Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Delayed Launch of Ultrafast Outflows in the Tidal Disruption Event AT2020afhd

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 AT2020afhd provides the first observed full life cycle of an X-ray ultrafast outflow in a tidal disruption event.

desk verdict Credible detection of a variable absorption feature in a TDE, but the 'full evolutionary sequence' and rapid deceleration claims go beyond what the non-detection constraints and velocity uncertainties support. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15482 v1 pith:AFTBIXBC submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.HE

Zikun Lin , Yanan Wang , De-Fu Bu , Junjie Mao , Jifeng Liu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AT2020afhdtidaldisruptioneventsultrafastoutflowsX-rayabsorptionspectroscopyphotoionizationmodelingdiskwindsmagneticdrivingsuper-Eddingtonaccretion
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 reports that the tidal disruption event AT2020afhd displayed X-ray absorption from an ultrafast outflow only between roughly days 74 and 215 after discovery, making it the first TDE for which the full birth-to-death evolution of such an outflow has been seen. Across about ten days the outflow velocity fell from 0.19c to 0.0097c, and the velocity and ionization parameter moved in opposite directions, the reverse of what radiation-pressure-driven wind models predict. The authors conclude that neither radiation pressure nor thermal launching can explain the wind, leaving magnetic driving as the most viable mechanism, and propose that the delayed appearance reflects a widening wind opening angle and/or gradual iron and oxygen enrichment as the stellar core is accreted. If the sequence is real, TDE disk winds can turn on, strengthen, decelerate, and vanish on month-long timescales, a behavior that future X-ray monitoring of bright TDEs can test directly.

What carries the argument

The machinery is time-resolved X-ray spectroscopy of the broad blueshifted absorption feature near 0.95 keV, identified as iron M-shell unresolved transition array and oxygen K-edge absorption and modeled with the pion photoionization model in SPEX, a self-consistent treatment of a photoionized absorber. The four-epoch grouping of Swift/XRT spectra supplies the absence-appearance-strengthening-disappearance timeline, while individual NICER and XMM-Newton spectra track the rapid centroid shift that sets the deceleration.

What would settle it

A deeper co-added spectrum from days 0-74 and days 220-302, with enough counts to detect the same iron and oxygen absorption at the epoch-(3) amount of absorbing gas and ionization state, would settle whether the turn-on and turn-off are physical; if the line still cannot be found, the delayed-launch claim stands, and if it can, the evolutionary sequence is a sampling artifact. Fitting those epochs with line energy and width free, and marginalizing over covering fraction, would provide the same test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AT2020afhd is the first tidal disruption event in which the entire evolutionary track of an X-ray ultrafast outflow is observed. Blueshifted absorption from the iron M-shell unresolved transition array and the oxygen K-edge is absent in the combined spectrum of the first 74 days, appears weakly by days 172-194, strengthens through days 194-215, and is absent again after day 215. During this active window the line centroid shifts from 0.95 keV to 0.78 keV in about ten days, which the photoionization fits translate into a velocity drop from roughly 0.19c to 0.0097c, while the ionization parameter rises as the velocity falls. The authors read this inverse correlation, together with the delayed onset at roughly constant luminosity, as inconsistent with radiation-pressure-driven winds and as evidence for magnetic launching; they attribute the delay to an expanding wind opening angle and/or metal enrichment during disk formation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the non-detections before day 74 and after day 215 mean the outflow really was absent, rather than too faint to detect in Swift spectra that contain only roughly 800-1100 counts and in which the line energy and width were fixed to the detection epochs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sequence is real, TDE disk winds can switch on and off on roughly 100-day timescales, so single-epoch detections or non-detections in other TDEs cannot be taken as permanent states.
  • The deceleration from 0.19c to 0.0097c at roughly constant luminosity rules out a declining mass fallback rate as the cause, the explanation previously applied to the slower UV wind in AT2019qiz.
  • The inverse velocity-ionization correlation and the absence of an ionization-luminosity correlation contradict radiation-pressure driving and shift the balance of evidence toward magnetically launched winds.
  • Even with dense multi-wavelength coverage, the inferred wind and jet mass loss is only a small fraction of the disrupted star's mass, so outflow observations alone are unlikely to resolve the TDE missing-energy problem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if delayed onset is a generic disk-formation effect rather than a quirk of this event, high-cadence X-ray monitoring of future TDEs should catch the same turn-on pattern within the first few months, letting observers time the disk formation phase directly.
  • Beyond the paper: the velocity-ionization anticorrelation could serve as a cheap diagnostic, since measuring both quantities in a sample of TDEs may separate magnetic from radiation-pressure winds without requiring high-resolution line profiles.
  • Beyond the paper: the seasonal gap means the true launch time could be as early as day 74 or as late as day 172, so scheduled observations across that window in comparable bright TDEs would pin down whether the delay scales with black hole mass or fallback timescale.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of blueshifted X-ray absorption features in the tidal disruption event AT2020afhd, detected in NICER and XMM-Newton observations taken between 194 and 212 days after discovery. The features are statistically significant in six individual observations (ΔCstat = 24–66 for 3 dof). Using photoionization modeling with the pion model, the authors derive outflow velocities apparently declining from ~0.19c to ~0.0097c and an anti-correlation between outflow velocity and ionization parameter. Because the features are absent in combined Swift spectra before day 74 and after day 215, the authors claim to have observed the full evolutionary sequence of an ultrafast outflow in a TDE for the first time, with delayed launch, strengthening, and disappearance. They argue that the behavior is inconsistent with radiation-pressure-driven winds and favor magnetic driving.

