The First Radio-Bright Off-Nuclear TDE 2024tvd Reveals the Fastest-Evolving Double-Peaked Radio Emission

Adelle J. Goodwin; Alexander W. Pollak; Andrew Siemion; Assaf Horesh; Brian D. Metzger; Collin T. Christy; Dave A. Green; David R DeBoer; Edo Berger; Eli Wiston

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

The First Radio-Bright Off-Nuclear TDE 2024tvd Reveals the Fastest-Evolving Double-Peaked Radio Emission

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2024tvd, a tidal disruption event 0.8 kpc from its host nucleus, is the first radio-bright off-nuclear TDE and has the fastest double-peaked radio evolution on record.

desk verdict A rich new dataset on the first radio-bright off-nuclear TDE, but the claim of a delayed outflow launch at ~80 days is not robust because the model assumes constant expansion in a regime where the authors' own fit says the shock should accelerate. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03807 v1 pith:IQ4QBX4M submitted 2025-08-05 astro-ph.HE

Itai Sfaradi , Raffaella Margutti , Ryan Chornock , Kate D. Alexander , Brian D. Metzger , Paz Beniamini , Rodolfo Barniol Duran , Yuhan Yao

show 29 more authors

Assaf Horesh Wael Farah Edo Berger Nayana A. J. Yvette Cendes Tarraneh Eftekhari Rob Fender Noah Franz Dave A. Green Erica Hammerstein Wenbin Lu Eli Wiston Yirmi Bernstein Joe Bright Collin T. Christy Luigi F. Cruz David R DeBoer Walter W. Golay Adelle J. Goodwin Mark Gurwell Garrett K. Keating Tanmoy Laskar James C. A. Miller-Jones Alexander W. Pollak Ramprasad Rao Andrew Siemion Sofia Z. Sheikh Nadav Shoval Sjoert van Velzen

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords tidaldisruptioneventsradiotransientsoff-nuclearTDEsupermassiveblackholessynchrotronself-absorptionfree-freeabsorptioninverseComptoncoolingtime-domainastronomy

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 reports multi-epoch radio and millimeter observations of AT 2024tvd, a tidal disruption event (a star torn apart by a massive black hole) located about 0.8 kpc from the center of its host galaxy, and argues that it is the first bona fide off-nuclear TDE with bright radio emission. The source shows two radio flares that evolve faster than any previously known TDE: the first rises at least as fast as $F_\nu \sim t^9$ and decays as $F_\nu \sim t^{-6}$, while the second rises as $F_\nu \sim t^{18}$ and decays as $F_\nu \sim t^{-12}$. Modeling the emission as self-absorbed and free-free absorbed synchrotron radiation with inverse-Compton cooling, the authors find that a single outflow launched near optical discovery cannot explain the data. They conclude that the first flare comes from an outflow launched about 80 days after discovery, coincident with the appearance of an X-ray Comptonization component, and that the second flare is either a second outflow launched around 170-190 days or the same outflow running into a density structure.

What carries the argument

The central engine is the equipartition synchrotron self-absorption formalism, which converts the radio spectral peak into an equipartition radius, magnetic-field strength, and ambient density; the paper extends it by adding free-free absorption (suppression by ionized gas in front of the shock) and inverse-Compton cooling (energy loss as electrons scatter thermal optical/UV photons) to the synchrotron spectrum. For the launch-time estimate, the fitted radii are compared with a constant-velocity expansion law $R\propto(\Delta t - t_{\rm launch})$, and the relativistic alternatives are tested with a generalized off-axis jet equipartition analysis. These pieces together let the authors translate double-peaked light curves and evolving SEDs into statements about when the outflow(s) left the black hole and what surrounds it.

