Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Explaining the X-ray Precursor, Ultra-long Prompt Emission, and Week-long Decay of GRB250702B with a Jetted Micro-TDE

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A jetted micro-tidal disruption event explains all three phases of the longest gamma-ray burst on record.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the funnel simulation is a real new input, but the funnel's persistence over weeks is load-bearing and not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10065 v1 pith:G5AKLQN2 submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE

Fulya K{i}roğlu , Taeho Ryu , Alexander Tchekhovskoy , Kyle Kremer , Daichi Tsuna , Brian D. Metzger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-longgamma-rayburstmicro-tidaldisruptioneventrelativisticjetX-rayprecursorstabilitykinkinstabilityBlandford-Znajekmechanismblackholeaccretion
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 proposes that GRB250702B, the longest gamma-ray burst ever detected, was powered by a jetted micro-tidal disruption event: a spinning 10-solar-mass black hole tore apart a Sun-like star and launched a relativistic jet. It claims that the three observed phases—a soft X-ray precursor about a day earlier, seven hours of episodic gamma-ray emission, and a weeks-long X-ray tail—are one continuous story told by the same engine. The X-ray precursor comes from stream-fed accretion before a disk forms; the prompt burst is a tightly beamed jet escaping through a low-density polar funnel; and the long tail is the disk draining under wind-driven viscous accretion while the jet gradually widens. If the model is right, jetted micro-TDEs become a physically motivated engine for ultra-long GRBs, removing the need for a supernova or an exotic progenitor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-density polar funnel created by the debris envelope: a bipolar cavity with $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ and half-opening angle $\theta_f\approx15^\circ$, extracted from 3D hydrodynamic simulations. Because the product $\rho_a z_h^2$ is constant when the density slope is $\alpha=2$, the kink-stability parameter $\Lambda \propto [L_{\rm jet}/(\rho_a z_h^2 \gamma_j^2 c^3)]^{1/6}$ becomes independent of height, so a jet of fixed power either stays stable at all radii or fails at all radii. The other key ingredient is the wind-modified viscous disk model, in which disk winds carry away mass with a radial slope $s=0.5$, driving the late-time accretion rate to $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}\propto t^{-2}$, and the jet-widening prescription $\theta_b\propto t$ that converts that engine decay into the observed $t^{-4}$ X-ray phase.

