fixed, spin-coupled, or rapidly reorienting. The spin prescription instead controls the inner feeding-feedback coupling, modulating central accretion, jet efficiency, and feedback geometry. The hybrid model is bracketed by analytic limits, whereas the direct model overestimates spin variability and jet-axis wandering, showing that an ISCO closure is required. Low-spin SMBHs are easier to reorient because a misaligned torque acts on a smaller angular-momentum reservoir. The decisive quantity is the coherence of the delivered angular momentum: the low-turbulence run preserves longer feeding bridges and faster spin evolution, whereas stronger turbulence fragments the inflow and enhances torque cancellation. In CCA, turbulence regulates whether the cold reservoir remains connected, how the angular momentum reaches the SMBH, where the next jet points, and how feedback is imprinted onto the halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27502 by Ashkbiz Danehkar, Davide M. Brustio, Filippo Barbani, Filippo M. Maccagni, Francesco Salvestrini, Francesco Tombesi, Giovanni Stel, Martin Fournier, Massimo Gaspari, Olmo Piana, Pasquale Temi, Valeria Olivares, Vieri Cammelli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flowchart of the SMBH accretion–spin–feedback coupling used in the simulations. The central branch shows the shared feeding and feedback steps; the two side branches highlight the only difference between the Direct and Hybrid spin-update prescriptions (an ISCO-based GR closure for the deposited angular-momentum magnitude). The two prescriptions do not play the same physical role. Our fiducial Hybrid model … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Global accretion and feedback histories for the no-turbulence suite, showing the total cold gas mass (i.e. the mass of gas below T = 2000 K within the central 4 kpc), the sink accretion rate, the jet efficiency and the corresponding instantaneous jet power as a function of time. given by: τjet = PBZ ΩH , (12) where ΩH is the spin-dependent rotational velocity on the hori￾zon (Bardeen et al. 1973; Tchekhovs… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the dimensionless SMBH spin magnitude a (top panel) and inclination and azimuthal angles θ and ϕ (middle and bottom panel respectively) over the first 100 Myr for the no-turbulence bench￾mark suite. angular momentum transferred to the black hole, making the ac￾creted gas artificially efficient at reorienting the spin and chang￾ing its magnitude. In the fiducial low-spin run hyb_noT_s01, instea… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-evolution of the mass-weighted temperature projection maps of the whole box showing the morphological expansion of the jet structure across the four baseline models at selected epochs (τ = t/train = 1, 3, 5, 7). The tiny cyan contours in the center correspond to regions of cold gas with T < 200 K. The top row shows results from the benchmark model in which the spin and jet evolutions are fully decoupl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Logarithmic column density projections within the central 2 kpc highlighting the structural evolution of the central accretion disc/inflow morphology for the baseline models at selected epochs (τ = t/train = 1, 3, 5, 7). Black contours show molecular gas with T < 200 K. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the volume-weighted velocity dispersion σv for the no-turbulence suite, averaged across 50-kpc (solid lines) and 1-kpc (dashed lines) regions, for all phases. The late-time rise in the low-spin Hybrid model correlates with sustained spin inclination growth. Notice that hyb_noT_s01 is the only run we evolved for a longer time, being our fiducial run. formation of the central condensed reservoir… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass-weighted PDFs of gas density for the molecular (blue), cold atomic, warm, hot soft-X, and hot hard-X (red) gas phases (see temper￾ature definitions in §2) in the no-turbulence suite, measured within the central 100 pc at four evolutionary times, τ ≡ t/train = 1, 3, 5, 7. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time [Myr] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 S pin P a r a m ete r a hyb_noT_s01 (Sim) Prograde check Retrograde check B… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Geometric reorientation rate of the SMBH spin axis for the fidu￾cial low-spin Hybrid model (hyb_noT_s01), compared to the same an￾alytical benchmark models as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Torque-delivery statistics for the fiducial Hybrid run. The top panel shows the sink accretion rate, the middle panel shows the torque￾coherence parameter χj computed over a trailing window W = 2 Myr, and the bottom panel shows the normalized perpendicular and par￾allel components of the accreted specific angular momentum, j⊥/|j| (solid) and j∥/|j| (dashed). Negative values of j∥ mark retrograde torque￾de… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Zoom-in into the central 0.1 kpc of the density slices for the high- and low-turbulence Hybrid runs at selected epochs (τ = t/train = 1, 4, 8, 16). Black contours indicate the presence of molecular gas with T < 200 K. If we define aˆ(t) ≡ a(t)/|a(t)| as the spin unit direction, we can introduce the (signed) component of the angular momentum that is parallel to the spin as j∥(t) ≡ jacc(t) · aˆ(t) , (31) an… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparative spin evolutions for the low- and high-turbulence environments, showing the evolution of spin magnitude (top), inclina￾tion and azimuth angles θ and ϕ (middle), and axis geometric reorienta￾tion rate (bottom). for the high-turbulence run. From that point onward, jets and cooling are activated. We note that in the turbulent-run fig￾ures, the time axis shows the absolute simulation time, includin… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mass-binned density-temperature phase diagrams for the low- and high-turbulence Hybrid runs at selected epochs (τ = t/train = 1, 4, 8, 16). Both runs follow a similar broad cooling sequence from the hot phase toward warm, cold, and molecular gas, while turbulence mainly changes the organization and persistence of the condensed high-density material. The dashed box marks the region highlighted with black c… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mass-Weighted PDFs of gas density for the 5 phases within the central 100 pc for the low- and high-turbulence Hybrid runs at selected epochs (τ = t/train = 1, 4, 8, 16). The PDFs trace the recurrent repopulation and clearing of the nuclear region across the weather cycle: the low￾turbulence run shows more persistent multiphase central occupancy, whereas the high-turbulence run more frequently returns to a… 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

