Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Black hole spin governs efficiency, accretion rate governs power.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:19 UTC pith:COROSTKM

load-bearing objection First systematic 3D GRRMHD MAD grid across mass, spin, and accretion rate; the spin-dependent scalings are new and likely useful, but the headline beaming numbers depend on M1 closure in exactly the region where it is least secure. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28919 v1 pith:COROSTKM submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.HE

Strongly Magnetized Super-Eddington Accretion: How Spin and Accretion Rate Regulate Energy Output and Mass Loss

Tom Man Kwan , Lixin Dai , Cheuk Kwan Kan , Zepei Xing , Tassos Fragos , Matthew Middleton , Tao Ji , Feng Yuan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords super-Eddington accretionmagnetically arrested diskblack hole spinradiation magnetohydrodynamicsbeamingultraluminous X-ray sourceswind mass lossjet power
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper uses 32 three-dimensional simulations of magnetically arrested accretion disks — flows where a strong magnetic field chokes gas near a black hole — to establish how black hole parameters control the energy output of super-Eddington accretion. It argues that black hole spin is the primary driver of efficiency: a rapidly spinning hole converts matter into radiation, jets, and winds with far higher efficiencies than a non-spinning one, and those efficiencies grow faster than the accretion rate. The supply rate sets the overall power scale, while black hole mass over 5–30 solar masses makes no difference. If right, this gives a framework for interpreting ultraluminous X-ray sources, where apparent luminosities far above Eddington are explained by strong beaming along the polar funnel.

Core claim

By varying spin (0 and 0.9), accretion rate (about 1 to 2000 times Eddington), and black hole mass (5, 15, 30 solar masses) in a suite of three-dimensional general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamics simulations of magnetically arrested disks, the paper finds that the black hole accretes only 10–40% of the supplied gas; the rest is lost to winds. For non-spinning black holes the radiative, kinetic, and electromagnetic efficiencies stay roughly constant at a few percent across the entire accretion-rate range. For rapidly spinning black holes, wind and jet power scale super-linearly with accretion rate — jet power roughly as the 1.27 power of Eddington rate below 100 Eddington, then sa

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetically arrested disk (MAD): a super-Eddington accretion flow in which a strong, ordered magnetic field threads the black hole horizon and impedes infall, reaching a dimensionless magnetic flux around 30–60. The argument is carried by full 3D general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamics simulations with an M1 closure for radiation transport, which track the coupled gas, magnetic, and radiation energy fluxes. The key diagnostics are the efficiency of each energy channel (radiative, kinetic, electromagnetic), the mass accretion ratio (fraction of supplied gas that accretes), and the beaming factor (true luminosity divided by isotropic-equivalent luminosity

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the M1 radiation-transport closure accurately captures the anisotropic escape of light through the optically thin polar funnel, including the extreme beaming factors and high radiative efficiencies; if it distorts the funnel's transparency, the quantitative spin-efficiency and beaming results would shift.

