Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 48 references

Optical polarization properties of the closest tidal disruption event AT 2023clx indicate origin from tidal stream shocks

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optical polarimetry of the nearby tidal disruption event AT 2023clx shows an intrinsic polarization degree rising to about 5 percent and then decaying, offset from the optical peak, along with a 60–100 degree swing in the polarization angle

desk verdict Genuinely new polarimetric data on the closest TDE, but the abstract alone cannot support the ISP-dependent claims; the full text I received is unreadable, so the referee's job is to check the ISP subtraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09309 v1 pith:DL2ZB57W submitted 2025-08-12 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Karri I. I. Koljonen , Kari Nilsson , Ioannis Liodakis , Elina Lindfors This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsopticalpolarizationaccretiondiskformationAT2023clx2020motstreamshockssupermassiveblackholespolarimetricmonitoring
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

This paper tries to establish that the polarization behavior of the tidal disruption event AT 2023clx reveals how its accretion disk formed. Using time-resolved optical polarimetry, the authors find that the intrinsic polarization degree rises to about 5 percent after the optical peak and then decays, while the polarization angle rotates by 60–100 degrees between 6 and 20 days after the peak before stabilizing. Because this temporal pattern closely matches that of AT 2020mot, the paper argues the two events share a common mechanism: the optical outburst is powered by shocks where the tidally disrupted debris stream collides with itself during disk assembly. If true, polarimetry offers a direct, time-resolved view of accretion disk formation around supermassive black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the sequence of linear polarization measurements—the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ parameters expressed as polarization degree and angle as functions of time. The interpretive device is the tidal stream shock model, in which the debris stream from the disrupted star shocks on returning to the black hole, dissipating orbital energy and forming a disk while powering the optical transient. The polarization swing is read as a geometric fingerprint of that disk-formation process, and its stabilization marks the point where the scattering geometry settles.

What would settle it

Measure the interstellar polarization vector toward AT 2023clx using several field stars in the same small sky region and recompute the date-by-date Stokes parameters; if a plausible field-star foreground leaves the polarization angle roughly constant after day 6, the claimed swing is a foreground artifact rather than an intrinsic disk-formation signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AT 2023clx's optical emission was intrinsically polarized in a time-dependent, non-monotonic way: the polarization degree rises to a maximum of roughly 5 percent, with that maximum temporally offset from the optical light-curve peak, and the polarization angle swings by 60–100 degrees between 6 and 20 days after the optical peak before becoming stable. The paper emphasizes that this evolution closely resembles AT 2020mot, and interprets the shared pattern as evidence that the optical flare comes from shock-heated gas where the returning tidal stream collides with itself, while the changing polarization angle tracks the geometric reorientation of the emission region

Load-bearing premise

The reported 'intrinsic' polarization is what remains after subtracting the polarized foreground produced by dust in our own Galaxy; if that subtraction is inaccurate, the rise-and-decay pattern and the 60–100 degree angle swing could be changed or even created.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the resemblance between AT 2023clx and AT 2020mot is real, the polarization pattern is a generic signature of accretion disk formation rather than an orientation or viewing-angle accident.
  • Models of tidal disruption events must reproduce the temporal offset between the total optical light peak and the polarization degree peak, indicating that the shock/disk geometry is still evolving around optical maximum.
  • Polarimetric monitoring of nearby tidal disruption events during the first month should separate stream-shock-dominated events from other disk-formation channels.
  • The stabilization of the polarization angle roughly 20 days after the optical peak provides a direct measurement of how long the accretion flow takes to settle into a stable scattering geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, one would predict that the same rise-and-swing-then-stable polarization sequence should appear in other nearby tidal disruption events observed with frequent early polarimetry, and that its absence would point to a different optical emission mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper, if the polarization angle tracks the axis of the newly formed disk, comparing it with any later X-ray, radio, or spectroscopic geometry constraints for AT 2023clx could test the shock-formation picture.
  • Beyond the paper, multi-band or spectropolarimetric follow-up could test whether the polarization degree and angle are wavelength-independent, as simple electron-scattering geometries would predict, or vary with color, which would implicate structured shock emission.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports optical polarimetric monitoring of the tidal disruption event AT 2023clx with the Nordic Optical Telescope. The abstract claims that the intrinsic polarization degree rises and decays, reaching about 5 per cent, with a time offset from the optical light-curve peak, and that the polarization position angle rotates by roughly 60–100 degrees between 6 and 20 days after the optical peak, then stabilizes. The authors argue that this variability closely resembles that of AT 2020mot and supports models in which tidal stream shocks drive the optical outburst during accretion disk formation. The central quantitative claims are intrinsic polarization values, requiring interstellar polarization (ISP) subtraction and careful debiasing, but the abstract does not describe how these were done. The provided full text is extensively corrupted by character encoding errors, so the methodological details, figures, and tabulated results cannot be inspected.