What would settle it

A very long baseline interferometry observation of the second flare that resolves its structure or proper motion and finds expansion inconsistent with a constant-velocity shock launched near $\Delta t=170$ days would falsify the preferred delayed-outflow interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AT 2024tvd is the first radio-bright, bona fide off-nuclear tidal disruption event, and it shows double-peaked radio emission that evolves faster than any TDE radio light curve seen before. Relative to the optical discovery date, the first flare rises at least as fast as $F_\nu\sim t^9$ between 88 and 131 days and decays as fast as $F_\nu\sim t^{-6}$; the second flare, first seen near day 194, rises initially as $F_\nu\sim t^{18}$ and declines in the optically thin regime as $F_\nu\sim t^{-12}$. A self-absorbed synchrotron model that also includes free-free absorption and inverse-Compton cooling shows that a prompt outflow cannot easily reproduce these features, and instead favors a delayed outflow launched at $\Delta t\sim 80$ days for the first flare, with the second flare either produced by the same outflow interacting with a complex density profile or by a second outflow launched at $\Delta t\sim 170$-$190$ days. The inferred launch time of the first outflow coincides with the onset of a Comptonized X-ray component, which the authors interpret as evidence that the radio flare may be accretion-driven.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the physical size of the radio-emitting shock can be read directly from the synchrotron self-absorption peak under standard equipartition assumptions; if the peak is instead shaped by free-free absorption, by an accelerating outflow, or by non-spherical geometry, the inferred launch times of roughly 80 and 170 days are not robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A prompt outflow launched at optical discovery is disfavored for both radio flares, because reproducing the early upper limits and fast evolution would require extreme post-shock energies and densities or unphysically steep electron spectra.
The first flare is consistent with a delayed non-relativistic outflow launched near $\Delta t\simeq 84$ days, coincident with the appearance of an X-ray Comptonization component, suggesting an accretion-driven origin for the radio emission.
The second flare can be explained either by a second, mildly relativistic outflow (about $0.5c$) launched near $\Delta t=170$ days, or by the same delayed outflow encountering a broken density profile around the off-nuclear black hole.
The inferred ambient density profile of the first flare is steep ($n_e\propto r^{-3.8}$) yet comparable in normalization to other radio-bright TDEs, and the multi-epoch fit finds a deviation from equipartition, with the magnetic-field energy fraction exceeding the electron energy fraction by about an order of magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

The timing coincidence between the radio launch and the X-ray Comptonization onset suggests a testable general relation: early X-ray spectroscopy of future TDEs could predict delayed radio flares, an extension the authors do not claim.
The off-nuclear environment may play a causal role, so a systematic radio survey of off-nuclear TDE candidates could determine whether the extreme evolution is environmental rather than intrinsic to black hole mass.
VLBI proper-motion or polarization monitoring at the radio peaks, which the paper mentions as future work, would break the degeneracy between a single outflow in a complex medium and two distinct outflows.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main thing to know: this paper gives you the first radio-bright off-nuclear TDE, AT 2024tvd, with a genuinely impressive dataset and the fastest double-peaked radio evolution seen in a TDE so far. The rise and decay indices (t^9, t^18, t^-12) are extreme, and the multi-frequency coverage from 1.5 to 230 GHz is a real step up for this class. I think the observational case is solid.

What is actually new: (1) the first multi-epoch cm/mm monitoring of a bona fide off-nuclear TDE; (2) the fastest power-law indices in any TDE radio light curve; (3) first application of free-free absorption and external inverse-Compton cooling to TDE radio modeling; (4) a generalized off-axis equipartition formalism. The data reduction is careful—host subtraction, cross-calibration of ATA, and treatment of the host nucleus are all handled transparently. They also release code.

Now the soft spot, and it is load-bearing. The whole delayed-launch story, including the claimed coincidence with the X-ray Comptonization onset, rests on a constant-velocity expansion law, r = β0 c (Δt − t_launch), used in both the equipartition fit and the time-dependent model. But their own fit returns a density slope k = 3.8 ± 0.1, and they explicitly footnote that for k > 3 the shock should accelerate (Waxman & Shvarts 1993), saying they ignore it for simplicity. That is not a harmless simplification. If the shock is accelerating, R(t) is concave upward, and fitting a straight line with a free time origin will produce a spurious positive t_launch even for a prompt outflow. Indeed, their equipartition radii for a prompt outflow give R ~ t^2.5, which is consistent with strong acceleration. The prompt-outflow test in Appendix A uses the same constant-velocity model, so the prompt-accelerating scenario is never actually evaluated. As a result, the claim that the first outflow was launched ~80 days after discovery, and the X-ray timing coincidence built on that, are not robust. The data may be equally consistent with a prompt outflow plowing into a steep density profile.