What would settle it

Run the same models with a more accurate radiation-transport treatment (e.g., Monte Carlo or variable Eddington tensor): if inverse beaming factors above ~100 do not survive, or if the radiative efficiency does not rise steeply with spin, the central claim is falsified. Observationally, a black-hole ULX candidate seen face-on with isotropic-equivalent luminosity above 100 L_Edd but without fast (>0.3c) polar outflow or jet signatures would contradict the predicted coupling between beaming and fast polar outflow.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A stellar-mass black hole accreting near 200 Eddington rates in a magnetically arrested state, viewed nearly face-on, would appear as a source with isotropic-equivalent luminosity exceeding 100 L_Edd, offering a natural explanation for ultraluminous X-ray sources.
  • Observed kinetic powers of ULX bubbles can be converted, via the paper's scaling relations, into constraints on black hole spin and accretion rate; fast outflows above 0.3c would favor a spinning black hole.
  • Because only 10–40% of the supplied mass reaches the black hole, super-Eddington accretion is highly self-limiting for mass growth while still producing high apparent luminosity.
  • In high-spin systems, jet power saturates past about 100 Eddington rates, so additional mass supply mostly strengthens the wind rather than the jet.
  • Black hole mass has no effect across 5–30 solar masses, so population synthesis of ULXs can ignore mass dependence in this range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The strong beaming implies the same object would appear as a bright ULX face-on and much fainter edge-on; counting the relative numbers of face-on and edge-on systems in X-ray surveys could test the predicted beaming fractions.
  • If the M1 closure is replaced by a more accurate radiation-transport scheme (e.g., Monte Carlo), the extreme inverse beaming factors above 100 are the most fragile quantitative prediction; a moderate reduction would still preserve the spin-efficiency ordering.
  • The scaling relations, derived for stellar-mass black holes, may extend to supermassive black holes in tidal disruption events, where similar efficiencies would imply strong feedback and rapid spin-down of the hole.
  • The jet saturation at high rates suggests a natural brake: beyond about 100 Eddington, the magnetic flux threading the horizon saturates, so additional gas does not produce more jet power — an effect that could shape radio–X-ray correlations in super-Eddington sources.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 32 three-dimensional GRRMHD simulations of super-Eddington magnetically arrested disks around stellar-mass black holes, varying mass (5, 15, 30 M_sun), spin (a=0, 0.9), and accretion rate (Mdot/Mdot_Edd ≈ 1–2000). The authors define a set of diagnostics for mass and energy fluxes and report that: BH mass has no effect; wind kinetic, radiative, and electromagnetic efficiencies are nearly constant for a=0 but grow super-linearly with accretion rate for a=0.9; jet power saturates at high Eddington ratios; the BH accretes only 10–40% of the supplied gas; and radiation is strongly beamed along the polar funnel, with inverse beaming factors exceeding 100 for high-spin, high-Mdot models. They conclude that BH spin is the primary driver of super-Eddington MAD efficiency while accretion rate sets the overall energy scale, and they provide scaling relations intended for interpreting ULXs and related sources.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, this is a valuable systematic step: the 32-run parameter survey, clearly defined diagnostics, and explicit scaling relations give a framework that can be compared with ULX outflows, nebulae, and hyper-luminous sources. The qualitative message that rapid spin boosts energy-extraction efficiency and that accretion rate sets the power scale is credible and consistent with earlier MAD simulations. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, e.g., UFO velocities >0.3c favoring high spin, and a strong viewing-angle dependence of apparent luminosity. However, the quantitative claims—especially the extreme beaming factors and the super-linear efficiency scalings—rest on the M1 radiation closure in the optically thin polar funnel and on a set of fits without quoted uncertainties or a resolution study. These issues need to be addressed before the scaling relations can be used as a secure observational framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §3.5.3, §5] The M1 closure for radiation transport is used throughout, and Section 3.5.3 reports inverse beaming factors b^-1 > 100 at θ<10° for a=0.9 high-Mdot models. Section 5 concedes that M1 'may affect the precise beaming profile in optically thin polar regions.' This caveat is load-bearing: L_rad in Eq. (22) integrates only regions with τ_eff<1, i.e., the free-streaming funnel, and b(θ) in Eq. (23) is the ratio of flux through that funnel. M1's single-axis Eddington tensor is known to distort the radiation field in optically thin regions illuminated by an extended source. The assertion that total L_rad is less affected is not tested, and the headline b^-1 values and the a=0.9 radiative efficiencies (η_rad ≈ 8–20%) are precisely the quantities that would change. Please add a quantitative test—e.g., post-processing snapshots with Monte Carlo transport or a two-moment closure comparison—or subst
  2. [§3.1, Table 1, Appendix B] All 32 models are run at a single numerical resolution; no same-model resolution study is presented (Table 1 lists different grids for different models). The time-averaged efficiencies in Tables B1/B2 are quoted without error bars or convergence metrics. Since the conclusions depend on power-law exponents and on the jet saturation at Ṁ~100, and since individual models show non-monotonic behavior (e.g., m15a9r4 has lower η_kin and η_rad than m15a9r3 despite higher Ṁacc), a resolution/convergence test at least for the four fiducial models, together with time-averaging uncertainties, is required before the quantitative scalings can be considered robust.