What would settle it

Run the same hydrodynamic setup for a week or more and measure the polar funnel at late times: if the polar profile steepens to $\rho\propto r^{-3}$ or the half-opening angle shrinks below about 10 degrees, the stability threshold rises above the inferred $L_{\rm jet}\simeq3\times10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and the jet would not survive breakout. Observationally, a late-time X-ray light curve that decays as $t^{-5/3}$ (pure fallback) rather than the predicted $t^{-2}$, or a jet opening-angle evolution that does not saturate near $2.8^\circ$, would break the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that one micro-tidal disruption can produce all observed phases of GRB250702B without repeated stripping, multiple engines, or external-shock afterglow physics. In 3D hydrodynamic simulations of a 1 solar-mass star disrupted by a 10 solar-mass black hole, the debris settles within about a day into a rotationally supported disk surrounded by a quasi-steady envelope with a bipolar low-density funnel along the disk axis; the polar density profile is $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ with a half-opening angle of about 15 degrees. That particular slope puts the jet stability parameter $\Lambda$ exactly at the critical value where it becomes independent of jet-head distance, so a jet with power $L_{\rm jet}\gtrsim 10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ remains stable against the kink instability all the way to breakout. The paper then couples this picture to a wind-modified viscous disk model whose accretion rate decays as $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}\propto t^{-2}$, and shows that a jet that widens linearly in time ($\theta_b\propto t$) produces the steep $L_{\rm X,iso}\propto t^{-4}$ X-ray decline seen by EP-WXT, followed by the $t^{-2}$ tail seen by EP-FXT, Swift, and Chandra. The recommended engine parameters—black hole spin $a_\bullet\approx0.9$, beaming angle $\theta_b\simeq0.7^\circ$ widening to $2.8^\circ$, wind index $s=0.5$—jointly reproduce the observed peak gamma-ray luminosity and the multi-week decay.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument leans on the polar funnel maintaining its $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ density profile and roughly 15-degree opening angle over the weeks-long emission window; the stability and collimation results hold only for that specific slope, which was extracted from simulations at about four hours post-disruption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same engine can explain the day-long X-ray precursor, the roughly seven-hour prompt gamma-ray episodes, and the weeks-long X-ray tail of GRB250702B, so these phases need not come from separate physical processes.
  • Jetted micro-TDEs become a physically motivated ULGRB engine: their hours-to-days viscous timescales naturally set ultra-long durations, and their polar funnel geometry allows stable jet breakout for $L_{\rm jet}\gtrsim10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
  • The model predicts the late-time X-ray decay tracks the wind-modified accretion rate, $L_{\rm X,iso}\propto t^{-2}$, once the jet beaming angle saturates at about $2.8^\circ$; the steep $t^{-4}$ phase is a transient geometric effect of jet widening and should not persist.
  • Because the stability threshold is lowest for slow, wide jets, the jet is expected to remain stable throughout the entire emission window, including the late low-power phase.
  • The absence of a supernova and the 5.7 kiloparsec host-galaxy offset become natural rather than problematic features, since micro-TDEs occur in dense stellar environments distributed broadly across galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If jetted micro-TDEs are common, ultra-long GRB rates should trace globular clusters and other dynamical environments more than star-forming regions; a systematic search of Fermi and Einstein Probe events could test this by comparing host-galaxy offsets of ULGRBs with micro-TDE rate predictions.
  • The jet-widening prescription is purely phenomenological; a direct test would be a GRMHD simulation of jet propagation through the simulated funnel to see whether the lateral expansion indeed follows $\theta_b\propto t$ and whether reconnection-driven dissipation produces the same $t^{-4}$ decay.
  • The same framework may apply to other transients with precursors and slow decays, such as some fast radio bursts or long X-ray flares, where a compact-object disruption is suspected; the wind-modified $t^{-2}$ slope is a distinctive observable fingerprint.
  • A remaining untested implication is that the quasi-regular roughly 2825-second spacing of the prompt episodes can be produced by debris fallback modulating the jet, as the paper suggests qualitatively; measuring the same periodicity in a future event would give a new probe of the fallback geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the ultra-long gamma-ray burst GRB250702B, with its day-long soft X-ray precursor, seven-hour prompt gamma-ray emission, and week-long X-ray tail, is powered by a jetted micro-tidal disruption event (micro-TDE). Using 3D hydrodynamic AREPO simulations of a 1 M_sun star disrupted by a 10 M_sun black hole, the authors find that within about a day the debris forms a disk with a low-density polar funnel with density profile rho ~ r^-2 and half-opening angle about 15 degrees. They apply an analytic kink-instability criterion to this profile and conclude that jets with L_jet >~ 10^47 erg/s can propagate stably through the funnel. They then combine a semi-analytic wind-modified viscous disk model with a Blandford-Znajek jet efficiency and free beaming/radiative efficiency parameters to reproduce the observed light curve: a stream-fed precursor before disk formation, a narrowly beamed prompt jet, a steep t^-4 decline during the EP-WXT phase attributed to linear jet widening, and a t^-2 week-long X-ray tail from wind-driven disk spreading. The central claim is that all three phases of GRB250702B come from one jetted micro-TDE engine.

