Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 1 cited by

BlackHoleWeather -- Spin-coupled chaotic cold accretion across the meso scale: Variability and kinematics

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Halo stirring disrupts the meso-scale gas bridge to supermassive black holes, dropping accretion rates by two to three orders of magnitude and slowing jet reorientation.

desk verdict The controlled runs show persistent turbulence disrupts meso-scale continuity enough to drop radial accretion 2-3 orders of magnitude and cut reorientation rates by roughly two orders relative to the decaying-turbulence controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.27508 v1 pith:IRPNOWBH submitted 2026-05-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Olmo Piana , Massimo Gaspari , Vieri Cammelli , Filippo Barbani , Davide M. Brustio , Giovanni Stel , Valeria Olivares , Ashkbiz Danehkar
show 5 more authors
Pasquale Temi Roberto Serafinelli Francesco Salvestrini Filippo M. Maccagni Francesco Tombesi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords chaoticcoldaccretionsupermassiveblackholespinhaloturbulencejetreorientationmeso-scalevariabilityhydrodynamicalsimulationsgalaxydynamics
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 examines whether turbulence in galaxy halos regulates supermassive black hole spin by altering the radial continuity and torque coherence of the gas flow from large scales inward. It compares four hydrodynamical simulations in a 100-kpc box, two with continuous driven solenoidal turbulence and two matched controls where the initial turbulence decays. Persistent stirring breaks mass and angular-momentum continuity across the meso-scale bridge, so gas struggles to reach parsec scales while torques fragment and cancel. This produces sharply lower radial accretion rates, slower jet-axis drift in driven cases, and higher reorientation rates with more coherent episodes in the interrupted cases, visible also in power spectra and velocity kinematics.

What carries the argument

The meso-scale accretion bridge of clouds and filaments, whose torque coherence and radial continuity set the vector history of black hole spin under jet feedback.

What would settle it

A measurement showing comparable pc-scale accretion rates and jet reorientation frequencies in real galaxies regardless of whether their halos maintain persistent turbulence would contradict the reported split between driven and interrupted runs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In simulations of chaotic cold accretion with spin-coupled jet feedback, maintaining driven solenoidal turbulence disrupts mass and angular-momentum continuity across the meso-scale bridge. Gas struggles to reach pc scales, the radial accretion rate drops by 2-3 orders of magnitude, torque delivery is fragmented and cancellation-dominated, and driven runs settle to slow effective jet-axis drift. Interrupted-turbulence runs preserve a connected gas channel to the sink, sustain higher torque coherence, and maintain reorientation rates higher by about two orders of magnitude, with connected rain enhancing low-frequency accretion power and producing narrower, phase-ordered kinematics.

Load-bearing premise

The turbulence-driving prescriptions and resolution correctly capture the radial continuity and torque coherence that determine spin evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Driven turbulence leads to slow effective jet-axis drift while interrupted turbulence sustains reorientation rates higher by about two orders of magnitude.
  • Connected rain enhances low-frequency accretion power and produces narrower, phase-ordered kinematics.
  • Stirring steepens high-frequency damping and broadens the gas velocity loci for all phases.
  • Torque delivery becomes fragmented and cancellation-dominated under persistent stirring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Black hole spin distributions could differ systematically between galaxies whose halos experience ongoing stirring versus those with decaying turbulence.
  • Accretion variability on meso-scale timescales might appear as distinct patterns in AGN light curves depending on halo dynamical state.
  • Jet direction stability could correlate with the presence or absence of sustained halo turbulence in observed systems.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from four matched 3D hydrodynamical simulations in a 100-kpc domain reaching sub-pc resolution, employing the Hybrid SMBH spin model. It claims that continuous driven solenoidal turbulence disrupts mass and angular-momentum continuity across the meso-scale accretion bridge, causing the radial accretion rate to drop by 2–3 orders of magnitude, producing fragmented and cancellation-dominated torques, and resulting in slow effective jet-axis drift; by contrast, the two interrupted-turbulence controls preserve connected channels, sustain higher torque coherence, and exhibit reorientation rates higher by approximately two orders of magnitude, with the distinction also appearing in power spectra and phase-space kinematics.