  3. [§3.2.1, Eqs. (24)–(31)] Equations (24)–(31) are fit to the same simulations whose interpretation they then frame; no fit uncertainties, residuals, or goodness-of-fit measures are reported. For example, the super-linear exponents for a=0.9 in Eqs. (27)–(29) rest on a limited number of points with visible scatter in Figure 4 and Table B1. Because these exponents are used to argue that high spin makes efficiency grow faster than accretion rate, the fits need confidence intervals and a robustness check (e.g., excluding the most extreme Ṁ point or testing a broken power law). As written, the 'framework for interpreting observations' is self-calibrated rather than independently validated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, item 6] Typo: 'can can have' should be 'can have'. Also, Section 4.2 states η_kin reaches ~70% at the highest Ṁ, but Table B1 lists values up to 92.8% (m15a9r7); please reconcile.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (5)] The fixed η_acc=0.1 used to define Ṁ_Edd is a convention, but since η_rad for a=0.9 exceeds 0.1, the dimensionless ratio Ṁ/Ṁ_Edd is not the physical Eddington ratio. This is stated, but it should be reiterated where Ṁ values are compared with observational Eddington ratios.
  3. [§3.5.1, Fig. 11] The footnote that jet gas densities are contaminated by numerical floors should be repeated when the photosphere and beaming results are discussed, because the polar funnel is exactly where the floors act.
  4. [§3.5.3, Fig. 12] Panels (b) and (c) use different y-axis ranges (0–30 vs 0–300). This makes comparison more difficult; consider a common scale or explicit annotation of the scale change.
  5. [§3.3, Eq. (31)] The a=0.9 power-law fit in Eq. (31) may not capture the apparent steepening at high Ṁ_t; a broken power law or a statement of the fit range's sensitivity would be more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims are direct simulation measurements, and the fitted scaling relations are used only to summarize the simulations and to map external observations, not to generate the claims they support.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — that BH spin boosts energy-extraction efficiency, that accretion rate sets the overall power scale, that BH mass is unimportant over 5-30 Msun, and that the BH accretes only 10-40% of the supplied gas — are direct comparisons of time-averaged outflow quantities measured in 32 GRRMHD simulations. They do not reduce to any fitted parameter or to any self-consistent definition. The scaling relations (Eqs. 24-31) are power-law fits to the same simulation suite, but the paper uses them as compact summaries and as a bridge to external ULX observations (e.g., translating an observed nebular Lkin into a spin/rate constraint). That is an application of a fit to outside data, not a prediction validated by the same fit, so it is not circular. The cited prior work by the authors (Dai et al. 2018, Thomsen et al. 2022, Yang et al. 2023, Kwan et al. 2023) is used for code provenance, initial-condition choices, and qualitative consistency checks; none of it is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the paper's central efficiency ranking. The acknowledged M1-closure limitation in the optically thin polar funnel is a genuine numerical-accuracy concern, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the beaming factors and efficiencies are measured from the simulations rather than imposed by construction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the simulation framework (HARMRAD with M1 closure), the choice of initial magnetic flux, and the wind/photosphere definitions; the scaling relations are empirical fits to the same simulations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • eta_acc (Eddington efficiency for Mdot definition) = 0.1 (chosen)
    Adopted in Eq. 5 to define Mdot_Edd; all dimensionless accretion rates and hence fitted scalings scale with this choice, though exponents are unaffected.
  • a=0 wind scaling coefficients/exponents = Lkin=0.37 mdot^0.96; Lrad=0.19 mdot^0.96; LEM=0.08 mdot^0.95
    Eqs. 24–26, fit to 16 non-spinning simulations; used to claim near-constant wind efficiencies.
  • a=0.9 wind scaling coefficients/exponents = Lkin=1.27 mdot^1.29; Lrad=0.75 mdot^1.15; LEM=0.65 mdot^1.29
    Eqs. 27–29, fit to 16 spinning simulations; basis for super-linear spin-boost claim.
  • Jet power scaling coefficient/exponent = 0.91 and 1.27 for Pjet/LEdd = 0.91 mdot^1.27
    Eq. 30, fit for mdot<100; used to claim jet saturation at high mdot.
  • Accretion ratio scaling normalizations/exponents = a=0: 0.4, -0.09; a=0.9: 0.4, -0.18
    Eq. 31, fit to all models; used for mass budget claims.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The M1 closure approximates the radiation stress-energy tensor in all regimes, including optically thin polar funnels.
    Used throughout Sec 2.1 and 3.5; extreme beaming factors depend on this; the authors flag it as a caveat.
  • domain assumption The initial poloidal magnetic field with midplane beta~30 leads to a MAD state representative of real ULX accretion flows.
    Sec 2.2; if real systems lack sufficient net magnetic flux, the results do not apply.
  • domain assumption The thermally unbound criterion (-hut>1) correctly identifies gas that will escape to infinity, and wind measured at r=2000 rg is close to asymptotic.
    Sec 2.4.1; the authors note this gives lower limits; if much of this gas is actually bound at larger radii, mass and energy budgets change.
  • ad hoc to paper eta_acc=0.1 is a fixed radiative efficiency for defining Eddington accretion rate.
    Sec 2.3 Eq 5; chosen for consistency, not derived; affects quantitative mdot values.
  • domain assumption Solar abundances and the opacity tables (including Chianti) accurately describe the accreting gas.
    Sec 2.1; affects photosphere locations and radiative efficiencies.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 29009 in / 11839 out tokens · 122266 ms · 2026-08-03T01:19:57.790938+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strongly Magnetized Super-Eddington Accretion: How Spin and Accretion Rate Regulate Energy Output and Mass Loss." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COROSTKM