There are also the usual model ambiguities: fixed filling factors, assumed ϵe = 0.001 in the time-dependent fit, and the SED peak being identified with synchrotron self-absorption rather than, say, free-free absorption. These are conventional in the field, so I would call them secondary, not fatal.

Who gets value from this: radio transient observers and TDE theorists, especially anyone working on off-nuclear black holes or IMBH candidates. The paper deserves serious peer review because the data are important and the modeling is ambitious, but I would not accept the delayed-launch conclusion as is. A referee should require either a time-dependent fit that includes shock acceleration, or a careful argument for why constant velocity is justified despite k > 3. Without that, the central interpretation is speculative. My recommendation: engage with the work, but push for revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the first multi-epoch radio and millimeter monitoring of the off-nuclear TDE AT 2024tvd, using the VLA, ALMA, ATA, AMI-LA, and the SMA. It documents a double-peaked radio light curve with the fastest temporal evolution seen in a TDE: the first flare rises at least as fast as Fν ~ t^9 and decays as Fν ~ t^-6, and the second flare rises as Fν ~ t^18 and decays as Fν ~ t^-12. The broadband SEDs are modeled with a synchrotron framework that includes, for the first time for TDE radio data, both free-free absorption and external inverse-Compton cooling. The authors argue against a single prompt outflow and favor either one delayed outflow launched at Δt ~ 80 days or two delayed outflows with the second launched at Δt ~ 170-190 days, and they note a temporal coincidence between the inferred first outflow launch time and the onset of an X-ray Comptonization component.

Significance. The observational campaign is valuable and the reductions are careful: host-galaxy subtraction, ATA cross-calibration, and configuration-dependent systematics are all explicitly addressed. The paper also provides a useful technical contribution by consistently including free-free absorption and external inverse-Compton cooling in TDE radio modeling and by sharing code for the synchrotron SED calculations. If the delayed-launch interpretation were robust, this would be the first radio-bright, bonafide off-nuclear TDE and would establish an interesting accretion-outflow connection. However, the central launch-time inference rests on a constant-velocity expansion assumption that the authors' own fit indicates is violated, so the key physical claim needs additional modeling or a more cautious framing before publication.

major comments (3)

[§4.1.2 and §4.2 (including footnote 3)] The delayed launch time t_launch = 84^{+6}_{-25} days is derived in §4.1.2 by fitting the equipartition radii with a constant-velocity law R(Δt) = R̃ (Δt − t_launch)/(Δt0 − t_launch), and the time-dependent model in §4.2 assumes r = β0 c (Δt − t_launch). However, the time-dependent fit returns k = 3.8 ± 0.1, and the footnote to §4.2 acknowledges that for k > 3 the shock should accelerate (Waxman & Shvarts 1993), yet this acceleration is not modeled. The prompt-outflow equipartition radii in §4.1.1 show R ∼ t^2.5, which is the signature of an accelerating shock, and the only prompt-outflow test in Appendix A uses the same constant-velocity model. The accelerating-prompt-outflow scenario is therefore never actually evaluated. A constant-velocity fit to an accelerating R(t) can produce a spurious positive t_launch even for an outflow launched at optical discovery, so the inferred 84-day launch time and the claimed coincidence with the X-ray Comptonization onset in §5.1 are not robust. The authors should either add an accelerating-shock model or explicitly reframe the launch-time and X-ray-coincidence claims as conditional on constant-velocity expansion.
[§4.2 and Appendix A] The comparison between delayed and prompt outflows is carried out with fixed microphysical choices: εe = 0.001, f = 0.5, fA = 1, and Te = 10^5 K. The choice εe = 0.001 is justified as needed for εB ≤ 0.1, but the paper does not report how the inferred n0, k, energetics, or the disfavoring of the prompt scenario in Appendix A depend on this choice. Since the steep density profile k ≈ 3.8 and the prompt-outflow energetics are load-bearing for the delayed-outflow conclusion, a sensitivity analysis over εe (and over fA) is needed, or the conclusions should be stated with the corresponding caveat.
[§4.1.3 vs. Appendix D] Equations (6) and (7) in the main text include factors ξ^{1/(2p+13)} and ξ^{11/(2p+13)}, which account for hot protons, but the corresponding display equations (D18) and (D19) in Appendix D do not contain these factors even though the text states that they are introduced. This inconsistency affects the inferred off-axis jet energies and must be corrected; it is especially important because the off-axis jet scenario is one of the viable interpretations presented in the paper.

