Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Mass Determination of Supermassive Black Holes Governing Evolution of Radio Emitters

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio-emitting shells around tidally disrupted stars can weigh their central supermassive black holes.

desk verdict Useful analytic shell framework for radio TDEs, but the mass estimator degenerates for ambient density index s=2 and needs a caveat before the claimed universality holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23161 v1 pith:6PO2FCGR submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Kimitake Hayasaki , Ryo Yamazaki This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventssupermassiveblackholemassesradio-emittingoutflowsthinshelldynamicsSedov-Taylorsolutiondiskwindst^(2/3)scalingnon-jettedTDEs
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 tries to establish that in non-jetted tidal disruption events, the radio-emitting shell driven outward by disk winds is decelerated strongly enough by the black hole's gravity that its late-time expansion follows a universal $t^{2/3}$ scaling, independent of the ambient density profile. If correct, measuring the shell radius and expansion velocity from radio spectra gives the supermassive black hole mass directly through $M_{\rm bh}=K R_* V_*^2/G$, with $K\simeq1/2$ for a thin shell. This would matter because it supplies an independent, purely radio-based mass estimator at a time when most non-jetted TDEs lack jet-related constraints. The paper also recovers the classical Sedov-Taylor expansion when gravity is negligible, and introduces a criterion $D_c$ that tells which regime applies to a given event.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a one-dimensional thin-shell model combining momentum conservation (equation 14), including ram-pressure injection, gravitational force, and thermal pressure, with thermal-energy evolution (equation 18). The load-bearing step is taking the asymptotic limit $R\gg r_0$, where $M(t)\approx M_{\rm am}(t)$, inserting the power-law ansatz $R(t)=R_*(t/t_*)^m$, and equating the time exponents: this fixes $m=2/3$ when gravity dominates and fixes the coefficient $K$ in $M_{\rm bh}=K R_* V_*^2/G$. The companion object is the critical mass $M_c$ (equation 24) and its dimensionless form $D_c=M/M_c$, a scale-free diagnostic that selects whether the gravity-dominated, Sedov-Taylor, or transition solution applies.

What would settle it

For a non-jetted TDE whose black hole mass is known independently, measure the radio shell radius and expansion velocity at three or more epochs. The model requires a clean $R(t)\propto t^{2/3}$ phase when $D_c>1$, so an observed power-law index differing from $2/3$, or an inferred $M_{\rm bh}=K R_* V_*^2/G$ disagreeing with the independent mass by more than the stated uncertainties, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The governing equations are momentum and energy conservation for a quasi-spherical thin shell (equations 14 and 18) with mass from the disk wind, the ambient medium, and an initial shell. At radii $R\gg r_0$ the shell mass is dominated by swept-up ambient matter, $M\approx M_{\rm am}$, and assuming a power-law radius $R(t)=R_*(t/t_*)^m$, coefficient matching yields exactly $m=2/3$ when gravity is comparable to or stronger than thermal pressure, independent of the ambient density slope $s$. The same matching gives equation (23), $M_{\rm bh}=K R_* V_*^2/G$, with $K$ approaching $1/2$ in the thin-shell limit $\xi/\chi\to 0$. In the opposite limit, $M_{\rm bh}\ll M_c$, the solution returns to the density-dependent Sedov-Taylor index $2/(5-s)$, and when both gravity and thermal pressure are negligible it reduces to the momentum-driven snowplow solution $t^{1/(4-s)}$. The paper asserts that the gravity-dominated $m=2/3$ solution is the correct description for events with the dimensionless ratio $D_c\gtrsim 1$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the outflow is a smooth, roughly spherical, adiabatic thin shell whose swept-up surrounding gas dominates its mass at late times; if the outflow is clumpy, collimated, or strongly radiative, both the $t^{2/3}$ law and the mass formula stop applying.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-jetted TDEs with $D_c>1$ give black hole masses purely from radio observables, with no reliance on X-ray scaling relations or reverberation mapping.
  • The $t^{2/3}$ law is independent of the ambient density slope $s$, so finding the same expansion index across events in different environments would support the gravity-dominated picture.
  • Because the synchrotron peak frequency drops with source size, the model motivates 10-100 GHz follow-up with ALMA and ngVLA to catch the small radii where $D_c>1$ for lower-mass black holes, yielding masses within months of disruption.
  • Application to the current sample explains why the formula overestimates AT2019dsg's mass by an order of magnitude ($D_c\simeq0.06$, deep Sedov-Taylor regime) while it is only about 40% above the independent estimate for eRASSt J2344 ($D_c\simeq0.84$).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $D_c$ criterion uses only radius and speed, so it could be exported to other transient accretion outflows, such as X-ray binary winds and AGN outflows, to decide when gravity-dominated dynamics matter; the paper gestures at this but does not develop it.
  • If the $m=2/3$ scaling is confirmed, the same dimensional relation implies a link between the radio-measured expansion rate and the tidal radius, which could be used to constrain the spin-dependent Hills mass for the most massive events.
  • The model assumes spherical symmetry, so radio imaging of a candidate TDE that resolves the shell morphology would be a direct check: an anisotropic or clumpy outflow would break the $t^{2/3}$ prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter presents a one-zone model for the adiabatic expansion of a thin, quasi-spherical radio-emitting shell in a non-jetted tidal disruption event (TDE), driven by a disk wind and decelerated by the gravity of the central supermassive black hole (SMBH). The authors combine momentum conservation (Eq. 14) and energy conservation (Eq. 18) for a shell that sweeps up a power-law ambient medium ρ_am ∝ r^{-s}, and seek asymptotic power-law solutions R ∝ t^m. Their central result is that when SMBH gravity dominates or is comparable to thermal pressure, m = 2/3 regardless of s, and the SMBH mass is given by M_bh = K R_* V_*^2 / G (Eq. 23), with K → 1/2 in the thin-shell limit ξ/χ ≪ 1. They also recover the Sedov-Taylor solution when gravity is negligible (R ∝ t^{2/(5-s)}) and a momentum-driven snowplow solution (R ∝ t^{1/(4-s)}). The paper applies the mass estimator to six non-jetted TDEs, introduces a discriminant D_c = M_•/M_c to decide which regime applies, and argues that the estimator overestimates M_• for AT2019dsg because that event lies in the Sedov-Taylor regime.