@misc{pith2026260728919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strongly Magnetized Super-Eddington Accretion: How Spin and Accretion Rate Regulate Energy Output and Mass Loss},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COROSTKM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28919}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Strongly magnetized super-Eddington accretion flows power many important astrophysical systems, but how black hole parameters control their output is unclear. We present 32 general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamics simulations of super-Eddington magnetically arrested disks onto stellar-mass black holes, varying mass ($M_{\rm BH}= 5, 15, 30\,M_{\odot}$), spin ($a=0,0.9$), and accretion rate ($\dot{M}_{\rm acc} \approx 1-2000\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$). We find that black hole spin and accretion rate jointly regulate wind loss rates and energy output efficiencies, while black hole mass has no effect over the mass range studied here. The BH accretes only $10-40\%$ of the mass supplied to the accretion flow, while the rest is expelled in winds. This accretion fraction decreases with mass supply rate and is lower for high-spin systems. Both spin states produce strong magnetically driven outflows. For $a = 0$, the wind kinetic, radiative, and electromagnetic efficiencies are modest and show little variation across the full simulated range of accretion rates. For $a = 0.9$, both wind power and jet power increase super-linearly with $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}$, with the jet power saturating beyond $\dot{M}_{\rm acc} \sim 100\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$. Radiation is strongly beamed along the funnel, with inverse beaming factors exceeding $100$ for high-spin, high-$\dot{m}$ models viewed face-on. Our results establish that rapid BH spin boosts energy-extraction efficiency, while high accretion rate amplifies total power. We provide scaling relations for luminosities, jet power, accretion ratio, and beaming, offering a framework for interpreting observations of ULXs and other super-Eddington systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28919 by Cheuk Kwan Kan, Feng Yuan, Lixin Dai, Matthew Middleton, Tao Ji, Tassos Fragos, Tom Man Kwan, Zepei Xing.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: compiles representative published values of the radiative efficiency ηrad (Equation 14) and kinetic efficiency ηkin (Equation 13). The figure shows the broad scatter in these efficiencies across different simulation sets. In some cases, such scatter exists even when the BH spin and accre￾10 0 10 1 10 2 Macc [MEdd] 0 5 10 15 20 ra d [%] Slim disk a=0 (a) sBH SMBH a=0, SANE a=0.7-0.9, SANE a=0, MAD a=0.7-0.9… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ) thread the inner disk, wind, and jet. The radiation flux streamlines (green lines in the left panel) are consistent with most of the photons originate primarily in the accretion flow. They broadly follow the disk inflow and subsequently turning outward to flow almost radially along the wind. This occurs because the inner disk and wind are optically thick, trapping and advecting the photons together with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time evolution of accretion and outflow properties in the four fiducial models (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radiative luminosity Lrad (fully filled symbols), kinetic luminosity Lkin (open symbols) and EM luminosity LEM (half-filled symbols) of the thermally unbound wind. All quantities are measured at r = 2000rg and expressed in units of Eddington luminosity LEdd. For Lrad, we include only the wind outside the effective photosphere (τeff < 1). Blue and red symbols denote simulations with BH spin a = 0 and a = 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Jet power and jet efficiency for the a = 0.9 models. Panel (a) shows the time-averaged total jet power Pjet, measured