minor comments (5)

[Title] The title contains a typo: "F astest" should be "Fastest".
[Figure 7] The label "T emporal evolution" in the middle panels contains a stray space and should read "Temporal evolution".
[§4.1.1 and §4.1.2] The 131-day SED is mostly optically thick, with only a slight transition near 13-17 GHz, and the electron index p is fixed from later epochs. Because the resulting Fp and νp at the first epoch drive the launch-time fit in §4.1.2, the systematic uncertainty from this procedure should be propagated into t_launch.
[§4.2] The footnote stating that shock acceleration is not accounted for is central to the interpretation and should be moved into the main text; the abstract's statement that the outflow was launched at Δt ∼ 80 days should be qualified accordingly.
[§5.1] The claimed coincidence between the radio launch time and the onset of X-ray Comptonization cites Yao et al. (2025b) but does not give the uncertainty on the X-ray onset time; a quantitative comparison would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the launch-time and X-ray coincidence claims are fitted/comparative, not derived from their own conclusions; the constant-velocity caveat is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's headline claims are based on direct measurements: the light-curve power-law indices (Fnu ~ t^9, t^-6, t^18, t^-12) are read off the observed multi-frequency light curves (Figs. 2-3), and the SED peak parameters are fitted with an external broken power-law form (Eq. 4, from Granot & Sari 2002). The outflow launch times are free parameters fitted to the equipartition radii in Sec. 4.1.2 via a shifted constant-velocity expansion law, then used as an input to the time-dependent model in Sec. 4.2; this is model fitting, not a prediction of the same quantity from itself. The temporal coincidence with the X-ray Comptonization onset is imported from the independent analysis of Yao et al. (2025b) and compared with, rather than used to set, t_launch. The off-axis jet closure relations are quoted from published external work (Matsumoto & Piran 2023; Beniamini et al. 2023); overlapping authorship does not make those results identical to the present fits. The most significant caveat is stated in the Sec. 4.2 footnote: 'Note that we find in our analysis k>3. This steep profile should lead to an acceleration of the shock wave (Waxman & Shvarts 1993). However, for simplicity, we do not account for this acceleration and assume constant expansion and leave this to future work.' That is a physical limitation and a legitimate degeneracy between delayed launch and shock acceleration, but it does not make any quoted equation reduce a claimed prediction to its own input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is justified solely by a self-citation chain. The derivation is therefore self-contained for the purposes of circularity analysis, with the robustness caveat belonging to model uncertainty rather than circularity.

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

The central claims rest on standard synchrotron shock theory and on several fitted or assumed parameters. The free parameters are the SED peak flux and frequency per epoch, the electron index p, the outflow launch times, and the time-dependent model parameters (beta0, n0, k, eps_B). The interpretation also assumes equipartition or fixed eps_e/eps_B, spherical geometry with filling factors, constant-velocity expansion, and a single power-law density profile. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