Significance. If the full evolutionary sequence is real, this would be an important result: it would demonstrate that TDE disk winds can turn on and off on ~100-day timescales, decelerate dramatically, and challenge radiation-pressure wind models. The core detections themselves are robust and well documented, with multiple instruments and consistent continuum treatment. The statistical significance of the six detections is high and the spectral fitting tables are detailed. However, the evolutionary-sequence claim rests on non-detections that are not yet demonstrated to be physical, and the velocity/ionization trend is not shown to be free of parameter degeneracy. The paper's physical conclusions therefore need substantial additional analysis before they can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Table B.2] The conclusion that the outflow appeared only after day 74 and disappeared after day 215 is based on non-detections in the Swift/XRT epoch spectra. These upper limits were derived by fixing the Gaussian line energy and width to the values from the detection epochs (Eline = 0.93 keV for epoch 1 and 0.78 keV for epoch 4). This tests only absorption at those specific energies, yet Fig. 2 shows that the line centroid varies by ~0.17 keV across epoch 3, so a wind with a different velocity would be missed. The Appendix A residual search is restricted to 0.8–1.1 keV and therefore does not constrain the range below 0.8 keV where a faster wind (v ≳ 0.15c) would appear. In addition, the epoch 4 upper limit (Enorm < 4.2×10^-5) is comparable to the epoch 3 detection (5.0 ± 1.2×10^-5), and because the epoch 4 continuum flux is ~4 times lower, an absorber with the same physical column as in epoch 3 would produce a line ~4 times weaker and would not be excluded. The 'turn-on' and 'turn-off' are thus not established; a grid search over line energy/velocity and column should be performed on the epoch 1 and 4 spectra before claiming a full evolutionary sequence.
  2. [Sec. 3, Table B.1 and Fig. 4] The claimed 'dramatic deceleration from ~0.19c to ~0.0097c over approximately 10 days' is not a monotonic trend in the fitted values. The two high velocities (-0.186 and -0.190 c) occur only on days 198.0 and 199.1; the day 194.3 observation gives vout = -0.015 (+0.012, -0.119) and the day 201.1 observation gives vout = -0.036 (+0.013, -0.304), both consistent with the low-velocity end. The apparent deceleration is therefore driven by only two epochs and is not a smooth 10-day decline. The authors should present the full confidence contours for vout at each epoch and discuss the non-monotonic behavior, or temper the deceleration claim accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 5] The inverse correlation between outflow velocity and ionization parameter is central to the argument against radiation-pressure-driven winds. However, vout and log ξ are both fitted parameters of the same pion model, and the broad absorption feature is a blend of the Fe M-shell UTA and O K-edge; such models often have strong degeneracies between velocity, column, and ionization. The paper does not show confidence contours or a grid search over these parameters. Given the large error bars (e.g., the first point in Fig. 5a has vout consistent with zero), the anti-correlation may not be robust. The authors should demonstrate that the anti-correlation persists when the degeneracy is marginalized, for example by producing ΔCstat contours in the (vout, log ξ) plane for representative epochs.
  4. [Sec. 4.1 and Abstract] The statement that AT2020afhd is 'the first instance in which the full evolutionary process of outflows has been observed in a TDE' is not yet supported. The seasonal gap between days 74 and 172 leaves the launch time unconstrained, as acknowledged in Sec. 4, and the non-detections in epochs 1 and 4 are based on fixed line energies, as discussed above. Please revise the abstract and conclusions to state the constraints more accurately, e.g., 'absorption is detected only between days 172 and 212; non-detections before day 74 and after day 215 are currently consistent with sensitivity or visibility effects.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title has a stray space in 'A T2020afhd'; it should read 'AT2020afhd'.
  2. [Sec. 5] The word 'Morever' is a typo and should be 'Moreover'.
  3. [References and Sec. 1] The paper repeatedly refers to 'Wang et al. (2025, submitted)' for classification, black hole mass, radio emission, and the X-ray light curve; this unpublished work is not in the reference list, making it impossible for the reader to verify these inputs. Please provide a preprint identifier or include the relevant data in the paper.
  4. [Fig. 3] The dashed line marking 0.95 keV is used for all four epochs, but the absorption feature in epoch 3 evolves to 0.78 keV in later observations (Table B.1); the figure would be clearer if it indicated the energy range or used the epoch-specific centroid.
  5. [Sec. 2 and Table B.2] The Gaussian line width Eσ is fixed at different values for different epochs (0.05 keV for epochs 2 and 3, 0.12 keV for epoch 4 and the XMM spectra); the justification for this choice should be stated explicitly, as the resulting upper limits are sensitive to the assumed width.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed turn-on/turn-off timeline is constructed from upper limits at line energies fixed to the detection epochs, making the 'full evolutionary sequence' partially definitional.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3 (Swift/XRT epoch fitting), Abstract, Sec. 4.1]
    "To determine upper limits for epoch (1), we fixed Eline and Eσ to the values from epoch (2) to constrain the line strength (Enorm). For epoch (4), which corresponds to the later stage of line evolution, we fixed Eline and Eσ to the values from PN101. The inclusion of an additional Gaussian component resulted in ∆Cstat = 0, indicating that this component was not statistically required."