Significance. If the central contrast holds, the work supplies a controlled numerical demonstration that external halo stirring can suppress coherent meso-scale accretion and thereby regulate SMBH spin evolution and jet reorientation in the CCA regime. The use of matched initial conditions across driven and decaying suites, together with spin-coupled jet feedback, isolates the stirring effect and constitutes a clear strength of the experimental design.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that reorientation rates differ by 'about two orders of magnitude'; a quantitative table or figure panel reporting the actual rates (with uncertainties) for each run would make the central claim easier to evaluate.
  2. [Methods] The turbulence-driving amplitude and grid-resolution choices are identified as free parameters; a short paragraph or appendix showing that the reported 2–3 order drop in accretion rate is insensitive to modest variations in these parameters would strengthen the robustness of the meso-scale continuity result.
  3. [Results] Figure captions for the k-plots and power spectra should explicitly state the radial range over which the spectra are computed and whether the same radial cut is applied to both driven and interrupted suites.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our manuscript, the recognition of the experimental design strengths, and the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; results from independent simulation comparisons

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from four matched 100-kpc hydrodynamical runs (two continuously driven, two decaying turbulence) that reach sub-pc resolution and apply the same Hybrid SMBH spin model uniformly. The central claims—disruption of meso-scale continuity, 2–3 order drop in radial accretion rate, torque fragmentation, and ~2-order difference in jet reorientation rates—follow directly from the controlled contrast between driven and interrupted suites. No equation reduces a prediction to a fitted quantity defined by the same data, no self-definitional closure appears, and the companion-paper citation for the spin model is not load-bearing for the differential diagnostics. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the simulation outputs.

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

Ledger is inferred from abstract mentions only; the Hybrid SMBH spin model and turbulence-driving choices are the main external dependencies.

free parameters (2)
  • turbulence driving amplitude
    Strength of continuous solenoidal driving is a simulation parameter that defines the driven suite.
  • grid resolution and box size
    100-kpc domain with sub-pc resolution is a modeling choice that sets the meso-scale bridge.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The Hybrid SMBH spin model validated in the companion paper correctly couples spin evolution to jet feedback and accretion torques.
    Invoked for all four runs; no independent verification supplied here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BlackHoleWeather -- Spin-coupled chaotic cold accretion across the meso scale: Variability and kinematics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IRPNOWBH

@misc{pith2026260527508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BlackHoleWeather -- Spin-coupled chaotic cold accretion across the meso scale: Variability and kinematics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IRPNOWBH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.27508}
}
read the original abstract