Significance. If valid, the proposed mass estimator would provide a genuinely independent, radio-only route to SMBH masses in non-jetted TDEs, complementing reverberation mapping and scaling relations, and it would make a concrete, falsifiable prediction for high-frequency radio monitoring campaigns. The analytic structure is a strength: the governing equations are physically transparent, the Sedov-Taylor and snowplow limits are recovered, and the m = 2/3 solution has a clear dimensional interpretation. The authors also cite a public Supplemental Material archive for the detailed algebra, which is good scholarly practice. However, the central claim of universality fails at the special ambient slope s = 2, where the coefficient K is not fixed by the dynamics, and the observational validation contains a selection loop through D_c. These issues do not invalidate the model for s ≠ 2, but they require correction before the Letter can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (23)] The coefficient matching that fixes m = 2/3 and K fails at ambient density slope s = 2, which lies inside the stated range s < 5/2. For s = 2, M_am ∝ R, and substituting R = C t^{2/3} into Eqs. (19)-(20) yields a one-parameter family of exact solutions: with x ≡ G M_bh / C^3, the energy equation determines E_T = (A/α)(2 C^3 / 9 + G M_bh), and the momentum equation is then satisfied identically for any x. Thus K = (9/4)x is not determined by R_* and V_* alone. The value K → 1/2 in the thin-shell limit is recovered only as the s → 2 limit of the non-degenerate formula, not as a property of the s = 2 solutions, where K can take any positive value set by initial conditions. The abstract's claim that the scaling and the mass estimator hold 'irrespective of the ambient density profile' is therefore false at s = 2, and Eq. (23) is not a mass estimator in that regime. The paper should either exclude s = 2 explicitly, supply the additional condition that selects K, or state the resulting uncertainty for s near 2.
  2. [IV, Eq. (25)] The statement that D_c 'depends only on the outflow radius and expansion speed' is not consistent with Eq. (25), which contains M_• explicitly. Consequently, deciding whether the m = 2/3 solution applies (D_c > 1) requires an independent estimate of M_•, the very quantity Eq. (23) is meant to provide. The paper explains the order-of-magnitude overestimate for AT2019dsg by assigning it to the Sedov-Taylor regime with D_c ≪ 1, but that classification uses the conventional masses (X-ray and M-σ) that Eq. (23) is supposed to replace; if M_• were instead the value predicted by Eq. (23), D_c would be greater than unity and the same data would be classified as gravity-dominated. This selection loop weakens the observational validation. It should be addressed, for example, by computing D_c from the Eq. (23) mass and checking self-consistency, or by treating the conventional mass as a prior in a Bayesian comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (24)] Equation (24) invokes M_am,* , E_T,* , and T_p,* that are defined only in the Supplemental Material; please provide one-line definitions in the main text so that Eq. (24) is self-contained.
  2. [Abstract and V] The abstract's prediction that 10-100 GHz monitoring can yield masses 'within months of disruption' is not derived in the main text; connect it to the normalization time t_* in Eq. (21) and to the expected R_*, V_* for events with D_c > 1.
  3. [II.A, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The parameters η and δ are introduced in Eqs. (6)-(7) but play no role in the asymptotic analysis or in the mass estimator; state explicitly that they only affect the early-time behavior, or remove them from the main-text definitions.
  4. [References] Reference [25] appears both as the general 'Cendes and et al.' citation and as the detailed 'Cendes, Alexander, Berger et al.' entry; consolidate the bibliography.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central mass estimator reduces to the assumed escape-velocity relation, and at s=2 the coefficient comparison is an identity; partial circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section II.A, Eq. (1); Section III.A, Eq. (23) and thin-shell limit]
    "We assume that the mass element of the shell moving under the SMBH gravity along the radial direction has an escape velocity as \dot r = sqrt(2GMbh/r). ... Mbh = K R∗V 2∗ / G ... In the thin-shell limit, ξ/χ ≪ 1, the coefficient K asymptotically approaches 1/2, regardless of the values of γ and s."

