Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 52 references

MAD-like black-hole accretion is a bundle of coupled behaviors, not a single magnetic-flux threshold, and accretion history can split them.

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-4.5

2026-07-10 18:04 UTC pith:AF52X3SN

load-bearing objection Chimera shows MAD-level flux and jet power can sit with non-MAD morphology and force/transport geometry; the dual torus+field change softens causal claims but not the demonstrated separability. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07784 v1 pith:AF52X3SN submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.HE

The SANE, the MAD, and the Chimera

George N. Wong , James M. Stone This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords black hole accretionSANEmagnetically arrested diskMADGRMHDmagnetic fluxjetsangular momentum transport
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.

Black-hole accretion flows are usually sorted into weak-flux SANE disks and strong-flux magnetically arrested disks (MADs). This paper shows that the MAD label is not a single switch. Using three-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics, the authors compare a weakly magnetized SANE flow, a standard MAD, and a Chimera flow that is fed by a different reservoir of mass, angular momentum, and coherent magnetic flux. The Chimera reaches MAD-level horizon flux and launches a powerful electromagnetic jet for a long non-eruptive interval, yet it does not share the standard MAD's bursty flux variability, mass-flow channels, density structure, force balance, or angular-momentum transport. In the SANE case radial support is mainly gas-pressure gradients; in MAD-like flows magnetic pressure and tension enter the radial force budget at comparable order. The practical claim is that MAD-like behavior is a dynamical coupling among horizon flux, jet power, magnetic support, Maxwell transport, surface-layer flow, disk morphology, and eruption activity, and that accretion history and flux supply can separate those outcomes.

Core claim

A flow can maintain large horizon magnetic flux and high electromagnetic jet power without sharing the standard MAD's eruptive variability, mass-flow distribution, or inner morphology. MAD-like behavior is therefore not captured by any single diagnostic, but by a dynamical coupling among horizon flux, jet power, magnetic support, Maxwell transport, surface-layer flow, disk morphology, and eruption activity, and those outcomes can be separated by how mass, angular momentum, and magnetic flux are supplied.

What carries the argument

The Chimera MAD: an accretion history initialized from a Chakrabarti torus with a large-scale vertical field, used as a third comparison case against standard Fishbone–Moncrief SANE and MAD baselines to show that MAD-level horizon flux and jet power can be decoupled from standard MAD morphology, force balance, transport geometry, and eruption activity.

Load-bearing premise

The Chimera versus standard-MAD contrast is read as a statement about accretion history and magnetic-flux supply even though the two runs differ at once in torus structure and magnetic-field geometry, so they do not isolate one control parameter.

What would settle it

Evolve matched Chimera and standard-MAD setups long after eruptions begin, or change only one of torus structure versus magnetic geometry, and check whether the late Chimera still remains distinct in density structure, funnel-wall geometry, mass-flow channels, radial force budget, and angular-momentum transport, or whether it collapses onto the standard MAD.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compares three matched-resolution AthenaK GRMHD simulations of thick RIAFs around a spinning black hole (a*=0.9): a weakly magnetized Fishbone–Moncrief SANE, a standard FM MAD, and a “Chimera” flow initialized from a Chakrabarti torus with a large-scale vertical field. The Chimera reaches MAD-level dimensionless horizon flux (ϕ_BH≈15) and launches a powerful, electromagnetically dominated jet (efficiency ≳100%) over an extended non-eruptive high-flux interval (roughly 20,000–40,000 GM/c³), while remaining distinct from the standard MAD in midplane morphology, density and funnel-wall structure, latitudinal mass-flow channels, radial force budget, and angular-momentum transport. Force decompositions show SANE radial support is primarily gas-pressure driven, whereas MAD and late-Chimera flows have magnetic pressure and tension at comparable order. The authors conclude that MAD-like behavior is a multi-diagnostic dynamical coupling rather than a single scalar threshold, and that accretion history and magnetic-flux supply can separate those outcomes.