Significance. If the reported intrinsic polarization evolution is correct, AT 2023clx would be a second nearby TDE showing a distinctive polarization fingerprint—rising and falling polarization degree plus a large position-angle swing—thereby strengthening the observational case for tidal stream shocks as the mechanism forming the accretion disk. The similarity to AT 2020mot would be a meaningful step toward a common physical picture. However, the entire argument rests on the reliability of the ISP subtraction, because a misestimated foreground polarization can produce apparent PA rotation and degree variation on exactly the reported timescale. Since the abstract and the legible portions of the text do not provide the ISP estimation method or its uncertainty, the quantitative claims are not yet verifiable. The paper also lacks a quantitative comparison with AT 2020mot or with specific model predictions for the PA evolution, relying instead on a qualitative 'closely resembles' statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and full text (methods)] The abstract quotes an intrinsic polarization degree of up to ~5 per cent and a position-angle swing of 60–100 degrees, but it does not state how interstellar polarization (ISP) was estimated or subtracted, nor whether Ricean debiasing was applied to the measured polarization degree. The provided full text is corrupted, so I cannot locate the ISP derivation or its uncertainty. This is load-bearing: if the ISP vector has an error at the level of a few tenths of a percent in degree or a few degrees in angle, the residual can mimic the reported PA rotation and degree modulation on a 2-week timescale. Please provide a complete, readable version with a clear description of the ISP estimation method (e.g., field-star averaging, Q-U plane fitting, or a Galactic model), the adopted ISP vector with uncertainties, and the debiasing procedure.
  2. [Discussion (comparison to AT 2020mot)] The claim that AT 2023clx 'closely resembles' AT 2020mot is only qualitative. No quantitative metric is given for the resemblance, nor are the two datasets shown together in the Q-U plane or in a model-parameter space. Without a comparison that accounts for different sampling, ISP corrections, and light-curve phases, the common-mechanism conclusion is not supported beyond a visual similarity. Please add a quantitative comparison, for example a joint fit of the PA evolution or a similarity measure on the Stokes parameter tracks, and state what specific model predictions are being tested.
  3. [Full text (legibility)] The manuscript text as provided is largely unreadable due to character encoding corruption. Equations, tables, and figures cannot be inspected. This prevents verification of the observing log, the photometric and polarimetric reduction, the error analysis, and the model comparison. A clean, readable manuscript is required for further review. I note this as a major issue because without the methods and results sections I cannot judge whether the reported polarization curves are correctly derived.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mixes 'per cent' and '~' with '60-100 degrees'; please use consistent notation (e.g., '5%' or '5 per cent') and specify the wavelength range of the polarimetry.
  2. [Introduction/terminology] The term 'accretion disk formation' should be defined operationally; the paper seems to refer to the early optical/UV emission, not a direct measurement of the disk. Clarifying this would avoid overinterpretation.
  3. [General] Please state the position-angle convention (e.g., measured from north through east) and the reference epoch for the angle, as well as the zero-point calibration procedure (e.g., polarized standard stars).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: observational polarization report with an external comparison; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are observational: it reports a rise and decay in the polarization degree and a position-angle swing in AT 2023clx, and it notes a phenomenological resemblance to AT 2020mot. The polarization quantities are defined from measured normalized Stokes parameters via standard relations (p = sqrt(q^2+u^2), theta = 0.5 atan(u/q)); no parameter is fitted to the target result and then announced as a prediction. The comparison to AT 2020mot is an external, independent data set, not a self-referential theorem, and the abstract only says the variability 'supports' stream-shock models rather than deriving the model from the data. The interstellar polarization correction, while crucial and potentially uncertain, is a foreground subtraction step, not a circular reduction: an error in ISP would weaken the observational claim but would not make the derivation equivalent to its input. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz-smuggling is present in the abstract or the readable portions of the text. Therefore the analysis is self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review. The ledger reflects assumptions implied by the abstract; the full text would likely add parameters such as the light-curve peak epoch, the timing of the polarization onset, and any model parameters used in the quantitative comparison to AT 2020mot. No new physical entities are visible in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • interstellar polarization (ISP) vector = unknown (in full text)
    The abstract quotes an intrinsic polarization degree of about 5 percent, which requires subtracting the Galactic interstellar polarization along the line of sight. If the ISP vector is fit using field stars or the Q-U plane, it is a fitted quantity whose uncertainty propagates directly into the central claim.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Standard polarimetric calibration: measured Stokes Q and U can be corrected for instrumental polarization and converted to the source frame without unmodeled systematics.
    All conclusions rest on the polarimetric reduction pipeline; this is standard in the field but unverifiable from the abstract and from the corrupted full text.
  • domain assumption The optical emission at the observed epochs is dominated by the tidal disruption event rather than by the host galaxy or other contaminants.
    AT 2023clx is the closest tidal disruption event known, so host-galaxy dilution of the polarization signal is a serious concern; the abstract does not describe how host contamination was handled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical polarization properties of the closest tidal disruption event AT 2023clx indicate origin from tidal stream shocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DL2ZB57W