at r = 2,000rg and expressed in units of Eddington luminosity LEdd, as a function of M˙ acc. The dashed line shows the best power-law fit to Pjet for 1 < m˙ < 100. Panel (b) shows the corresponding jet efficiency ηjet. The marker size scales with the dimensionless mag￾netic flux through the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dimensionless magnetic flux threading the BH horizon ϕH , as a function of mass accretion rate M˙ acc for all simulations. Blue and red dashed lines indicate the saturated values found in non￾radiative MAD simulations for a = 0 and a = 0.9, respectively. The value of ϕH increases with m˙ over 1 ≲ m˙ ≲ 100, reaches a maximum around m˙ ∼ 100, and declines at the highest accretion rates. height. It allows the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial redistribution of the energy fluxes carried by the thermally unbound outflow (wind + jet) in the four fiducial models. Purple, green, and orange curves denote the fractional contribution of electromagnetic power LEM, kinetic luminosity Lkin, and bolometric radiative luminosity Lrad to the total power Ltotal, respectively, with the three components summing to unity at each radius. Panel (a) shows the… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of BH accretion rate to total mass-supply rate, M˙ acc/M˙ t, as a function of M˙ t. The total mass-supply is defined as M˙ t = M˙ acc + M˙ wind, where the wind rate is measured at r = 2000rg. Different symbols represent BH masses (5, 15, and 30M⊙); colours dis￾tinguish BH spins (a = 0 in blue, a = 0.9 in red). Colored dashed lines indicate best-fit power-law relations. The ratio decreases with increa… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time- and azimuthally-averaged 2D profiles of rest-mass density ρ for the four fiducial models, shown within r = 600rg. Blue contours mark the inflow-outflow boundary (vr = 0), red contours denote the jet boundary (σ = 1), purple dashed lines show the thermally bound-unbound wind boundary (−hut = 1), and white lines represent contours of constant radial velocity vr. Spinning BH models (a9Low and a9High, ri… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time- and ϕ-averaged polar profiles of the gas on a sphere of radius r = 2000rg excluding the jet region (σ > 1) for the four fiducial models: (a) projected radial velocity v r of the gas in units of c, (b) gas density ρ in units of g cm−3 . models, the wind carries most of the ejected gas and a sub￾stantial fraction of the total kinetic power. The jet’s primary contribution to the kinetic energy budget i… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time- and azimuthally-averaged isotropic-equivalent radiation luminosity Lrad,iso out to r = 4,000rg for the four fiducial models. Yellow and orange contours show the electron-scattering (τes = 1) and effective (τeff = 1) photospheres, respectively. Purple dashed lines show the boundary between thermally bound and unbound wind regions (−hut = 1). within r ∼ 1000 − 2000rg connecting to the BH at low incli￾… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Panels (a)–(c): quantities as a function of inclination an￾gle θ at r = 2000rg for the four fiducial models. (a) Isotropic-equiv￾alent radiative luminosity Lrad,iso/LEdd. (b) Inverse beaming factor b −1 (θ) for the a = 0 models. (c) Inverse beaming factor b −1 (θ) for the a = 0.9 models. Larger b −1 indicates stronger beaming. found in Section 3.2. For the a = 0 models, the same increase in m˙ produces a … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Isotropic-equivalent radiative luminosity Lrad,iso and radial velocity v r of the outflow at different inclination angles, mea￾sured at r = 2000rg. The top panel shows the a = 0 fiducial mod￾els, and the bottom panel shows the a = 0.9 fiducial models. Col￾ors indicate the inclination angles. Circles denote the low-m˙ mod￾els, a0Low and a9Low, while stars denote the high-m˙ models, a0High and a9High. 4. DI… 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