    The conclusions 'appeared no earlier than day 74' and 'disappeared after day 215' are drawn from these epoch-(1) and epoch-(4) upper limits. But each upper limit is computed with the line centroid and width fixed to values fitted in the detection epochs (0.93 keV for epoch 2, 0.78 keV for PN101). The non-detection therefore tests only absorption at those two assumed energies; a wind at a different velocity, ionization, or covering fraction would not be excluded. The turn-on/turn-off timeline is thus an artifact of reusing the detected line parameters as fixed inputs rather than an independent measurement. The Appendix A residual search is likewise restricted to 0.8-1.1 keV, so it does not rescue the assumption.

full rationale

The paper's positive detections in six epoch-(3) spectra are real and independently analyzed; the pion-model fits and the velocity/ionization trend are not themselves circular. The circularity enters at the level of the 'full evolutionary sequence' claim. The epoch-(1) and epoch-(4) non-detections, which are the evidence for 'launched no earlier than day 74' and 'disappeared after day 215', are computed by fixing the line centroid and width to values fitted in the detection epochs (Tab. B.2: Eline = 0.93 keV for epoch 1, 0.78 keV for epoch 4). Such an upper limit only excludes an absorber at that assumed energy and broadening; it cannot establish the physical absence of a UFO at a different velocity, ionization, or covering fraction. The Appendix A residual search is also confined to 0.8-1.1 keV, so faster winds whose features would appear below 0.8 keV are not searched. Thus the launch/disappearance timeline is, in part, constructed by the same fitted parameters that define the detection, rather than being an independent observational finding. Self-citations to Wang et al. (2025, submitted) are numerous but not load-bearing for the spectral absorption claim; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work. The core spectral detections remain independent, so the paper is only partially circular, not wholly so.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derived mass loss rate depends on several adopted ranges (Omega=2pi, ngas 10^10-10^15, Rlaunch 10-1000 Rg) rather than measurements. The core spectral measurements are fitted parameters of the pion model, which are reported with uncertainties. The physical interpretation leans on well-known theoretical expectations from the cited literature, not new entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Solid angle Omega for wind mass loss = 2pi
    Assumed in Eq. (1) to estimate Mdot; affects the mass loss rate linearly and is not measured.
  • Gas density range ngas = 10^10 to 10^15 cm^-3
    Adopted from simulations to estimate Rlaunch via sqrt(Lion/(ngas xi)); spans 5 orders of magnitude and yields Rlaunch 10^13 to 10^16 cm.
  • Wind launching radius range Rlaunch = 10 to 1000 Rg
    Assumed range in the mass loss estimate; combined with NH and vout gives Mdot 4-400e21 g/s.
  • Gaussian line width E_sigma = 0.05 keV (fixed) for Swift; 0.12 keV for epoch 4/PN
    Unconstrained in fits, fixed to median values; affects line strength upper limits and detection significance.
  • Hard excess powerlaw component = photon index Gamma in 2.7-5.7 depending on epoch
    Added to model the >1 keV excess; the authors note alternative models (blackbody/diskbb) cannot be distinguished, so this is a modeling choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The re-brightening of AT2020afhd is a tidal disruption event.
    Classification from Hammerstein et al. 2024 and Wang et al. 2025 (submitted); the paper's interpretation as an accretion disk wind depends on this.
  • domain assumption The absorption feature centered near 0.95 keV is an intrinsic blueshifted outflow, not a calibration or continuum artifact.
    Central to the claim; the paper checks statistical significance but not instrument systematics in detail.
  • domain assumption The pion photoionization model correctly describes the absorber, and its fitted parameters (vout, log xi, NH) are independent enough that the anti-correlation is physical.