    Rearranging Eq. (1) gives Mbh = r \dot r^2/(2G). With K→1/2, Eq. (23) is Mbh = R∗V∗^2/(2G), the same relation at r=R∗, \dot r=V∗. Thus the paper's central radio-based mass estimator is the escape-velocity assumption used to set up the ejecta model, not an independent output of the shell dynamics. The intervening power-law analysis returns the input relation in new notation.

  2. other [Section III.A, Eqs. (19)–(22) for ambient slope s=2]
    "Substituting equation (21) into equations (19) and (20) and equating the time-dependent terms on both sides yields: m = 2/3. ... With the value of m fixed by equation (22), the black hole mass can be inferred by comparing the coefficients ... Mbh = K R∗V 2∗ / G."

    For s=2, Mam ∝ R, and the coefficient comparison after R=C t^{2/3} reduces to an identity independent of C, so K is not determined by Eqs. (19)–(20). Any initial condition selects the amplitude C and hence K; the quoted K→1/2 is an extra input. The claim that Mbh follows from R∗ and V∗ irrespective of the density profile therefore fails exactly in the isothermal (s=2) case within the paper's stated range s<5/2.

full rationale

The governing-equation construction in Secs. II–III is analytic and not fitted to radio data, and the Sedov-Taylor and snowplow limits are internally derived. However, the central estimator is circular in its thin-shell limit: Eq. (1) already assumes the shell/ejecta move at the escape speed, which is the same algebraic relation as Eq. (23) with K=1/2, so the mass 'prediction' restates an input ansatz. Independently, at s=2 the coefficient comparison becomes an identity, leaving K underdetermined, so the claimed universality is not supported by the stated equations. The Dc-based selection in Sec. IV is a consistency check using independently known masses, not itself a circular fit; and the self-citations ([10], Supplemental Material [22]) are not load-bearing because the derivations are reproduced in the paper/supplement. Overall, partial circularity in the central mass-determination claim warrants a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces several phenomenological parameters, xi, chi, s, eta, delta, epsilon, and assumes spherical, adiabatic thin-shell expansion. In the thin-shell limit the mass estimator Mbh = R*V*^2/(2G) loses its sensitivity to most of these parameters, which is why the authors can apply it with K approximately 0.5; however Dc and the finite-thickness K do depend on them.