t_launch_first_flare = 84 (+6, -25) days
Fit of equipartition radius evolution with constant-velocity expansion in Section 4.1.2; used in time-dependent model and for the temporal coincidence claim.
t_launch_second_flare = 170 ± 10 days (non-relativistic) or ~190 days (off-axis jet)
Fit to equipartition radius evolution or assumed to satisfy Fnu ~ t^-3 decline; Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.
electron power-law index p = 2.14 (first flare, free at 151-154 d), 2.17 (second flare, free at 247-248 d)
Fit to VLA+ALMA SEDs; fixed for other epochs; Section 4.1 and Table 2.
Fp and nu_p per epoch = Table 2 values
Broken power-law fits of individual SEDs; used in equipartition analysis.
time-dependent model parameters = beta0, n0, k, eps_B (log eps_B = -1.9 ± 0.3, n0 = 10^5.2 ± 0.2 cm^-3, k = 3.8 ± 0.1), with eps_e fixed to 0.001
emcee fit of first-flare SEDs and 10 GHz light curve; Section 4.2.
off-axis jet eps_e and viewing angle theta = theta = 30, 45, 60, 90 deg; eps_e up to 0.1 chosen per angle
Chosen to satisfy nu_m ≤ 1.5 GHz and equipartition; Section 4.1.3 and Table 4.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Synchrotron shock emission with power-law electron distribution N(gamma) proportional to gamma^-p for gamma > gamma_m
Standard model for radio TDEs; used throughout Section 4 and Appendices C and D.
standard math Strong shock post-shock energy density u_ps = 9/8 rho v_sh^2 with adiabatic index 5/3
Used in Eq. 3 and energy estimates; Section 4.
domain assumption Equipartition eps_e = eps_B = 0.1 for individual SED analysis
Assumed in Section 4.1.1 for radius, magnetic field, and density; relaxed in the time-dependent model where eps_e is fixed to 0.001.
domain assumption Constant-velocity spherical expansion R(Delta t) = beta0 c (Delta t - t_launch)
Used to fit launch times and in the time-dependent model; the paper notes that k > 3 would cause acceleration and ignores this in the fit.
domain assumption Single power-law ambient density n_e(r) = n0 (r/r0)^-k
Used in the time-dependent model; a broken power law is motivated in the discussion.
domain assumption The SED peak is set by synchrotron self-absorption (nu_p = nu_sa)
Core of the equipartition radius method; free-free absorption and inverse-Compton cooling are included, but the peak identification remains central.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The First Radio-Bright Off-Nuclear TDE 2024tvd Reveals the Fastest-Evolving Double-Peaked Radio Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQ4QBX4M

@misc{pith2026250803807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The First Radio-Bright Off-Nuclear TDE 2024tvd Reveals the Fastest-Evolving Double-Peaked Radio Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQ4QBX4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03807}
}

abstract

We present the first multi-epoch broadband radio and millimeter monitoring of an off-nuclear TDE using the VLA, ALMA, ATA, AMI-LA, and the SMA. The off-nuclear TDE 2024tvd exhibits double-peaked radio light curves and the fastest evolving radio emission observed from a TDE to date. With respect to the optical discovery date, the first radio flare rises faster than $F_{\rm \nu} \sim t^{9}$ at $\Delta t = 88-131$ days, and then decays as fast as $F_{\rm \nu} \sim t^{-6}$. The emergence of a second radio flare is observed at $\Delta t \approx 194$ days with an initial fast rise of $F_{\rm \nu} \sim t^{18}$, and an optically thin decline of $F_{\rm \nu} \sim t ^{-12}$. We interpret these observations in the context of a self-absorbed and free-free absorbed synchrotron spectrum, while accounting for both synchrotron and external inverse-Compton cooling. We find that a single prompt outflow cannot easily explain these observations and it is likely that either there is only one outflow that was launched at $\Delta t \sim 80$ days, or two distinct outflows, with the second launched at $\Delta t \sim 170-190$ days. The nature of these outflows, whether sub-, mildly-, or ultra-relativistic, is still unclear, and we explore these different scenarios. Finally, we find a temporal coincidence between the launch time of the first radio-emitting outflow and the onset of a power-law component in the X-ray spectrum, attributed to inverse-Compton scattering of thermal photons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03807 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Radio images of the field of AT 2024tvd. Left panel: the first VLA observation in X-band at ∆t = 88 days, resulting in a null-detection of the TDE, and a detection of the nucleus of the host. Right panel: the VLA C-band image at ∆t = 160 days, showing both the emission from the TDE and from the host galaxy. The positions of the TDE and of the nucleus obtained from the HST image (Yao et al. 2025b) are marked with an … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Radio luminosity evolution of a selection of known TDEs (ASASSN-14li; Alexander et al. 2016, ASASSN15oi; Horesh et al. 2021a, AT 2019dsg; Stein et al. 2021, AT 2018hyz; Cendes et al. 2022, AT 2019azh; Goodwin et al. 2022; Sfaradi et al. 2022, and AT 2020vwl; Goodwin et al. 2023), and AT 2024tvd (this work; 10 GHz marked with red stars; 15.5 GHz marked with orange stars). Observations of the same TDE are connected w… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Radio light curves of the off-nuclear TDE 2024tvd at different frequencies. We plot temporal power-laws for different segments of these light curves (with the reference initial time being the optical discovery), showing the fast rise and decay in both flares. At ∆t = 194 days, a re-brightening of the radio emission was observed with AMI-LA at 15.5 GHz. The evolution of this second radio flare is extremely peculiar… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Broadband radio SEDs of the off-nuclear TDE 2024tvd. The left panel shows the radio SEDs of the first radio flare, and the right panel is for the second radio flare. Detections obtained with different radio telescopes are marked with different markers (circles for the …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Physical parameters inferred from the fits of the individual SEDs and non-relativistic equipartition analysis (see §4.1.1 and §4.1.2). The top left panel shows the temporal evolution of the equipartition radius (filled circles for the first flare, filled squares for th…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Radio light curves of AT 2024tvd as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Physical parameters from the generalized equipartition analysis of a relativistic off-axis jet. The top panels show the results for the first radio flare, assuming tlaunch = 80 days, and the bottom panels show the results for the second radio flare for tlaunch = 190 da…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Results from the time-dependent model applied to the first radio flare, for tlaunch = 84 days. The top left panel shows the broadband SEDs with models drawn from the posterior distributions obtained by using emcee. The top right panel is for the 10 GHz light curve with…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Results from our time-dependent fit of the first radio flare assuming a prompt non-relativistic outflow. The top panel is for the temporal evolution of the different break frequencies based on our best-fitting parameters: β0 = 0.14 ± 0.02, log n0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Broad-band SED of the emission from the host-galaxy nucleus. The filled circles are for radio detections obtained at ∆t = 160 days, the square is for the detection obtained at ∆t = 88 days, and the triangle is a 3σ upper limit obtained at ∆t = 160 days. Also plotted i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Triple radio flares from tidal disruption events: jet-wind collisions and the discovery of a third radio flare from AT2020vwl
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The TDE AT2020vwl showed a third radio flare at the time a jet-wind collision was predicted from its first two flares, the first predicted-and-confirmed third flare.
The Radio Properties of Extreme Coronal Line Emitters: Constraints on the Sub-parsec Environment
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