Significance. If the central claim holds, jetted micro-TDEs would be a physically motivated and previously largely unquantified ULGRB engine, and the paper would provide a coherent single-engine interpretation of an extraordinary event. The AREPO simulations are state-of-the-art and the finding of a persistent low-density polar funnel in both grazing and deep encounters is a substantive, interesting result. The application of the Bromberg-Tchekhovskoy stability criterion to the simulated profile is a natural and valuable step, and the three-phase interpretation is creative and observationally grounded. However, the paper's light-curve 'reproduction' is in part a parameterized fit rather than a prediction, and the stability threshold depends on the polar profile persisting well beyond the simulated time window. The claimed establishment of jetted micro-TDEs as a ULGRB engine is therefore somewhat stronger than the evidence currently supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Fig. 3, §6.1] The stability threshold L_jet,min ~ 3e47 erg/s and the conclusion that stable propagation holds 'throughout the emission window' rely on the polar density profile remaining rho ~ r^-2 with a ~15 degree funnel for weeks, but the AREPO outputs shown are at t=4 hours (Fig. 2) and t=0.5 day (Fig. 1), and the simulations do not include viscosity, magnetic fields, or jet feedback. Because the adopted engine point in Fig. 4 sits just above Lambda=2, a modest change in the threshold from funnel steepening, closure, or normalization would move it into the unstable region. Please provide later-time or resolution evidence for the funnel's persistence, or explicitly restrict the stability claim to the timescale over which the profile is simulated.
  2. [§5.2.1, Eq. (11)] The EP-WXT t^-4 decay is produced by inserting a linear jet-widening law theta_b proportional to t from 0.7 to 2.8 degrees over 4e4 s, with eta_X=0.01 chosen to match the peak luminosity. The widening mechanism is described in §6.2 as phenomenological and deferred to future GRMHD simulations, so the WXT phase is a fit rather than a model prediction. To support the abstract's claim that the model 'reproduces' this phase, the widening law should either be calibrated with a jet propagation simulation or the WXT phase should be explicitly presented as a fit parameterized to match the data.
  3. [§5.2, §5.2.1, Fig. 5] The peak luminosities in all three bands are set by adjusting eta_X, eta_gamma, theta_b, a_bullet, r_acc, and s, so the multi-phase 'reproduction' is partially a normalization exercise. The paper would be strengthened by clearly separating the model's genuine predictions--the temporal slopes t^-2 and t^-4, the relative timing of the precursor and prompt phases, and the kink-stability threshold--from the fitted normalizations, and by stating this distinction in the summary and §6.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] The event name is given as 'GRB250702' in the sentence 'the peak γ-ray isotropic equivalent luminosity of GRB250702 (L_γ,iso~10^51.6 erg/s)', while the rest of the paper uses 'GRB250702B'; please make the name consistent.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that the solid red line matches the observed luminosity 'for unity radiative efficiency (η_γ=1)', but the dotted lines for lower η_γ are also shown; please clarify in the text or caption that the fiducial solution adopts η_γ=1 and that lower efficiencies require higher jet powers.
  3. [General] The code name 'arepo' is sometimes written lowercase in the text; please use a consistent style (e.g., 'AREPO' or 'Arepo') throughout.
  4. [Eq. (13)] The numerical coefficient of the Lense-Thirring precession period is quoted with units 'day' inside the expression; for clarity, please write the prefactor as a dimensionless number times a day, or state the units explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the prompt peak and WXT t^-4 decay are inserted via parameter choices and the theta_b-propto-t ansatz; the t^-2 tail and stability analysis remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.2.1, Eq. (11) and text before Fig. 5]
    "We adopt the parameters a•=0.9 (yielding jet efficiency, ηjet≈1 for φ•=50), radiative efficiency ηX=0.01 and ηγ=1, and wind exponent s=0.5, accretion radius racc=10 rg and initial beaming angle θb=0.7° which together set the peak isotropic X-ray and gamma-ray luminosity to LX,iso∼1e49 erg s−1 and Lγ,iso∼1e51 erg s−1, respectively."

    Equation (11) defines L_iso = η_rad η_jet f_b^-1 M_dot_acc c^2. By choosing θ_b = 0.7°, η_γ = 1, η_X = 0.01, and r_acc = 10 r_g, the paper sets the beaming factor f_b^-1 and the efficiencies so that the model's peak luminosities equal the observed values. The 'reproduction' of the prompt and WXT peaks is therefore an identity: the fitted parameters are the mechanism by which the luminosities are fixed. No independent constraint fixes these combinations; they are selected to match the data points being 'explained'.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.2.1, 'The EP-WXT phase: Jet widening']
    "In our model, at times T0 < t < ttransition∼4×10^4 s, the jet opening angle widens linearly with time from θb,i=0.7° to θb,f=2.8°... this geometric widening produces the steep LX,iso∝Ljet/θb^2∝t^−4 observed during the EP-WXT phase. ... the linear jet-widening prescription, θj∝t, adopted to reproduce the t^−4 decay observed by WXT is phenomenological."