free parameters (6)
  • xi, shell thickness ratio = 0.1
    Representative value from Cendes et al. 2021, ref 25; controls the thermal pressure force in equations (13), (14), (18), and affects K and Mc.
  • chi, internal to ambient pressure ratio = not specified
    Ratio of thermal pressure inside to outside the shell; enters the pressure force and the general K formula. The thin-shell limit makes K insensitive to it.
  • s, ambient density power-law index = not fixed
    Slope of rho_am proportional to r^(-s); affects the accumulated mass and Dc, though the m=2/3 exponent is independent of s.
  • eta, ambient to ejecta density ratio = not specified
    Defined in Section II.A; sets the relative contribution of ambient and ejecta mass at early times, not asymptotically critical.
  • delta, initial shell mass parameter = not specified
    Sets the initial shell mass Delta m via equation (7); negligible for the late-time power-law solutions.
  • epsilon, dimensionless velocity parameter = not specified
    Defined as (r0/t0)/v0 in equation (4); used to map retarded time in the ejecta density profile.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Radiative cooling is negligible, so the shell evolution is adiabatic.
    Section II.C discards the cooling term, citing low synchrotron and bremsstrahlung cooling in non-jetted TDE radio shells.
  • domain assumption The outflow is quasi-spherical and the shocked ejecta and ambient gas form a single thin shell.
    Sections I and II.B; the shell is described by radius R(t) with thickness xi R and pressure ratio chi.
  • domain assumption Mass injection from the disk follows the t^(-5/3) fallback rate.
    Equation (2) with n=5/3, following Rees 1988.
  • domain assumption The ambient medium follows a power-law density profile rho proportional to r^(-s).
    Section II.A, equation (6).
  • domain assumption At late times the swept-up ambient mass dominates the shell mass.
    Section III.A: M(t) approximately Mam(t) for R much greater than r0.
  • domain assumption Ejecta elements move at the local escape speed of the SMBH.
    Equation (1): r-dot equals sqrt(2GM_bh/r).
  • standard math Power-law ansatz R(t)=R*(t/t*)^m for asymptotic solutions.
    Section III.A, equation (21); standard self-similar technique.
  • domain assumption Thermal pressure inside the shell is uniform and proportional to the outside pressure with ratio chi.
    Equation (13) and the definition of chi; needed for the pressure force and energy equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass Determination of Supermassive Black Holes Governing Evolution of Radio Emitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PO2FCGR

@misc{pith2026250723161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass Determination of Supermassive Black Holes Governing Evolution of Radio Emitters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PO2FCGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23161}
}
abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) involving supermassive black holes (SMBHs) often exhibit radio emission, yet its physical origin remains uncertain, especially in non-jetted cases. In this Letter, we formulate a general dynamical framework for a radio-emitting shell driven by disk winds and expanding through a power-law ambient medium under the influence of SMBH gravity. We derive and classify power-law-in-time solutions to the governing equations in the adiabatic regime. In particular, a universal $t^{2/3}$ scaling emerges naturally when gravitational energy dominates or is comparable to thermal energy, irrespective of the ambient density profile, whereas the classical Sedov-Taylor solution is recovered when gravity is negligible. Our analysis reveals that, in regimes where SMBH gravity governs the shell expansion, the SMBH mass can be inferred from radio observations of the shell. This approach is independent of and complementary to conventional mass estimators, with direct implications for interpreting radio-emitting TDEs and probing SMBH demographics. Our formalism further predicts that 10-100 GHz monitoring with existing and planned facilities can yield SMBH masses within months of disruption, providing a time-domain analogue to reverberation mapping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of our model for a non-jetted TDE, showing the early-time evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We introduce the initial shell mass as ∆m = 4πδρ ej,0r3 0, (7) where δ is a parameter to decide the amount of the initial shell mass

    with M0 ≡ ˙M0t0. We introduce the initial shell mass as ∆m = 4πδρ ej,0r3 0, (7) where δ is a parameter to decide the amount of the initial shell mass. Equations (5), (6), and (7) yields the total mass of the thin shell at radius R(t) as M (t) = Mej(t) + Mam(t) + ∆m. (8) 7 The detailed expression for the shell mass is provided in equations (18) of the Supp...

    work page

  2. [2]

    J. G. Hills, Nature 254, 295 (1975), aDS Bibcode: 1975Natur.254..295H

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    M. J. Rees, Nature 333, 523 (1988), aDS Bibcode: 1988Natur.333..523R

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    N. C. Stone, E. Vasiliev, M. Kesden, E. M. Rossi, H. B. Perets, and P. Amaro-Seoane, Space Sci Rev 216, 35 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    K. D. Alexander, S. van Velzen, A. Horesh, and B. A. Zauderer, Space Sci Rev 216, 81 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    M. S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics(2011) publication Title: High Energy Astrophysics ADS Bibcode: 2011hea..book.....L. 15

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    J. S. Bloom, D. Giannios, B. D. Metzger, S. B. Cenko, D. A. Perley, N. R. Butler, N. R. Tanvir, A. J. Levan, P. T. O’Brien, L. E. Strubbe, F. De Colle, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, W. H. Lee, S. Nayakshin, E. Quataert, A. R. King, A. Cucchiara, J. Guillochon, G. C. Bower, A. S. Fruchter, A. N. Morgan, and A. J. van der Horst, Science 333, 203 (2011), aDS Bibcode: 201...