67 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2007, Astrophysical Bulletin, 62, 36, doi: 10.1134/S199034130701004X

    Abolmasov, P., Fabrika, S., Sholukhova, O., & Afanasiev, V . 2007, Astrophysical Bulletin, 62, 36, doi: 10.1134/S199034130701004X

    work page doi:10.1134/s199034130701004x 2007

  2. [2]

    A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J

    Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  3. [3]

    Asahina, Y ., & Ohsuga, K. 2022, ApJ, 929, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37 SUPER-EDDINGTONMAGNETICALLYARRESTEDDISKS21 Figure A1.Initial rest-mass densityρ(colour map) and magnetic field configuration (black lines). 103 104 105 106 107 108 T [K] 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 [g cm 3] abs 103 104 105 106 107 108 T [K] tot 10 4 10 2 100 102...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d37 2022

  4. [4]

    R., & Ohsuga, K

    Asahina, Y ., Takahashi, H. R., & Ohsuga, K. 2020, ApJ, 901, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaf51 2020

  5. [5]

    C., King, A

    Begelman, M. C., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 399, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10469.x

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  7. [7]

    R., & Yueh, W

    Buchler, J. R., & Yueh, W. R. 1976, ApJ, 210, 440, doi: 10.1086/154847

    doi:10.1086/154847 1976

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3716

    Curd, B., Emami, R., Anantua, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3716

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3716 2023

  9. [9]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3134

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3134 2019

  10. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3330

    Curd, B., & Narayan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3330

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3330 2023

  11. [11]

    L., Lodato, G., & Cheng, R

    Dai, J. L., Lodato, G., & Cheng, R. 2021, SSRv, 217, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00747-x

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00747-x 2021

  12. [12]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 2018

  13. [13]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/45 22 KWAN ET AL

    Du, P., Hu, C., Lu, K.-X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/45 22 KWAN ET AL. Table B1.More model parameters: spina, black hole massM BH, BH accretion rate ˙Macc, kinetic, radiative, and electromagnetic luminosities of the thermally unbound wind,Lkin,L rad, andL EM, kinetic, radiative, and electromagnetic wind efficiencies,η kin,w,η...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/1/45 2014

  14. [14]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567

    doi:10.1086/185567 1989

  15. [15]

    A., Webb, N

    Farrell, S. A., Webb, N. A., Barret, D., Godet, O., & Rodrigues, J. M. 2009, Nature, 460, 73, doi: 10.1038/nature08083

    doi:10.1038/nature08083 2009

  16. [16]

    2004, ARA&A, 42, 317, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134031

    Fender, R., & Belloni, T. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 317, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134031

    arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    2008, ApJ, 675, 1067, doi: 10.1086/527353

    Feng, H., & Kaaret, P. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1067, doi: 10.1086/527353

    work page doi:10.1086/527353 2008

  18. [18]

    C., Middleton, M

    Fragile, P. C., Middleton, M. J., Bollimpalli, D. A., & Smith, Z. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf890

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf890 2025

  19. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926

    Liska, M. 2025, ApJ, 978, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9926 2025

  20. [20]

    C., Roberts, T

    Gladstone, J. C., Roberts, T. P., & Done, C. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1836, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15123.x

    arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y ., Su, K.-Y ., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 18, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.13115

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    L., Belfiore, A., Stella, L., et al

    Israel, G. L., Belfiore, A., Stella, L., et al. 2017, Science, 355, 817, doi: 10.1126/science.aai8635

    doi:10.1126/science.aai8635 2017

  23. [23]

    Jiang, Y .-F., & Dai, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16856, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16856 SUPER-EDDINGTONMAGNETICALLYARRESTEDDISKS23 Table B2.Jet properties of the spinning (a= 0.9) models atr= 2,000r g: jet efficiencyη jet, total jet powerP jet, and radiative, kinetic, and electromagnetic jet luminosities,L rad,jet,L kin,jet, andL EM,jet. Modelη je...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.16856 2024

  24. [24]

    M., & Davis, S

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/106 2014

  25. [25]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y .-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ff 2019

  26. [26]

    Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Roberts, T. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 303, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055259 2017

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86

    Jacquemin-Ide, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a86 2025

  28. [28]

    2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    King, A., Lasota, J.-P., & Middleton, M. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015

  30. [30]

    King, A. R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, L113, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00444.x

    arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    R., Davies, M

    King, A. R., Davies, M. B., Ward, M. J., Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M. 2001, ApJL, 552, L109, doi: 10.1086/320343

    doi:10.1086/320343 2001

  32. [32]

    R., & Pounds, K

    King, A. R., & Pounds, K. A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 657, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06980.x

    arXiv 2003

  33. [33]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    Kitaki, T., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., & Kawashima, T. 2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psab011 2021

  34. [34]

    M., Dai, L., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Kwan, T. M., Dai, L., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2023, ApJL, 946, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc334