    The WXT slope is not derived: L_iso ≈ L_jet/θ_b^2 is combined with the assumed θ_b ∝ t and the derived L_jet ∝ t^−2 to obtain t^−4 algebraically. Since θ_b(t) is a prescribed linear function chosen because the data show α≈3.8, and the paper itself calls it phenomenological, the 'agreement' is constructed by inserting the very power law being explained. Any assumed θ_b ∝ t^p would produce L_iso ∝ t^{-2-2p}; the match to t^−4 simply selects p=1.

full rationale

The paper's central engine hypothesis is not circular: the AREPO simulations independently produce the polar funnel and α≈2 profile, the wind-modified disk model gives the t^-2 tail via s=0.5 with external GRMHD support, and the kink-stability threshold is evaluated from the simulated density rather than from the burst. The self-citations (Bromberg & Tchekhovskoy 2016; Tchekhovskoy et al. GRMHD efficiencies) are independent, peer-reviewed inputs, not this paper's fitted values. However, the claimed 'reproduction' of the prompt gamma-ray peak and the EP-WXT steep decay is partly by construction: the peak is normalized by choosing θ_b and η values, and the t^-4 slope is the algebraic output of inserting θ_b∝t, an ansatz adopted specifically because the data decline with α≈3.8. The t=4 h funnel persistence to weeks is a legitimate robustness concern but not a circularity. Overall partial circularity (6).

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

The model rests on a chain of assumptions inherited from prior simulation and analytic work (BZ jet efficiency, MAD state, kink stability criterion, wind-modified alpha disk) plus assumptions specific to this paper (persistence of the r^-2 funnel, stream-fed precursor, spin a_•=0.9). The free parameter count is dominated by the light curve normalization and the phenomenological widening law.

free parameters (8)
  • wind mass-loss index s = 0.5
    Chosen from prior simulation literature (Fernández et al. 2019; McKinney et al. 2012; Lalakos et al. 2025). Sets the late-time decay M_acc ∝ t^-2.
  • X-ray radiative efficiency η_X = 0.01 (WXT), 0.001 (FXT)
    Adopted to match the observed X-ray light curve levels; differs between the two X-ray phases without a full physical derivation.
  • gamma-ray radiative efficiency η_γ = 1
    Assumed unity to convert jet power to the observed L_γ,iso ~ 1e51.6 erg/s.
  • initial jet beaming angle θ_b,i = 0.7 degrees
    Set to match the peak isotropic luminosity; combined with a_•=0.9 and M_acc peak.
  • final jet beaming angle θ_b,f and widening law = 2.8 degrees, linear over 4e4 s
    Phenomenological prescription introduced to reproduce the observed t^-4 WXT decay (Sec. 5.2.1).
  • black hole spin a_• = 0.9
    Chosen to give η_jet ≈ 1 and L_jet ≈ 3e47 erg/s; not independently measured.
  • accretion radius r_acc = 10 r_g
    Sets the normalization of the black hole accretion rate; adopted standard value.
  • penetration factor β (disk initial conditions) = 5 (deep encounter)
    Selected because it gives a better match to the late-time X-ray decay than β=1.4 (Sec. 3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Blandford-Znajek jet power and efficiency formula calibrated from GRMHD simulations (Eq. 10).
    Adopted from Tchekhovskoy et al. (2010a, 2011); requires a magnetically arrested disk with φ_• ~ 50, which is assumed rather than simulated.
  • domain assumption The wind-modified alpha-disk evolution model (Eqs. 3-5) with a single-ring approximation and s=0.5.
    From Metzger et al. (2008), Kremer et al. (2019, 2023); assumes quasi-steady viscous evolution with no net torque winds.
  • domain assumption The kink stability criterion Λ > 2 for current-driven instabilities in Poynting-dominated jets (Eq. 14).
    From Bromberg & Tchekhovskoy (2016) and Tchekhovskoy & Bromberg (2016); assumes the jet is highly magnetized with σ ≫ 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The polar funnel density profile ρ ∝ r^-2 with half-opening angle 15° extracted from the AREPO simulations at t=4 h remains valid over the entire emission window.
    The simulations only follow the disk formation for about 1 day; the light curve and stability model assume this profile persists for weeks (implicit in Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5).
  • domain assumption The accretion flow reaches the MAD state with dimensionless magnetic flux φ_• ~ 50 and the BH spin is a_• = 0.9.
    Required to obtain η_jet ≈ 1 and L_jet ≈ 3e47 erg/s; spin-orbit alignment is assumed following Bardeen-Petterson arguments (Sec. 4.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The X-ray precursor is powered by stream-fed accretion of a small fraction (≲1%) of the debris before disk formation, with η_X ≲ 0.01.
    Invoked in Sec. 5.1 to explain the precursor luminosity; no quantitative model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explaining the X-ray Precursor, Ultra-long Prompt Emission, and Week-long Decay of GRB250702B with a Jetted Micro-TDE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G5AKLQN2