Significance. If the multi-diagnostic separation holds, the paper usefully reframes the SANE/MAD vocabulary for the community that uses FM-torus libraries for EHT and jet modeling. The demonstration that large horizon flux and high EM jet power can coexist with a long non-eruptive, morphologically nonstandard inner flow is a concrete existence result, not a redefinition by fiat. Strengths include resolution-matched runs, an explicit early/late Chimera split, a carefully projected fluid-frame force decomposition (Appendix B), Favre/Maxwell angular-momentum maps, and jet efficiencies without an ad-hoc vr>0 cut. The work is incremental rather than paradigm-shifting, but it is a clear, well-documented contribution to how magnetic state, feeding history, and diagnostics should be compared.

major comments (2)
  1. §4 (first qualification) and §2.2: the Chimera differs from the FM MAD in both torus structure (Chakrabarti vs Fishbone–Moncrief) and magnetic geometry (large-scale vertical A_ϕ vs FM MAD loop). The multi-diagnostic separation is real in the presented runs (Figs. 1–5, 8–13), but causal attribution to “accretion history and magnetic-flux supply” alone is softened by the dual change. The abstract and §4 should state more sharply that this is an existence result under different full feeding prescriptions, not an isolated single-parameter test of flux supply. A short controlled comparison (same torus, different A_ϕ, or vice versa) is not required for publication, but the claim language should match the design.
  2. §3.1 and Table 1: the late Chimera window (40,000–50,000 GM/c³) is defined by the onset of sharp unnormalized flux drops and low-density bubbles. That is operationally clear, but the post-eruption baseline is only ~10,000 GM/c³. The claim that the eruptive Chimera “remains distinct” from the standard MAD (Abstract; §4) is therefore provisional. Either extend the late-interval discussion with a quantitative similarity metric (e.g., time-averaged ϕ variability, midplane density PDF, or force-budget residuals) or explicitly limit the distinctness claim to the analyzed window.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2 caption and text: clarify that ˙M is normalized to its post-transient mean (t>10,000) so absolute rates are not compared across models; the footnote already notes MAD drains the FM torus faster.
  2. Eqs. (14) and (29): the σ<1 mask and fluid-enthalpy weighting are well motivated; state once in §3.3 that midplane-only profiles can misrepresent the dominant mass channel (as Fig. 5 shows).
  3. Fig. 13: the jet region uses time/azimuth-averaged (βγ)_∞>1 without a vr>0 cut; a one-sentence note that this includes near-horizon EM flux where matter may still be inflowing would help non-specialists.
  4. §3.4 / Appendix A–B: the orthonormal projection is careful; a brief pointer in the main text that ar̂ is the fluid-rest-frame radial acceleration (not the coordinate ar) would reduce misreading of Fig. 10.
  5. Typos/style: “the spacetime isfixedaccordingtotheKerrmetric” (§2.1); “e−r/400” spacing in Eq. (7); consistent use of ϕ_BH vs ϕ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Comparative GRMHD study with independently computed multi-diagnostics; no derivation reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This paper is a three-way simulation comparison (SANE, standard MAD, Chimera), not a first-principles derivation or a fitted predictive model. Horizon flux ϕ_BH, jet efficiency, density/morphology maps, radial force projections (gas pressure, magnetic pressure, tension), and angular-momentum flux decompositions (advective, Reynolds/Favre, Maxwell, EM inertia) are each computed from the evolved fields via standard GRMHD definitions; none is defined in terms of the multi-diagnostic MAD claim it is used to support. The Chimera is specified by its initial torus and vector potential, not by the outcomes later reported. Splitting the Chimera analysis into early/late intervals by the observed onset of flux drops and low-density bubbles is an operational time cut, not a self-definitional prediction of eruptions from flux. Self-citations (Wong et al. 2022, 2025; Stone et al. 2026) supply code methods and the FM SANE/MAD baselines; they do not underwrite a uniqueness theorem or force the central separability claim. The dual torus+field change is an acknowledged causal caveat, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known empirical pattern is merely re-labeled. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on ideal non-radiative GRMHD in fixed Kerr spacetime, three hand-chosen initial reservoirs and magnetic vector potentials, fixed spin and equation of state, and analysis windows chosen after the fact from the runs. No new physical entity is postulated beyond a taxonomic label for the third run. Free parameters are initial-condition and numerical choices, not fits to observational data.