@misc{pith2026250809309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical polarization properties of the closest tidal disruption event AT 2023clx indicate origin from tidal stream shocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DL2ZB57W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09309}
}
abstract

Polarization observations of tidal disruption events offer unique insights into the accretion processes around supermassive black holes. Here, we present optical polarization observations of the nearby event AT 2023clx, obtained using the Nordic Optical Telescope. Our observations reveal a rise and subsequent decay in the polarization degree, temporally offset from the peak of the optical light curve, reaching maximum intrinsic polarization degree of $\sim$5 per cent. In addition, the polarization angle shifts by $\sim60^\circ-100^\circ$ between 6 to 20 days after the optical peak, remaining stable thereafter. Remarkably, the observed polarization variability closely resembles that of AT 2020mot, strongly suggesting a common mechanism for accretion disk formation in these events. The variability in both polarization degree and angle supports models in which tidal stream shocks drive the optical outburst during the accretion disk formation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...25A 233, 25

    Albareti F. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...25A 233, 25

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 2017

  3. [3]

    Angel J. R. P., Stockman H. S., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.001541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ARA&A..18..321A 18, 321

    work page arXiv 1980

  4. [4]

    Cendes Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..185C 971, 185

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

  5. [5]

    Charalampopoulos P., Bulla M., Bonnerot C., Leloudas G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.150C 670, A150

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245014 2023

  6. [6]

    Charalampopoulos P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.350C 689, A350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449296 2024

  7. [7]

    R., Kochanek C

    Evans C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...346L..13E 346, L13

    doi:10.1086/185567 1989

  8. [8]

    Gezari S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.485..217G 485, 217

    doi:10.1038/nature10990 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    B., Arcavi I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..47G 851, L47

    Gezari S., Cenko S. B., Arcavi I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..47G 851, L47

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Guillochon J., Manukian H., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...23G 783, 23

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Tokayer Y

    Guolo M., Gezari S., Yao Y., van Velzen S., Hammerstein E., Cenko S. B., Tokayer Y. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..160G 966, 160

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..475H 46, 475

    Ho L. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..475H 46, 475

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.4501H 530, 4501

    Hoogendam W. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.4501H 530, 4501

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Arcavi I., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..491H 5, 491

    Horesh A., Cenko S. B., Arcavi I., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..491H 5, 491