@misc{pith2026260810065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explaining the X-ray Precursor, Ultra-long Prompt Emission, and Week-long Decay of GRB250702B with a Jetted Micro-TDE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G5AKLQN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10065}
}
abstract

The longest detected gamma-ray burst, GRB250702B, exhibited seven hours of prompt $\gamma$-ray emission, preceded by a soft X-ray precursor ($\sim1$ day earlier) and followed by a weeks-long fading X-ray tail. Lacking an established progenitor for all three phases, we propose that this ultra-long GRB (ULGRB) is powered by a jetted micro-tidal disruption event (micro-TDE), in which a spinning stellar-mass black hole (BH) disrupts a Sun-like star and launches a relativistic jet via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. Micro-TDE debris disks have hours-to-days viscous timescales, naturally explaining ULGRB durations. Using 3D hydrodynamic AREPO simulations of a $1\,M_\odot$ star disrupted by a $10\,M_\odot$ BH, we show that within $\sim1$ day the debris forms a quasi-steady envelope with a low-density polar funnel ($\rho\propto r^{-2}$, half-opening angle $\approx15^\circ$). Applying an analytic jet-stability framework to these profiles, we find that the $r^{-2}$ funnel keeps the jet below the kink-instability threshold, enabling stable propagation and breakout for jet powers, $L_{\rm jet}\gtrsim10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We attribute the X-ray precursor to pre-disk stream-fed accretion; the prompt GRB to a tightly beamed jet ($\theta_{\rm b}\lesssim1^\circ$, $L_{\gamma,\rm iso}\sim10^{51}$ erg s$^{-1}$) escaping the funnel, launched by a rapidly spinning BH ($a_\bullet\sim0.9$); and the weeks-long X-ray decline to disk-wind mass loss ($L_{\rm jet}\propto t^{-2}$) combined with jet widening ($\theta_{\rm b}\propto t$, initially steepening the decay to $L_{\rm X,iso}\propto L_{\rm jet}/\theta_{\rm b}^{2}\propto t^{-4}$). Our model reproduces the multi-phase evolution of GRB250702B and establishes jetted micro-TDEs as a physically motivated ULGRB engine.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Horizontal (top) and vertical (bottom) density slices through arepo simulations at 𝑡 = 0.5 day of a 10 𝑀⊙ black hole tidally disrupting a 1 𝑀⊙ star reveal the formation of an envelope with low-density polar funnels, which are conducive to relativistic jet formation and escape, for two different encounter strengths. [left column]: Grazing encounter (𝛽 ≡ 𝑟T/𝑟p = 1.4) forms an extended disk of radius 𝑟d ≈ 3 𝑅⊙. Ongoing… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial density profiles of the debris envelope extracted from the arepo simulations at four polar angles at 𝑡 = 4 hours post￾disruption, where 𝜃 = 0 ◦ corresponds to the polar axis (low-density tunnel) and 𝜃 = 90◦ to the equatorial plane (disk midplane). Each profile is obtained by sampling the density at fixed polar angle 𝜃 as a function of radius from the black hole, averaged over azimuthal angles and both hemisph… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Jet stability parameter Λ as a function of intrinsic jet power 𝐿jet, evaluated at a fixed jet head distance 𝑧h = 10 𝑅⊙ from the black hole for the deep encounter (𝛽 = 5). Blue solid curves show Λ parameterized by Lorentz factor, 𝛾j = 1, 10, 100; orange dash-dotted curves show the same relation at fixed jet half￾opening angle, 𝜃j = 1.7 ◦ , 0.17◦ , 0.017◦ , related by the condition Λ ≡ 2𝛾j𝜃j/0.03 = 2 at their crossing… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Jet power and jet stability requirements constrain our micro-TDE model of GRB 250702 to lie to the right of the solid red and cyan lines, respectively, as seen on the color map of the logarithm of isotropic-equivalent jet power, 𝑃iso, as a function of the intrinsic jet…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our jetted micro-TDE engine model reproduces the light curve of GRB 250702 in three frequency bands: the tightly beamed relativistic jet (𝜃b = 0.7 ◦ ) powers the prompt 𝛾-rays; wind-modified accretion produces the late-time week-long EP-FXT tail (𝐿iso ∝ 𝑡 −2 ); and pos…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of the accretion disks formed by grazing (𝛽 = 1.4, purple) and deep (𝛽 = 5, red) encounters in our arepo simulations at 𝑡 = 4 hours post- disruption. [panel (a)]: disk aspect ratio ℎ, showing that the two encounters settle into disks with plateau values…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  2. [2]