free parameters (8)
  • black hole spin a*
    Fixed by hand to 0.9 for all three runs; jet efficiency and MAD saturation depend on spin.
  • adiabatic index γ̂
    Set to 13/9 for single-fluid evolution; affects thermodynamics and scale height.
  • initial plasma β (Pgas,max / Pmag,max)
    Rescaled to 100 after constructing each vector potential; controls early magnetization.
  • Fishbone–Moncrief torus parameters (rin=20, rpeak=41)
    Hand-chosen SANE/MAD baseline reservoir from prior Wong et al. 2025 runs.
  • Chakrabarti torus parameters (rin=15, rpeak=58)
    Hand-chosen Chimera mass/angular-momentum reservoir.
  • Chimera vector-potential falloff r_falloff
    Set to 80 in Eq. (8) to deliver coherent vertical flux; controls flux-supply history.
  • analysis time windows (SANE/MAD 2e4–5e4; Chimera early 2e4–4e4, late 4e4–5e4)
    Chosen after inspecting flux time series and midplane morphology; late window begins when eruptions appear.
  • grid resolution (16 cells per GM/c^2 in finest level)
    Fiducial numerical choice; double-resolution Chimera check reported but not fully documented.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal GRMHD in fixed Kerr spacetime adequately models non-radiative thick accretion for the diagnostics considered.
    Stated throughout §2; no radiation, no pair production, no resistivity.
  • domain assumption Horizon-normalized magnetic flux ϕ_BH ~ 15 is the conventional MAD saturation diagnostic in Lorentz–Heaviside units.
    Invoked in §3.1 citing Tchekhovskoy et al. 2011; used as the MAD-level benchmark for the Chimera.
  • ad hoc to paper Jet region can be defined by time/azimuth-averaged (βγ)_∞ > 1 without a vr>0 cut.
    §3.6 operational definition for Pjet; affects efficiency comparisons near the hole.
  • ad hoc to paper σ<1 mask plus fluid-enthalpy weighting isolates the disk-body averages for force and transport diagnostics.
    §3.3–3.5; changes which layers enter radial profiles and Favre decompositions.
  • domain assumption Static mesh refinement at the stated nested cubes is sufficient for the reported qualitative and quantitative contrasts.
    §2.2; supported by a brief double-resolution Chimera check.
invented entities (1)
  • Chimera MAD no independent evidence
    purpose: Label for the Chakrabarti-torus plus large-scale vertical-field run that is MAD-like in flux/jet power but nonstandard in morphology, force budget, and transport.
    Taxonomic name for a simulation history, not a new physical particle or force. Independent evidence is only the run itself and future similar setups.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28379 in / 3717 out tokens · 42316 ms · 2026-07-10T18:04:29.112370+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The SANE, the MAD, and the Chimera." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AF52X3SN