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Hovatta T., Lindfors E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NewAR..8701541H 87, 101541

    2019

  8. [16]

    Jiang Y.-F., Guillochon J., Loeb A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..125J 830, 125

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Johansson J., Meynardie W., Chu M., Fremling C., 2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023TNSCR1075....1J 2023-1075, 1

    2023

  10. [18]

    J., Zahid H

    Kewley L. J., Zahid H. J., Geller M. J., Dopita M. A., Hwang H. S., Fabricant D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812L..20K 812, L20

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Koljonen K. I. I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532..112K 532, 112

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    364, The Future of Photometric, Spectrophotometric and Polarimetric Standardization

    Landi Degl'Innocenti E., Bagnulo S., Fossati L., 2007, in Sterken C., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 364, The Future of Photometric, Spectrophotometric and Polarimetric Standardization. p. 495 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0610262 )

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Leloudas G., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01767-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6.1193L 6, 1193

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Liodakis I., et al., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abj9570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380..656L 380, 656

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..359L 410, 359

    Lodato G., Rossi E. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..359L 410, 359

    2011

  16. [24]

    Loeb A., Ulmer A., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..573L 489, 573

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    Lu W., Bonnerot C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492..686L 492, 686

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Stone N

    Metzger B. D., Stone N. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..948M 461, 948

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Mummery A., van Velzen S., Nathan E., Ingram A., Hammerstein E., Fraser-Taliente L., Balbus S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2452M 527, 2452

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.504..119M 504, 119

    Mundell C. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.504..119M 504, 119

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Knigge C., Matthews J

    Parkinson E. J., Knigge C., Matthews J. H., Long K. S., Higginbottom N., Sim S. A., Mangham S. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.5426P 510, 5426

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Cenko S

    Pasham D. R., Cenko S. B., Sadowski A., Guillochon J., Stone N. C., van Velzen S., Cannizzo J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837L..30P 837, L30

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Lu W., Brink T

    Patra K. C., Lu W., Brink T. G., Yang Y., Filippenko A. V., Vasylyev S. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515..138P 515, 138

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..164P 806, 164

    Piran T., Svirski G., Krolik J., Cheng R. M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..164P 806, 164

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Liptai D., Mandel I., Shepherd J., Lodato G., Levin Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L..46P 971, L46

    Price D. J., Liptai D., Mandel I., Shepherd J., Lodato G., Levin Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L..46P 971, L46

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Ashby M

    Ramos Padilla A. F., Ashby M. L. N., Smith H. A., Mart \' nez-Galarza J. R., Beverage A. G., Dietrich J., Higuera-G. M.-A., Weiner A. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.4325R 499, 4325

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    Rees M. J., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333523a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..523R 333, 523

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    Roth N., Kasen D., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827....3R 827, 3

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...73R 904, 73

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Avara M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...12R 957, 12

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., Noble S. C., Avara M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...12R 957, 12

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Sfaradi I., Horesh A., Bright J., Fender R., Rhodes L., Green D., Titterington D., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel15918....1S 15918, 1

    2023

  32. [40]

    H., Cheng R

    Shiokawa H., Krolik J. H., Cheng R. M., Piran T., Noble S. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804...85S 804, 85

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Simmons J. F. L., Stewart B. G., 1985, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985A&A...142..100S 142, 100

    1985

  34. [42]

    C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..463S 625, 463

    Steinberg E., Stone N. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..463S 625, 463

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Quataert E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.2070S 400, 2070

    Strubbe L. E., Quataert E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.2070S 400, 2070

    2009

  36. [44]

    Taguchi K., Uno K., Nagao T., Maeda K., 2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023TNSCR.438....1T 2023-438, 1

    2023

  37. [45]

    arXiv:2503.19024

    Uno K., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319024U p. arXiv:2503.19024

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...61Y 747, 61

    Yan R., Blanton M. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...61Y 747, 61

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    Zhu J., Jiang N., Wang T., Huang S., Lin Z., Wang Y., Wang J.-G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952L..35Z 952, L35

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    van Velzen S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908....4V 908, 4

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.