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc334 2023

  35. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af

    Lowell, B., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Duncan, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af 2024

  36. [36]

    1984, ARA&A, 22, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002451

    Margon, B. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002451

    arXiv 1984

  37. [37]

    C., Dai, L., & Avara, M

    McKinney, J. C., Dai, L., & Avara, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv115

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv115 2015

  38. [38]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., S ˛ adowski, A., & Narayan, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., S ˛ adowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu762 2014

  40. [40]

    Exploring the nature of ultra-luminous X-ray sources across stellar population ages using detailed binary evolution calculations

    Misra, D., Kovlakas, K., Fragos, T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.15904, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15904

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.15904 2023

  41. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Narayan, R., Chael, A., Chatterjee, K., Ricarte, A., & Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac285 2022

  42. [42]

    V ., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V ., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    doi:10.1093/pasj/55.6.l69 2003

  43. [43]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1027

    Narayan, R., Sa̧dowski, A., & Soria, R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1027 2017

  44. [44]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 33, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx006

    Hashizume, K. 2017, PASJ, 69, 33, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx006

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx006 2017

  45. [45]

    2009, PASJ, 61, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.3.L7

    Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., Mori, M., & Kato, Y . 2009, PASJ, 61, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.3.L7

    doi:10.1093/pasj/61.3.l7 2009

  46. [46]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi: 10.1086/430728

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

    doi:10.1086/430728 2005

  47. [47]

    1983, ApJ, 267, 315, doi: 10.1086/160870

    Paczynski, B. 1983, ApJ, 267, 315, doi: 10.1086/160870

    doi:10.1086/160870 1983

  48. [48]

    W., & Grisé, F

    Pakull, M. W., & Grisé, F. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1010, A Population Explosion: The Nature & Evolution of X-ray Binaries in Diverse Environments, ed. R. M. Bandyopadhyay, S. Wachter, D. Gelino, & C. R. Gelino (AIP), 303–307, doi: 10.1063/1.2945062

    doi:10.1063/1.2945062 2008

  49. [49]

    W., & Mirioni, L

    Pakull, M. W., & Mirioni, L. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0202488

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0202488 2002

  50. [50]

    J., & Fabian, A

    Pinto, C., Middleton, M. J., & Fabian, A. C. 2016, Nature, 533, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature17417 24 KWAN ET AL

    doi:10.1038/nature17417 2016

  51. [51]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx641

    Pinto, C., Alston, W., Soria, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx641

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx641 2017

  52. [52]

    J., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3392 2020

  53. [53]

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

    doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5 S ˛ adowski, A

    Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., & Curd, B. 2023, ApJL, 954, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5 S ˛ adowski, A. 2009, ApJS, 183, 171, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/171 S ˛ adowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2015a, MNRAS, 453, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1802 S ˛ adowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2015b, MNRAS, 454, 2372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2022 S ˛ adowski, A., & Narayan, R. ...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5 2023

  55. [55]

    W., Motch, C., et al

    Soria, R., Pakull, M. W., Motch, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1644, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3784

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3784 2021

  56. [56]

    C., & Narayan, R

    Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 372, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012040, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012040

    doi:10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012040 2012

  57. [57]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/50 2010

  58. [58]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    L., Kwan, T

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f 2022

  60. [60]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913440

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913440 2010

  61. [61]

    J., Middleton, M

    Walton, D. J., Middleton, M. J., Pinto, C., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/l26 2016

  62. [62]

    2013, PhRvL, 110, 081301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081301

    Wang, J.-M., Du, P., Valls-Gabaud, D., Hu, C., & Netzer, H. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 081301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.081301 2013

  63. [63]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa821d

    Wiktorowicz, G., Sobolewska, M., Lasota, J.-P., & Belczynski, K. 2017, ApJ, 846, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa821d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa821d 2017

  64. [64]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1444

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1444 2023

  65. [65]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 1378, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac076

    Yoshioka, S., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., Kawashima, T., & Kitaki, T. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1378, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac076

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psac076 2022

  66. [66]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 1015, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae067

    Yoshioka, S., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., Kawashima, T., & Kitaki, T. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1015, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae067

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psae067 2024

  67. [67]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    Yuan, F., Gan, Z., Narayan, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/101 2015