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Jiang, J

    Y.-F. Jiang, J. Guillochon, and A. Loeb, The Astrophysical Journal 830, 125 (2016), aDS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...830..125J

    work page 2016

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Guillochon, M

    J. Guillochon, M. McCourt, X. Chen, M. D. Johnson, and E. Berger, The Astrophysical Journal 822, 48 (2016), aDS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...822...48G

    2016

  2. [10]

    Krolik, T

    J. Krolik, T. Piran, G. Svirski, and R. M. Cheng, The Astrophysical Journal 827, 127 (2016), aDS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...827..127K

    2016

  3. [11]

    Hayasaki and R

    K. Hayasaki and R. Yamazaki, Astrophys. J. 954, 5 (2023), arXiv:2305.02619 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    King and K

    A. King and K. Pounds, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 53, 115 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Faucher-Gigu` ere and E

    C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere and E. Quataert, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 420, 1347 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Cendes and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 919, 127 (2021)

    Y. Cendes and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 919, 127 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Stein, S

    R. Stein, S. v. Velzen, M. Kowalski, A. Franckowiak, S. Gezari, J. C. A. Miller-Jones, S. Freder- ick, I. Sfaradi, M. F. Bietenholz, A. Horesh, R. Fender, S. Garrappa, T. Ahumada, I. Andreoni, J. Belicki, E. C. Bellm, M. B¨ ottcher, V. Brinnel, R. Burruss, S. B. Cenko, M. W. C...

    2021

  8. [16]

    D. A. Langis, I. Liodakis, K. I. I. Koljonen, A. Paggi, N. Globus, L. Wyrzykowski, P. J. Mikoajczyk, K. Kotysz, P. Zieli´ nski, N. Ihanec, J. Ding, D. Morshed, and Z. Torres, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.05476 (2025), arXiv:2506.05476 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Ivezi´ c, K

    Z. Ivezi´ c, K. Menou, G. R. Knapp, and et al., Astronomical Journal 124, 2364 (2002). 16

    2002

  10. [18]

    B. D. Metzger and N. C. Stone, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461, 948 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Taylor, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 201, 159 (1950)

    G. Taylor, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 201, 159 (1950)

    1950

  12. [20]

    L. I. Sedov, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics(1959)

    1959

  13. [21]

    R. D. Blandford and C. F. McKee, Physics of Fluids 19, 1130 (1976)

    1976

  14. [22]

    B. M. Peterson and K. Horne, Astronomische Nachrichten 325, 248 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0407538 [astro-ph]

    2004

  15. [23]

    See Supplemental Material at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16593590

    doi

  16. [24]

    Sakashita, Astrophys

    S. Sakashita, Astrophys. Space Sci. 26, 183 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    Pen, Astrophys

    U.-L. Pen, Astrophys. J. 429, 759 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9402039 [astro-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cendes, K

    Y. Cendes, K. D. Alexander, E. Berger, T. Eftekhari, P. K. G. Williams, and R. Chornock, The Astrophysical Journal 919, 127 (2021), aDS Bibcode: 2021ApJ...919..127C

    2021

  19. [27]

    Cendes, E

    Y. Cendes, E. Berger, K. D. Alexander, R. Chornock, R. Margutti, B. Metzger, M. H. Wieringa, M. F. Bietenholz, A. Hajela, T. Laskar, M. C. Stroh, and G. Terreran, Astrophys. J. 971, 185 (2024), arXiv:2308.13595 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. D. Alexander, E. Berger, J. Guillochon, B. A. Zauderer, and P. K. G. Williams, The Astrophysical Journal 819, L25 (2016), aDS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...819L..25A

    2016

  21. [29]

    Cannizzaro, T

    G. Cannizzaro, T. Wevers, P. G. Jonker, M. A. P´ erez-Torres, J. Moldon, D. Mata-S´ anchez, G. Leloudas, D. R. Pasham, S. Mattila, I. Arcavi, K. Decker French, F. Onori, C. Inserra, M. Nicholl, M. Gromadzki, T. W. Chen, T. E. M¨ uller-Bravo, P. Short, J. P. Anderson, D. R. You...

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. J. Goodwin, A. Mummery, T. Laskar, K. D. Alexander, G. E. Anderson, M. Bietenholz, C. Bonnerot, C. T. Christy, W. Golay, W. Lu, R. Margutti, J. C. A. Miller-Jones, E. Ramirez- Ruiz, R. Saxton, and S. van Velzen, Astrophys. J. 981, 122 (2025), arXiv:2410.18665 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mummery, Mon

    A. Mummery, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 527, 6233 (2024), arXiv:2312.00557 [gr-qc]. 17

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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