@misc{pith2026260707784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The SANE, the MAD, and the Chimera},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AF52X3SN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07784}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Non-radiative black hole accretion flows are commonly classified by their magnetic flux state, with standard and normal evolution (SANE) disks and magnetically arrested disks (MADs) marking the usual weak- and strong-flux regimes. We compare three-dimensional general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulations of a weakly magnetized SANE flow, a standard MAD, and a Chimera flow fed by a different reservoir of mass, angular momentum, and coherent magnetic flux. The Chimera reaches a MAD-level horizon magnetic flux and launches a powerful electromagnetic jet during an extended non-eruptive interval, showing that a flow can maintain large horizon flux and jet power without sharing the standard MAD's bursty horizon-flux variability, mass-flow distribution, or inner-flow morphology. In the SANE flow, we show that radial support is primarily hydrodynamic and provided by gas pressure gradients, whereas in MAD flows, magnetic pressure and tension enter the radial force budget at comparable order and help regulate the inner flow dynamics. The Chimera remains distinct from the standard MAD in its density structure, funnel-wall geometry, mass-flow channels, radial force budget, and angular-momentum transport throughout the analyzed evolution. We therefore argue that MAD-like behavior is not captured by any single diagnostic, but by a dynamical coupling among horizon flux, jet power, magnetic support, Maxwell transport, surface-layer flow, disk morphology, and eruption activity. The Chimera shows that these outcomes can be separated by accretion history and magnetic-flux supply.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07784 by George N. Wong, James M. Stone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative midplane slices of fluid-frame density for the SANE, standard MAD, and Chimera MAD simulations, with columns showing snapshots evenly spaced in time. The images are normalized so that the mean density at r = 4 GM/c2 is unity. The black circle marks the event horizon. The SANE flow remains comparatively smooth, the standard MAD shows strong time variability and low-density inner cavities, and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time series of horizon fluxes for the three simulations. From top to bottom, the panels show the mass accre￾tion rate normalized by its post-transient mean, as well as the instantaneous dimensionless horizon-threading magnetic flux ϕBH = ΦBH/|M˙ | 1/2 , specific angular-momentum flux |L/˙ M˙ |, and rest-mass-subtracted specific energy flux |(E˙ + M˙ )/M˙ |. The standard MAD rapidly reaches a large horizon-… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time- and azimuth-averaged density structure for the three simulations. The red curve marks (βγ)∞ = 1, the blue curve marks σ = 1, and the black curve shows the density scale height. The σ = 1 contour also defines the mask used to exclude magnetically dominated zones from the disk-body radial profiles presented below. The SANE flow has a broad, matter-dominated disk and gradual transition to the polar regi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-averaged poloidal mass flux in the SANE, standard MAD, and Chimera MAD flows, normalized by the accretion rate through the event horizon. Streamlines trace the mean poloidal flow direction. The SANE flow has prominent off-midplane accretion channels, whereas the standard MAD and Chimera MAD show more organized inflow–outflow structure near the black hole. The Chimera MAD differs from the standard MAD … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial mass accretion rate as a function of latitude for the SANE, standard MAD, and early and late Chimera MAD intervals. Positive values denote inward accretion and negative values denote outward mass flux. The SANE flow shows broad off-midplane accretion peaks, while the standard MAD places more of the inward mass flux near the midplane and develops outflowing regions at higher latitudes. The Chimera MA… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of basic fluid diagnostics for the SANE, standard MAD, and Chimera MAD flows, shown as disk-body averages (left) and midplane values (right). From top to bottom, the panels show density normalized to its value at the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO), dimensionless fluid temperature Θfluid, magnetization σ ≡ b 2 /ρ, and plasma β ≡ 2Pgas/b2 . Comparing the two columns highlights vertica… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial profiles of kinematic diagnostics for the SANE, standard MAD, and early and late Chimera MAD intervals. The panels show radial velocity, fluid angular ve￾locity, specific angular momentum −uϕ, and fluid-motion pitch angle arctan(v r /RΩ). The shaded region extends to the event horizon and the dashed line marks the ISCO. The SANE flow accretes more slowly and rotates closer to the Keplerian angular v… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time- and azimuth-averaged maps of the total poloidal non-geodesic acceleration, which measures how pressure and magnetic stresses support or redirect gas away from geodesic motion. Grayscale shows density; curves follow the acceleration direction (not mass-flow streamlines) and are colored by |apol,tot|/(R Ω 2 Kep). The SANE flow has a smoother, disk-centered support field, while the standard MAD develops… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Decomposition of the total acceleration in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial profiles of the gas-pressure, magnet￾ic-pressure, magnetic-tension, and total radial acceleration contributions for the SANE, standard MAD, and Chimera MAD flows. Accelerations are normalized by R Ω 2 Kep; posi￾tive values indicate outward acceleration and negative values assist infall. The gray shaded region marks the event hori￾zon and the dotted vertical line marks the ISCO. The SANE flow is pri… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Meridional maps of poloidal angular-momentum flux for the SANE, standard MAD, and Chimera MAD flows, decomposed into total, advective, Reynolds-like (Favre-covariance), Maxwell, and electromagnetic-inertia contributions. Stream￾lines trace each poloidal flux vector; the color scales show density, current magnitude, and signed projection onto the total-current direction. SANE transport is concentrated in t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Latitudinal profiles of radial angular-momentum flux at r = 3, 5, and 10 GM/c2 , with positive values denoting outward transport. Colored curves show the individual contributions to the total flux (dashed black curve); the dotted black curve shows the sum of the stress-like components R r ϕ − ⟨b r bϕ⟩. The dotted curve isolates disk transport torques together with possible funnel angular-momentum extracti… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Jet and outflow energetics for the SANE, standard MAD, and Chimera MAD simulations. The jet region is defined from the time- and azimuth-averaged funnel structure, and powers are computed by integrating the rest-mass-subtracted radial energy flux over this region. The left panels show the time evolution of the total jet efficiency and the fractional electromagnetic contribution at r = 100 GM/c2 ; the righ… 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

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., McKinney, J

    Avara, M. J., McKinney, J. C., & Reynolds, C. S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1643

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1643 2016

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270 —. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    work page doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  3. [3]

    F., & Krolik, J

    Beckwith, K., Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 428, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/428

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/428 2009

  4. [4]

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

    Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 2040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3790

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3790 2022

  5. [5]

    S., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1974, Astrophysics and Space Science, 28, 45, doi: 10.1007/BF00642237

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00642237 1974

  6. [6]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  7. [7]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 2496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf200

    Chael, A. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 2496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf200

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf200 2025

  8. [8]

    Chakrabarti, S. K. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 288, 1, doi: 10.1086/162755

    work page doi:10.1086/162755 1985

  9. [9]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97 The SANE, the MAD, and the Chimera21