    A., & Fragile, P

    Abramowicz, M. A., & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2013-1

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-1 2013

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJL, 995, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2028

    An, T. 2025, ApJL, 995, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2028

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2028 2025

  4. [4]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/187

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187 2016

  5. [5]

    S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 2020

  6. [6]

    B., & Granot, J

    Beniamini, P., Perets, H. B., & Granot, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22779, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22779

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22779 2025

  7. [7]

    2013, ApJL, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013, ApJL, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l23 2013

  8. [8]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 822, doi: 10.1086/590379

    Berti, E., & Volonteri, M. 2008, ApJ, 684, 822, doi: 10.1086/590379

    doi:10.1086/590379 2008

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    2014, SSRv, 183, 21, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9985-6

    Blaes, O. 2014, SSRv, 183, 21, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9985-6

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x

    1999

  3. [11]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    1977 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Lodato, G., & Price, D

    Bonnerot, C., Rossi, E. M., Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2253, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2411 14Kıroğlu et al

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    Bromberg, O., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d67

    Carney, J., Andreoni, I., O’Connor, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d67

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 063013, doi: 10.1103/hgj9-v4fk

    Chatterjee, K., Kaaz, N., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Markoff, S. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 063013, doi: 10.1103/hgj9-v4fk

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.04966

    Chen, T.-S., & Lai, D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.04966

    2026 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Q., Zhao, G

    Cheng, H. Q., Zhao, G. Y., Zhou, C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40906, 1

    2025

  13. [21]

    S., Narayan, R., Su, K.-Y., & Natarajan, P

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Narayan, R., Su, K.-Y., & Natarajan, P. 2025, ApJ, 995, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1fdb

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al

    Christie, I. M., Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2552

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Eyles-Ferris, R. A. J., King, A., Starling, R. L. C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag005 Fernández, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., Foucart, F., &

    2026 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    Kasen, D. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Farr, B

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, B. 2017, ApJL, 840, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Blaes, O

    Fragile, P. C., Blaes, O. M., Anninos, P., & Salmonson, J. D. 2007, ApJ, 668, 417, doi: 10.1086/521092

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    Fragione, G., Leigh, N. W. C., Perna, R., & Kocsis, B. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2213

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 4307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3493

    Fragione, G., Perna, R., & Loeb, A. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3493

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    L., & Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJL, 502, L9, doi: 10.1086/311493

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac317

    Fuller, J., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac317

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    L., et al

    Gendre, B., Stratta, G., Atteia, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/30

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Goodwin, A. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Sfaradi, I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2608.03205, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2608.03205 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2026 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    B., Gill, R., Beniamini, P., & O’Connor, B

    Granot, J., Perets, H. B., Gill, R., Beniamini, P., & O’Connor, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14847

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Kann, D

    Greiner, J., Mazzali, P. A., Kann, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, 189, doi: 10.1038/nature14579