About half of low-redshift ECLEs are radio-bright like TDEs/AGN; SED modeling of four shows the ECL gas is clumpy (f_V ~ 10^{-5}-10^{-2}) and spatially distinct from the radio-emitting region.
Radio Observations of the Unusual Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022wtn: a Fast and Highly Energetic Outflow
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

AT 2022wtn produced a uniquely powerful non-relativistic radio outflow (v~0.21c spherical; energy ~3.8e49 erg) consistent only with a delayed accretion-disk state transition.
A Self-Consistent Framework for Synchrotron Equipartition Analysis
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Self-consistent equipartition equations that couple self-absorption, hot-proton, and out-of-equipartition corrections raise inferred energies of synchrotron outflows by a factor of ~5 relative to prior independent treatments.
EuraGovExam: A Multilingual Multimodal Benchmark from Real-World Civil Service Exams
cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

EuraGovExam is a real-exam, image-only multilingual multimodal benchmark on which state-of-the-art VLMs reach only ~86% accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · cited by 5 Pith papers

[1]

2025, MNRAS, 539, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf649 Alexander, K

Abdikamalov, E., & Beniamini, P. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf649 Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25 Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w Alexander, K. D.,...

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12729 2025
[1970]

C., Scaife, A

Perrott, Y. C., Scaife, A. M. M., Green, D. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3330, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts589 Piro, A. L., & Mockler, B. 2025, ApJ, 985, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 613, 322, doi: 10.1086/422973 Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0 Rhodes, L., Bright, J. S., Fender, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521,...

arXiv 2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

2025, MNRAS, 539, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf649 Alexander, K

Abdikamalov, E., & Beniamini, P. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf649 Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Guillochon, J., Zauderer, B. A., & Williams, P. K. G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25 Alexander, K. D., van Velzen, S., Horesh, A., & Zauderer, B. A. 2020, SSRv, 216, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w Alexander, K. D.,...

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12729 2025

[2] [1970]

C., Scaife, A

Perrott, Y. C., Scaife, A. M. M., Green, D. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3330, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts589 Piro, A. L., & Mockler, B. 2025, ApJ, 985, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc729 Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 613, 322, doi: 10.1086/422973 Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0 Rhodes, L., Bright, J. S., Fender, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521,...

arXiv 2013