    Chatterjee, K., & Narayan, R. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97 The SANE, the MAD, and the Chimera21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97 2022

  10. [10]

    N., & Gammie, C

    Dhruv, V., Prather, C., Wong, G. N., & Gammie, C. F. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 277, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adaea6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adaea6 2025

  11. [11]

    R., Hawley J

    Evans, C. R., & Hawley, J. F. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 332, 659, doi: 10.1086/166684 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    work page doi:10.1086/166684 1988

  12. [12]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 2019

  13. [13]

    C., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de 2021

  14. [14]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 —

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 —. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 2022

  15. [15]

    G., & Moncrief, V

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

    work page doi:10.1086/154565 1976

  16. [16]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaea3 2025

  17. [17]

    A., & Stone, J

    Gardiner, T. A., & Stone, J. M. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 205, 509, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2004.11.016 —. 2008, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 4123, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.12.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2004.11.016 2005

  18. [18]

    Guilet, J., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 2097, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21361.x —. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts551

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21361.x 2012

  19. [19]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 440, 742, doi: 10.1086/175311

    work page doi:10.1086/175311 1995

  20. [20]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 2008

  21. [21]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/375769 2003

  22. [22]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Blaes, O., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00 2019

  23. [23]

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083025 2025

  24. [24]

    N., & Stone, J

    Lemaster, M. N., & Stone, J. M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1092

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1092 2009

  25. [25]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Rothstein, D. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 701, 885, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/885

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/885 2009

  26. [26]

    H., Papaloizou, J

    Lubow, S. H., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 267, 235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/267.2.235

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/267.2.235 1994

  27. [27]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323d

    Manikantan, V., Kaaz, N., Jacquemin-Ide, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad323d 2024

  28. [28]

    D., Avara, M

    Marshall, M. D., Avara, M. J., & McKinney, J. C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1184 2018

  29. [29]

    MNRAS , author =

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x 2012

  30. [30]

    A., & Stone, J

    Miller, K. A., & Stone, J. M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 534, 398, doi: 10.1086/308736

    work page doi:10.1086/308736 2000

  31. [31]

    C., Armitage, P

    Mishra, B., Begelman, M. C., Armitage, P. J., & Simon, J. B. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3572 Morales Teixeira, D., Avara, M. J., & McKinney, J. C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2044

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3572 2020

  32. [32]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac285 2022

  33. [33]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/55.6.l69 2003

  34. [34]

    MNRAS , author =

    Narayan, R., Sądowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x 2012

  35. [35]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    work page doi:10.1086/176343 1995

  36. [36]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935559

    Olivares, H., Porth, O., Davelaar, J., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935559

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935559 2019

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Pessah, M. E., Chan, C.-K., & Psaltis, D. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 183, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10824.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10824.x 2006

  38. [38]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    Porth, O., Chatterjee, K., Narayan, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd 2019

  39. [39]

    2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 546, stag148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag148

    Raha, R., Mukhopadhyay, B., & Chatterjee, K. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 546, stag148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag148 2026

  40. [40]

    J., Begelman, M

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

    work page doi:10.1038/295017a0 1982

  41. [41]

    M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 3544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1146 22Wong & Stone

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1146 2018

  42. [42]

    M., Quataert, E., White, C

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., White, C. J., & Blaes, O. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab311

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab311 2021

  43. [43]

    M., White, C

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9532 2020

  44. [44]

    M., & Lovelace, R

    Rothstein, D. M., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 1221, doi: 10.1086/529128

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/529128 2008

  45. [45]

    C., & Dexter, J

    Scepi, N., Begelman, M. C., & Dexter, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3299

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3299 2024

  46. [46]

    M., Hawley, J

    Stone, J. M., Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 463, 656, doi: 10.1086/177280

    work page doi:10.1086/177280 1996

  47. [47]

    M., Mullen, P

    Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., Fielding, D., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 283, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3717 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Penna, R., & Zhu, Y. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1881

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3717 2026

  48. [48]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x 2011

  49. [49]

    N., Medeiros, L., & Stone, J

    Wong, G. N., Medeiros, L., & Stone, J. M. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae14fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae14fd 2025

  50. [50]

    N., Prather, C., Dhruv, V., et al

    Wong, G. N., Prather, C., Dhruv, V., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac582e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac582e 2022

  51. [51]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 2014

  52. [52]

    Zhu, Z., & Stone, J. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafc9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaafc9 2018