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

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

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V. 2025, ApJ, 987, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1da

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt871

    Hayasaki, K., Stone, N., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt871

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    2010, PhRvD, 81, 084054, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084054

    Kesden, M., Sperhake, U., & Berti, E. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 084054, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084054

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2188 Kıroğlu, F., Kremer, K., Biscoveanu, S., González Prieto, E., &

    Kinugawa, T., Harikane, Y., & Asano, K. 2019, ApJ, 878, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2188 Kıroğlu, F., Kremer, K., Biscoveanu, S., González Prieto, E., &

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Rasio, F. A. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada26b Kıroğlu, F., Kremer, K., & Rasio, F. A. 2025b, ApJL, 994, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1eeb Kıroğlu, F., Lombardi, J. C., Kremer, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc24c Kıroğlu, F., Lombard...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Rasio, F. A. 2025c, ApJL, 983, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc263

    doi

  37. [45]

    Klencki, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2026, ApJ, 1005, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6ce8

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    S., Vlahakis, N., & Königl, A

    Komissarov, S. S., Vlahakis, N., & Königl, A. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 17, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16779.x

    2010

  39. [47]

    L., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2018, ApJ, 852, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa99df

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

    Kremer, K., Lombardi, J. C., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    L., et al

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb14

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Lachat, M., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Rodriguez, C. L., Lachat, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e0c

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    L., & Lombardi, J

    Kremer, K., Mockler, B., Piro, A. L., & Lombardi, J. C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2239

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    Kremer, K., Spera, M., Becker, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    H., & Piran, T

    Krolik, J. H., & Piran, T. 2011, ApJ, 743, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/134

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    R., et al

    Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., Most, E. R., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 123044, doi: 10.1103/zkq5-bj75 15

    2025 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Starling, R. L. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/13

    2014 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Levan, A. J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf8e1

    2025 doi

  50. [59]

    2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 538, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.12.050

    Li, D., Zhang, W., Yang, J., et al. 2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 538, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.12.050

    2026 doi

  51. [60]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1842

    Samsing, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1842

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    Ma, L., & Fuller, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de5

    Mai, A., Kremer, K., & Kıroğlu, F. 2026, ApJ, 998, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de5

    2026 doi

  54. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323d

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

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1351

    2024 doi

  56. [66]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    D., Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x

    2008

  58. [68]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

    Mizuta, A., & Ioka, K. 2013, ApJ, 777, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/128

    Nakamura, T. 2012, ApJ, 759, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/128

    2012 doi

  60. [70]

    2025, ApJL, 992, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a20

    Naoz, S., Haiman, Z., Quataert, E., & Holzknecht, L. 2025, ApJL, 992, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a20

    2025 doi

  61. [71]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

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

    2003 doi

  62. [72]

    F., & Kulkarni, A

    Narayan, R., Sądowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    2012

  63. [73]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    1994 doi

  64. [74]

    L., et al

    Neights, E., Burns, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2019

    2026 doi

  65. [75]

    C., Kıroğlu, F., Hoang, B.-M., & Rasio, F

    Newton, A., Rose, S. C., Kıroğlu, F., Hoang, B.-M., & Rasio, F. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.04176, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.04176 O’Connor, B., Gill, R., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1741

    2026 doi arXiv

  66. [76]

    2025, A&A, 703, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556591

    Oganesyan, G., Kammoun, E., Ierardi, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556591

    2025 doi

  67. [77]

    T., Röpke, F

    Ohlmann, S. T., Röpke, F. K., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V. 2017, A&A, 599, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629692

    2017 doi

  68. [78]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2380

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2380

    2016 doi

  69. [79]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ebb

    Park, G., & Hayasaki, K. 2020, ApJ, 900, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ebb

    2020 doi

  70. [80]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  71. [81]

    B., Li, Z., Lombardi, Jr., J

    Perets, H. B., Li, Z., Lombardi, Jr., J. C., & Milcarek, Jr., S. R. 2016, ApJ, 823, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/113

    2016 doi

  72. [82]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcc1

    Perna, R., Lazzati, D., & Cantiello, M. 2018, ApJ, 859, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcc1

    2018 doi

  73. [83]