    The velocity-xi anti-correlation is derived from this model; no confidence contours are shown to rule out degeneracy.
  • standard math Radiation-pressure-driven winds in super-Eddington TDEs predict a positive correlation between outflow velocity and ionization parameter.
    Used in Sec. 4.2 to claim a contradiction; taken from literature (e.g., Ohsuga 2005, Jiang 2014, Dai 2018).
  • domain assumption The source is at z=0.027 with Galactic NH=0.047e22 cm^-2.
    Adopted from literature; errors in these shift the derived rest-frame energies and velocities.
  • domain assumption Luminosity plateaus indicate sustained super-Eddington or Eddington-limited accretion.
    Used to set the context for wind driving; from Krolik & Piran 2012.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delayed Launch of Ultrafast Outflows in the Tidal Disruption Event AT2020afhd." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFTBIXBC

@misc{pith2026250715482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delayed Launch of Ultrafast Outflows in the Tidal Disruption Event AT2020afhd},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFTBIXBC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15482}
}
read the original abstract

We report the detection and characterization of ultrafast outflows (UFOs) in the X-ray spectra of the tidal disruption event (TDE) AT2020afhd, based on observations from NICER, Swift, and XMM. Prominent blueshifted absorption features were detected exclusively during the intermediate phase of the event, occurring between days 172 and 212 within the first 300 days post-discovery. During this period, the UFO appeared no earlier than day 74, strengthened between days 172 and 194, and disappeared after day 215. This marks the first time that the full evolutionary sequence of X-ray outflows has been observed in a TDE. Moreover, the outflows exhibited a dramatic deceleration from ~0.19c to ~0.0097c over a span of approximately 10 days. Photoionization spectral analysis reveals an inverse correlation between outflow velocity and ionization parameter, in contradiction to the predictions from radiation pressure-driven wind. Eventually, we propose that the delayed onset of the outflows may result from an increase in the wind opening angle and/or metal enrichment, particularly iron and oxygen, during the disk formation phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The long-term unabsorbed X-ray (0.3–2 keV) light curve of AT2020afhd, starting from the discovery date (MJD 60310). Grey circles, squares, and stars represent observations from NICER, Swift, and XMM-Newton/PN, respectively. Data points in red indicate observations where an absorption feature was detected in the spectrum. The orange, green, blue, and purple shaded regions correspond to the four epochs used to combine… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The continuum residuals of the selected NICER (top five panels) and XMM-Newton/PN (bottom three pan￾els) spectrum. Red curves indicate detections of absorption lines. For comparison, two additional XMM-Newton/PN ob￾servations without detected absorption features are shown in gray. The dashed line marks the absorption feature at 0.95 keV. the following, we compare our results with absorption features detected in othe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Swift/XRT continuum fitting spectrum and their corresponding residuals with color code represented same as four epoch in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the outflow velocity as deter￾mined by the pion model. tremely limited compared to other bands, UV coverage remains sparse, which in turn limits our understanding of the evolution of UV outflows. Additionally, the outflows in AT2020afhd exhibited a dr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fitting model parameters for the hot×reds×pion×dbb model applied to NICER and XMM-Newton observations. Panel (a): Outflow velocity vs. ionization parameter. Panel (b): Outflow velocity vs. absorber column density. Panel (c): Absorber column density vs. ionization …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ay h 2y9B