Supermassive black hole (SMBH) spin records the vector history of accretion. In chaotic cold accretion (CCA), this history is set by clouds and filaments whose torques can add coherently, cancel, or reverse before reaching the horizon-scale closure. We test whether halo stirring regulates SMBH spin by changing the radial continuity and torque coherence of the meso-scale accretion bridge. We focus on spin evolution, jet-axis reorientation, accretion variability, and CCA kinematics. We analyse four 3D hydrodynamical simulations in a 100-kpc box, reaching sub-pc resolution, including SMBH spin-coupled jet feedback. All runs use the Hybrid SMBH spin model validated in a companion paper. Two simulations maintain continuous driven solenoidal turbulence, while two matched controls let the same initial turbulent field decay. The main effect of persistent stirring is to disrupt mass and angular-momentum continuity across the meso-scale bridge. Although all runs develop comparable macro-scale inflow, in the driven-turbulence suite, gas struggles to reach pc scales, and the radial accretion rate drops by 2-3 orders of magnitude. Torque delivery in this case is fragmented and cancellation-dominated. The interrupted-turbulence suite, on the other hand, preserves a connected gas channel to the sink, while sustaining higher torque coherence. Driven runs therefore settle to slow effective jet-axis drift, whereas interrupted runs maintain reorientation rates higher by about two orders of magnitude and can briefly reach a few degrees during coherent retrograde episodes. The same split appears in power spectra and k-plots: connected rain enhances low-frequency accretion power and produces narrower, phase-ordered kinematics, while stirring steepens high-frequency damping and broadens the gas velocity loci for all phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the volume-weighted velocity dispersion for the four runs. The average is performed across all phases and within the 100-kpc box. We mask out the jet by imposing a velocity cut at v = 1000 km s−1 . The first 50 Myr, indicated by the grey vertical line, cor￾respond to the common pre-conditioning phase; the subsequent diver￾gence quantifies whether stirring persists (DT) or is allowed to decay (IT). pose … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of the SMBH accretion–spin–feedback coupling used in the simulations, introduced in P26a. branch. If a continuous retrograde accretion episode spins the black hole down to zero, the spin axis flips and the accretion becomes prograde. 3. The mass accreted by the black hole is defined as ∆M• = ϵisco (1 − fml) M˙ sink∆t. (6) The accretion torque is computed using the Kerr specific an￾gular momentum at the ISC… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-averaged radial profile of the total inflow rate (in logarith￾mic space). The four runs converge to M˙ in ∼ 102 M⊙ yr−1 at large radii, but by r ∼ 10 pc the IT runs still retain ∼ 0.3–2 M⊙ yr−1 whereas the DT runs drop to ∼ 10−3–10−2 M⊙ yr−1 . Shaded bands show the 1σ scatter around the mean. 3. Results We now test how ongoing stirring reshapes the nuclear feed￾ing state and how this change is encoded in the SM… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time–radius maps for the four runs of the gross cold inflow mass rate and average inflow radial velocity computed for 50 different radial bins and sampled every 1 Myr. The cold phase provides the clearest view of the different feeding regimes: in the DT suite the inwar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time–radius maps for the four runs of the gross hot outflow mass rate and average outflow radial velocity computed for 50 different radial bins and averaged over 1 Myr. The hot component provides the cleanest view of sunny weather and feedback clearing: all runs launch…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the sink accretion rate, torque-coherence parameter, and parallel/perpendicular components of the accreted specific angular momentum, averaged over a 10 Myr window; shaded bands show the 1σ scatter. The IT runs, especially low_I_turb, sustain high M˙ sink …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , which shows how the feeding state of the nucleus is converted into the dynamical state of the SMBH and, through the jet-alignment prescription, into the outflow orientation his￾tory. To this end, we define an effective jet-axis reorientation rate as the angular chang…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Power spectral density (PSD) of the sink accretion rate for the four runs. At f ∼ 0.1–1 Myr−1 , the IT runs lie roughly 1–2 dex above the DT runs, with low_I_turb carrying the largest low-frequency power and high_D_turb the smallest. The fitted breaks cluster near fb ∼…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial profiles of the condensation ratio C ≡ tcool/teddy,hot at selected epochs (τ = 2, 8, 14, 20; increasing transparency with time). The grey band marks the canonical CCA rain range C ∼ 0.5–2 (Gaspari et al. 2018). The hard-X gas mostly traces the hot turbulent res…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Projected kinematic diagnostic (k-plot) for the continuously driven runs. The inner bins span a broader dynamic range in both velocity offset and line-of-sight dispersion than in the interrupted suite, with especially strong phase overlap and scatter inside r < 1 kpc.…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Projected kinematic diagnostic (k-plot) for the interrupted-turbulence runs. Compared with the continuously driven suite, the loci are more compact and more phase-ordered, especially outside the meso-scale region. Contours enclose the 85th, 92nd, and 97th percentile r…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematic diagram of the spin-regulated BlackHoleWeather cycle. The four weather states sunny, stormy, cloudy, and rainy describe how the multiphase halo delivers mass and angular momentum to the SMBH, thereby setting the spin response and the orientation of the next …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. How to raise a supermassive black hole: interpreting early JWST AGN with the AESOPICA simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic simulation suite with a mock JWST survey shows early overmassive black holes can arise from any seed mass under fast accretion, and broad-line selection explains much of the observed overmassiveness.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W., Dauser, T., et al

    Bambi, C., Brenneman, L. W., Dauser, T., et al. 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 65

    2021

  2. [2]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 2533

    Barausse, E. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2533

    2012

  3. [3]

    Bardeen, J. M. 1970, Nature, 226, 64

    1970

  4. [4]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347

    1972

  5. [5]

    S., Dubois, Y ., Guillard, P., et al

    Beckmann, R. S., Dubois, Y ., Guillard, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A60

    2019

  6. [6]

    S., Smethurst, R

    Beckmann, R. S., Smethurst, R. J., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10867

    2024

  7. [7]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  8. [8]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645

    2006

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2013, Measuring the Angular Momentum of Su- permassive Black Holes