    2018, A&A, 616, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839

    Qin, Y., Fragos, T., Meynet, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839

    2018 doi

  74. [84]

    2026, A&A, 707, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556781

    Rastello, S., Iorio, G., Gieles, M., & Wang, L. 2026, A&A, 707, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556781

    2026 doi

  75. [85]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  76. [86]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  77. [87]

    L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 084029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    2016 doi

  78. [88]

    C., Naoz, S., Sari, R., & Linial, I

    Rose, S. C., Naoz, S., Sari, R., & Linial, I. 2022, ApJL, 929, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6426

    2022 doi

  79. [89]

    2026, A&A, 709, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558435 Rozner,M.,Rosselli-Calderon,A.,&Ramirez-Ruiz,E.2026,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.28293, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.28293

    Roupas, Z. 2026, A&A, 709, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558435 Rozner,M.,Rosselli-Calderon,A.,&Ramirez-Ruiz,E.2026,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.28293, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.28293

    2026 doi arXiv

  80. [90]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, ApJ, 904, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd

    2020 doi

  81. [91]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2316

    Ryu, T., Perna, R., & Wang, Y.-H. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2316

    2022 doi

  82. [92]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.05495, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.05495

    Satish, I., Kremer, K., Kıroğlu, F., Tsuna, D., & Shayan Aran, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.05495, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.05495

    2026 doi arXiv

  83. [93]

    2026, ApJL, 1003, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6a8f

    Sato, Y., Oikawa, R., Kato, K., Matsumoto, T., & Kashiyama, K. 2026, ApJL, 1003, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6a8f

    2026 doi

  84. [94]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Penna, R., & Zhu, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1881

    1973 doi

  85. [96]

    Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L17, doi: 10.1086/376976

    2003 doi

  86. [97]

    M., & Pringle, J

    Stone, J. M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 461, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04138.x

    2001

  87. [98]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 061302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302

    Stone, N., & Loeb, A. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 061302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061302

    2012 doi

  88. [99]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1270

    Stone, N., Sari, R., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1270

    2013 doi

  89. [100]

    L., et al

    Stratta, G., Gendre, B., Atteia, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/66

    2013 doi

  90. [101]

    E., & Quataert, E

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

    2009

  91. [102]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 547, doi: 10.1038/nature12505 16Kıroğlu et al

    2013 doi

  92. [103]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2015

  93. [104]

    414, The Formation and Disruption of Black Hole Jets, ed

    Library, Vol. 414, The Formation and Disruption of Black Hole Jets, ed. I. Contopoulos, D. Gabuzda, & N. Kylafis, 45, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10356-3_3

    doi

  94. [105]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw064

    Tchekhovskoy, A., & Bromberg, O. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw064

    2016 doi

  95. [106]

    C., & Narayan, R

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

    2012 doi

  96. [107]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010a, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50 —. 2010b, NewA, 15, 749, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2010.03.001 —. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2010

  97. [108]

    2008, PhRvD, 78, 081501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.081501

    Tichy, W., & Marronetti, P. 2008, PhRvD, 78, 081501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.081501

    2008 doi

  98. [109]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    2000 doi

  99. [110]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21116

    Tsuna, D., Fuller, J., & Lu, W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21116

    2025 doi arXiv

  100. [111]

    Vajpeyi, A., Thrane, E., Smith, R., McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6180

    2022 doi

  101. [112]

    A., Nugent, A

    Villar, V. A., Nugent, A. E., Burns, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.07819, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.07819

    2026 doi arXiv

  102. [113]

    E., & Perets, H

    Vynatheya, P., Ryu, T., Pakmor, R., de Mink, S. E., & Perets, H. B. 2024, A&A, 685, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348357

    2024 doi

  103. [114]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., & Pakmor, R. 2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    2020 doi

  104. [115]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.12846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12846

    Xin, C., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., Wang, Y., & Ryu, T. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.12846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12846

    2023 doi arXiv

  105. [116]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c0b

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Fragione, G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c0b

    2022 doi

  106. [117]

    2026, ApJL, 997, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae31e7

    Zhang, J.-P., Wang, C.-W., Yu, Z.-H., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae31e7

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.