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Liska , M

    Andalman , Z. L., Liska , M. T. P., Tchekhovskoy , A., Coughlin , E. R., & Stone , N. 2022, , 510, 1627, 10.1093/mnras/stab3444

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3444 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-466, 1

    Arcavi , I., Faris , S., Newsome , M., Sniegowska , M., & Trakhtenbrot , B. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-466, 1

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  7. [7]

    d., et al

    Barret , D., Albouys , V., Herder , J.-W. d., et al. 2023, Experimental Astronomy, 55, 373, 10.1007/s10686-022-09880-7

    doi:10.1007/s10686-022-09880-7 2023

  8. [8]

    C., McKee , C

    Begelman , M. C., McKee , C. F., & Shields , G. A. 1983, , 271, 70, 10.1086/161178

    doi:10.1086/161178 1983

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    B., Kulkarni , S

    Blagorodnova , N., Cenko , S. B., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 2019, , 873, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04b0

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Nicholl , M., Berger , E., et al

    Blanchard , P. K., Nicholl , M., Berger , E., et al. 2017, , 843, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Lodato , G

    Bonnerot , C., Rossi , E. M., & Lodato , G. 2017, , 464, 2816, 10.1093/mnras/stw2547

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Kochanek , C

    Brown , J. S., Kochanek , C. S., Holoien , T. W. S., et al. 2018, , 473, 1130, 10.1093/mnras/stx2372

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, , 516, 2833, 10.1093/mnras/stac2399

    Bu , D.-F., Qiao , E., Yang , X.-H., et al. 2022, , 516, 2833, 10.1093/mnras/stac2399

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  7. [15]

    B., Krimm , H

    Cenko , S. B., Krimm , H. A., Horesh , A., et al. 2012, , 753, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/77

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Cucchiara , A., Roth , N., et al

    Cenko , S. B., Cucchiara , A., Roth , N., et al. 2016, , 818, L32, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L32

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    R., et al

    Chakravorty , S., Petrucci , P.-O., Datta , S. R., et al. 2023, , 518, 1335, 10.1093/mnras/stac2835

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, , 780, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/44

    Chornock , R., Berger , E., Gezari , S., et al. 2014, , 780, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/44

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Bruijn , M

    Cui , W., Bregman , J. N., Bruijn , M. P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 114442...

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, , 483, 565, 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

    Curd , B., & Narayan , R. 2019, , 483, 565, 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M

    Dai , L., McKinney , J. C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M. C. 2018, , 859, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Chakravorty , S., Ferreira , J., et al

    Datta , S. R., Chakravorty , S., Ferreira , J., et al. 2024, , 687, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349129

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, , 940, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9388

    Fukumura , K., Dadina , M., Matzeu , G., et al. 2022, , 940, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9388

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari , S. 2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, , 767, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2013, , 767, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-336, 1

    Hammerstein , E., Chornock , R., Gezari , S., & Yao , Y. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-336, 1

    2024

  19. [27]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Hills , J. G. 1975, , 254, 295, 10.1038/254295a0

    1975 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Roth , N., et al

    Hung , T., Cenko , S. B., Roth , N., et al. 2019, , 879, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24de

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Veilleux , S., et al

    Hung , T., Foley , R. J., Veilleux , S., et al. 2021, , 917, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c3

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    M., & Davis , S

    Jiang , Y.-F., Stone , J. M., & Davis , S. W. 2014, , 796, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Li , D

    Jin , C. C., Li , D. Y., Jiang , N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09580, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09580

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Kaastra , J. S. 2017, , 605, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629319

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    S., & Bleeker , J

    Kaastra , J. S., & Bleeker , J. A. M. 2016, , 587, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

    Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe , 411--414

    1996

  28. [36]

    S., & Kallman , T

    Kara , E., Dai , L., Reynolds , C. S., & Kallman , T. 2018, , 474, 3593, 10.1093/mnras/stx3004

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    2023, , 954, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced87

    Kosec , P., Pasham , D., Kara , E., & Tombesi , F. 2023, , 954, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced87

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, , 978, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    Kosec , P., Kara , E., Brenneman , L., et al. 2025, , 978, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    H., & Piran , T

    Krolik , J. H., & Piran , T. 2012, , 749, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/92