83 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confer- ence Series, V ol

    Aalto, S. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confer- ence Series, V ol. 499, Revolution in Astronomy with ALMA: The Third Year, ed. D. Iono, K. Tatematsu, A. Wootten, & L. Testi, 85

    2015

  2. [2]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 4091

    Barbani, F., Pascale, R., Marinacci, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4091

    2023

  3. [3]

    2025, A&A, 697, A121

    Barbani, F., Pascale, R., Marinacci, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A121

    2025

  4. [4]

    Bardeen, J. M. 1970, Nature, 226, 64

    1970

  5. [5]

    M., Carter, B., & Hawking, S

    Bardeen, J. M., Carter, B., & Hawking, S. W. 1973, Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics, 31, 161

    1973

  6. [6]

    Bardeen, J. M. & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJ, 195, L65

    1975

  7. [7]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347

    1972

  8. [8]

    S., Dubois, Y ., Guillard, P., et al

    Beckmann, R. S., Dubois, Y ., Guillard, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A60

    2019

  9. [9]

    S., Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., et al

    Beckmann, R. S., Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 1838

    2025

  10. [10]

    S., Smethurst, R

    Beckmann, R. S., Smethurst, R. J., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10867

    2024

  11. [11]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  12. [12]

    2013, Measuring the Angular Momentum of Su- permassive Black Holes

    Brenneman, L. 2013, Measuring the Angular Momentum of Su- permassive Black Holes

    2013

  13. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 4681

    Bruni, G., Brienza, M., Panessa, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4681

    2021

  14. [14]

    & Springel, V

    Bustamante, S. & Springel, V . 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4133

    2019

  15. [15]

    C., et al

    Cammelli, V ., Monaco, P., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 851 Carter Edwards, H., Trott, C. R., & Sunderland, D. 2014, Jour- nal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 74, 3202, domain- Specific Languages and High-Level Frameworks for High- Performance Computing

    2025

  16. [16]

    W., Donahue, M., V oit, G

    Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., V oit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, ApJS, 182, 12

    2009

  17. [17]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1479301 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L

    Danehkar, A. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1479301 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

    2024

  18. [18]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 68

    Dotti, M., Colpi, M., Pallini, S., Perego, A., & V olonteri, M. 2013, ApJ, 762, 68

    2013

  19. [19]

    2014b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2333 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al

    Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., Silk, J., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2014b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2333 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, L5 Falceta-Gonçalves, D., Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., Teixeira, D. M., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. 2010, ApJ, 713, L74

    2019

  20. [20]

    Fiacconi, D., Sijacki, D., & Pringle, J. E. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3807

    2018

  21. [21]

    W., & O’Shea, B

    Fournier, M., Grete, P., Brüggen, M., Glines, F. W., & O’Shea, B. W. 2024, A&A, 691, A239

    2024

  22. [22]

    A., & Sambruna, R

    Garofalo, D., Evans, D. A., & Sambruna, R. M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 975

    2010

  23. [23]

    2015, A&A, 579, A62

    Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., & Temi, P. 2015, A&A, 579, A62

    2015

  24. [24]

    & Churazov, E

    Gaspari, M. & Churazov, E. 2013, A&A, 559, A78

    2013

  25. [25]

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Oh, S. P. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3401

    2013

  26. [26]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 94

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Sharma, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 94

    2012

  27. [27]

    & S˛ adowski, A

    Gaspari, M. & S˛ adowski, A. 2017, ApJ, 837, 149

    2017

  28. [28]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 677

    Gaspari, M., Temi, P., & Brighenti, F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 677

    2017

  29. [29]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    Gaspari, M., Tombesi, F., & Cappi, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    2020

  30. [30]

    2019, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity, 36, 105003

    Gerosa, D., Lima, A., Berti, E., et al. 2019, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity, 36, 105003

    2019

  31. [31]

    J., Booth, R

    Greenhill, L. J., Booth, R. S., Ellingsen, S. P., et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 162

    2003

  32. [32]

    Parthenon -- a performance portable block-structured adaptive mesh refinement framework

    Grete, P., Dolence, J. C., Miller, J. M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.12309

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2018, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters, 858, L19

    2018

  34. [34]

    W., Glines, F

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., Glines, F. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 155

    2025

  35. [35]

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

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 26

    2023

  36. [36]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    1990

  37. [37]

    S., Nandra, K., Clerc, N., & Gaspari, M

    Hofmann, F., Sanders, J. S., Nandra, K., Clerc, N., & Gaspari, M. 2016, A&A, 585, A130