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    W., Irwin , J

    Lin , D., Maksym , P. W., Irwin , J. A., et al. 2015, , 811, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/43

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    R., et al

    Lin , D., Strader , J., Carrasco , E. R., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 656, 10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Lodato , G., & Rossi , E. M. 2011, , 410, 359, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x

    2011

  35. [43]

    Lodders , K., Palme , H., & Gail , H. P. 2009, Landolt B \"o rnstein, 4B, 712, 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4_34

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    1997, , 489, 573, 10.1086/304814

    Loeb , A., & Ulmer , A. 1997, , 489, 573, 10.1086/304814

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, , 865, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54a

    Lu , W., & Kumar , P. 2018, , 865, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54a

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, , 953, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee

    Makrygianni , L., Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., et al. 2023, , 953, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Reeves , J

    Matzeu , G. A., Reeves , J. N., Braito , V., et al. 2017, , 472, L15, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx129

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., Sadowski , A., & Narayan , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., Sadowski , A., & Narayan , R. 2014, , 441, 3177, 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Kallman , T

    Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., & Kallman , T. 2016, , 596, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628721

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    D., & Stone , N

    Metzger , B. D., & Stone , N. C. 2016, , 461, 948, 10.1093/mnras/stw1394

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Kaastra , J

    Miller , J. M., Kaastra , J. S., Miller , M. C., et al. 2015, , 526, 542, 10.1038/nature15708

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    1984, , 36, 741

    Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., Koyama , K., et al. 1984, , 36, 741

    1984

  45. [53]

    N., Gofford , J., et al

    Nardini , E., Reeves , J. N., Gofford , J., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 860, 10.1126/science.1259202

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    2005, , 628, 368, 10.1086/430728

    Ohsuga , K., Mori , M., Nakamoto , T., & Mineshige , S. 2005, , 628, 368, 10.1086/430728

    2005 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Tombesi , F., Sukov \'a , P., et al

    Pasham , D. R., Tombesi , F., Sukov \'a , P., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadj8898, 10.1126/sciadv.adj8898

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    V., Auchettl , K., Shappee , B

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

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    Phinney , E. S. 1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. Morris , 543

    1989

  50. [58]

    L., et al

    Pinto , C., Alston , W., Parker , M. L., et al. 2018, , 476, 1021, 10.1093/mnras/sty231

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J., et al

    Pinto , C., Mehdipour , M., Walton , D. J., et al. 2020, , 491, 5702, 10.1093/mnras/stz3392

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    2025, , 539, 3473, 10.1093/mnras/staf719

    Qiao , E., Wu , Y., Lin , Y., et al. 2025, , 539, 3473, 10.1093/mnras/staf719

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  54. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.00083, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00083

    \'S niegowska , M., Trakhtenbrot , B., Makrygianni , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.00083, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00083

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    E., & Quataert , E

    Strubbe , L. E., & Quataert , E. 2009, , 400, 2070, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x

    2009

  56. [64]

    2017, , 467, 1426, 10.1093/mnras/stx117

    Svirski , G., Piran , T., & Krolik , J. 2017, , 467, 1426, 10.1093/mnras/stx117

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    Tashiro , M. S. 2022, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31, 2230001, 10.1142/S0218271822300014

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Kwan , T

    Thomsen , L. L., Kwan , T. M., Dai , L., et al. 2022, , 937, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., Ricci , C., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Metzger , B

    van Velzen , S., Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2019, , 878, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Ferland , G

    Verner , D. A., Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., & Yakovlev , D. G. 1996, , 465, 487, 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, , 513, 5818, 10.1093/mnras/stac1348

    Wang , W., Bu , D.-F., & Yuan , F. 2022, , 513, 5818, 10.1093/mnras/stac1348

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    A., et al

    Wang , Y., Ji , L., Garc \' a , J. A., et al. 2021, , 906, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc55e

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    R., et al

    Wevers , T., Guolo , M., Pasham , D. R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.09371, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.09371

    2023 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Zoghbi , A., et al

    Xiang , X., Miller , J. M., Zoghbi , A., et al. 2024, , 972, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6002

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, , 687, A179, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349001

    Xu , Y., Pinto , C., Rogantini , D., et al. 2024, , 687, A179, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349001

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2023, , 523, 208, 10.1093/mnras/stad1444

    Yang , H., Yuan , F., Kwan , T., & Dai , L. 2023, , 523, 208, 10.1093/mnras/stad1444

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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