    2016

  38. [38]

    A., Krause, M

    Horton, M. A., Krause, M. G. H., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2020, MN- RAS, 499, 5765 Huško, F., Lacey, C. G., Schaye, J., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 547, stag324

    2020

  39. [39]

    King, A. R. & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L90

    2006

  40. [40]

    R., Pringle, J

    King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Hofmann, J. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1621

    2008

  41. [41]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  42. [42]

    S., Sijacki, D., et al

    Koudmani, S., Somerville, R. S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 60

    2024

  43. [43]

    Krause, M. G. H., Hardcastle, M. J., & Shabala, S. S. 2019, A&A, 627, A113

    2019

  44. [44]

    Krolik, J. H. & Hawley, J. F. 2015, ApJ, 806, 141

    2015

  45. [45]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 474, L81

    Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Ingram, A., & van der Klis, M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 474, L81

    2018

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 82

    Lowell, B., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Duncan, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 82

    2024

  47. [47]

    & Zhou, B.-Y

    Lu, J.-F. & Zhou, B.-Y . 2005, ApJ, 635, L17

    2005

  48. [48]

    M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al

    Maccagni, F. M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A45 Martínez-Sansigre, A. & Rawlings, S. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1937

    2021

  49. [49]

    R., & Tremblay, G

    McDonald, M., Gaspari, M., McNamara, B. R., & Tremblay, G. R. 2018, ApJ, 858, 45

    2018

  50. [50]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 2025

    Wierzbowska, D. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    2025, Galaxies, 13, 102

    Mukherjee, D. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 102

    2025

  52. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795

    Narayan, R., Chael, A., Chatterjee, K., Ricarte, A., & Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795

    2022

  53. [53]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  54. [54]

    & King, A

    Nixon, C. & King, A. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. F. Haardt, V . Gorini, U. Moschella, A. Treves, & M. Colpi, V ol. 905, 45

    2016

  55. [55]

    Novikov, I. D. & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), ed. C. Dewitt & B. S. Dewitt, 343–450

    1973

  56. [56]

    2025, Nature Astron- omy, 9, 449

    Olivares, V ., Picquenot, A., Su, Y ., et al. 2025, Nature Astron- omy, 9, 449

    2025

  57. [57]

    L., et al

    Olivares, V ., Salomé, P., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A94

    2022

  58. [58]

    A., et al

    Omoruyi, O., Tremblay, G., Baum, S. A., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 114 O’Sullivan, E., Ponman, T. J., Kolokythas, K., et al. 2017, MN- RAS, 472, 1482

    2026

  59. [59]

    S., et al

    Peirani, S., Suto, Y ., Beckmann, R. S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A233

    2024

  60. [60]

    2009, MN- RAS, 399, 2249

    Perego, A., Dotti, M., Colpi, M., & V olonteri, M. 2009, MN- RAS, 399, 2249

    2009

  61. [61]

    Piana, O., Dayal, P., V olonteri, M., & Choudhury, T. R. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2146

    2021

  62. [62]

    2026, A&A, Sub- mitted

    Piana, O., Gaspari, M., Cammelli, V ., & et al. 2026, A&A, Sub- mitted

    2026

  63. [63]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 1732

    Piana, O., Pu, H.-Y ., & Wu, K. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1732

    2024

  64. [64]

    W., et al

    Prasad, D., Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2155

    2026

  65. [65]

    & Takahashi, M

    Pu, H.-Y . & Takahashi, M. 2020, ApJ, 892, 37

    2020

  66. [66]

    2025, Nature, 638, 360

    Reefe, M., McDonald, M., Chatzikos, M., et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 360

    2025

  67. [67]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 117

    2021

  68. [68]

    2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Rezzolla, L. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. F. Haardt, V . Gorini, U. Moschella, A. Treves, & M. Colpi, V ol. 905, 1

    2016

  69. [69]

    Ricarte, A., Natarajan, P., Narayan, R., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2025, ApJ, 980, 136

    2025

  70. [70]

    E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al

    Romero, C. E., Gaspari, M., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 248

    2025

  71. [71]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A92

    Sala, L., Valentini, M., Biffi, V ., & Dolag, K. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A92

    2024

  72. [72]

    Schmidt, W., Federrath, C., Hupp, M., Kern, S., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 494, 127

    2009

  73. [73]

    M., Kosenko, D., Kaastra, J

    Schure, K. M., Kosenko, D., Kaastra, J. S., Keppens, R., & Vink, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751

    2009

  74. [74]

    Sesana, A., Barausse, E., Dotti, M., & Rossi, E. M. 2014, ApJ, 794, 104

    2014

  75. [75]

    2007, ApJ, 658, 815

    Sikora, M., Stawarz, Ł., & Lasota, J.-P. 2007, ApJ, 658, 815

    2007

  76. [76]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4

    2020

  77. [77]

    Y ., Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y ., Bourne, M. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3619

    2021

  78. [78]

    Y ., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y ., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M. A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4535

    2022

  79. [79]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50

    2010

  80. [80]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MN- RAS, 418, L79

    2011

Showing first 80 references.