    Brenneman, L. 2013, Measuring the Angular Momentum of Su- permassive Black Holes

    2013

  2. [10]

    W., Wilkins, D

    Brenneman, L. W., Wilkins, D. R., Ogorzałek, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 200

    2025

  3. [11]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 4681

    Bruni, G., Brienza, M., Panessa, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4681

    2021

  4. [12]

    & Springel, V

    Bustamante, S. & Springel, V . 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4133

    2019

  5. [13]

    2026b, A&A, Sub- mitted Carter Edwards, H., Trott, C

    Cammelli, V ., Gaspari, M., Piana, O., & et al. 2026b, A&A, Sub- mitted Carter Edwards, H., Trott, C. R., & Sunderland, D. 2014, Jour- nal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 74, 3202, domain- Specific Languages and High-Level Frameworks for High- Performance Computing Arti...

    2014

  6. [14]

    Y ., & Dubois, Y

    Cielo, S., Bieri, R., V olonteri, M., Wagner, A. Y ., & Dubois, Y . 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1336

    2018

  7. [15]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    2006

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 68

    Dotti, M., Colpi, M., Pallini, S., Perego, A., & V olonteri, M. 2013, ApJ, 762, 68

    2013

  9. [17]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, L5 Falceta-Gonçalves, D., Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., Teixeira, D. M., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. 2010, ApJ, 713, L74

    2014

  10. [18]

    2025, A&A, 698, A121

    Fournier, M., Grete, P., Brüggen, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A121

    2025

  11. [19]

    2015, A&A, 579, A62

    Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., & Temi, P. 2015, A&A, 579, A62

    2015

  12. [20]

    & Churazov, E

    Gaspari, M. & Churazov, E. 2013, A&A, 559, A78

    2013

  13. [21]

    L., et al

    Gaspari, M., McDonald, M., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 167

    2018

  14. [22]

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Oh, S. P. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3401

    2013

  15. [23]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 677

    Gaspari, M., Temi, P., & Brighenti, F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 677

    2017

  16. [24]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    Gaspari, M., Tombesi, F., & Cappi, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    2020

  17. [25]

    C., Miller, J

    Grete, P., Dolence, J. C., Miller, J. M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.12309

    2022

  18. [26]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2018, ApJ, 858, L19

    2018

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 122

    Grete, P., Scannapieco, E., Brüggen, M., & Pan, L. 2025, ApJ, 987, 122

    2025

  20. [28]

    S., Naab, T., & Burkert, A

    Hirschmann, M., Somerville, R. S., Naab, T., & Burkert, A. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 237

    2012

  21. [29]

    A., Krause, M

    Horton, M. A., Krause, M. G. H., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2020, MN- RAS, 499, 5765 Juráˇnová, A., Werner, N., Gaspari, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2886 Juráˇnová, A., Werner, N., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5163

    2020

  22. [30]

    King, A. R. & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L90

    2006

  23. [31]

    R., Pringle, J

    King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Hofmann, J. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1621

    2008

  24. [32]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  25. [33]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  26. [34]

    Krause, M. G. H., Hardcastle, M. J., & Shabala, S. S. 2019, A&A, 627, A113

    2019

  27. [35]

    G., Baugh, C

    Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3854

    2016

  28. [36]

    M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al

    Maccagni, F. M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A45

    2021

  29. [37]

    A., Mutch, S

    Marshall, M. A., Mutch, S. J., Qin, Y ., Poole, G. B., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.08124

    2019

  30. [38]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 2025

    Wierzbowska, D. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    J., Geil, P

    Mutch, S. J., Geil, P. M., Poole, G. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 250

    2016

  32. [40]

    L., et al

    Olivares, V ., Salomé, P., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A94

    2022

  33. [41]

    2009, MN- RAS, 399, 2249

    Perego, A., Dotti, M., Colpi, M., & V olonteri, M. 2009, MN- RAS, 399, 2249

    2009

  34. [42]

    2026, A&A, Sub- mitted

    Piana, O., Gaspari, M., Barbani, F., & et al. 2026, A&A, Sub- mitted

    2026

  35. [43]

    & Pu, H.-Y

    Piana, O. & Pu, H.-Y . 2025, Universe, 11, 78

    2025

  36. [44]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 1732

    Piana, O., Pu, H.-Y ., & Wu, K. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1732

    2024

  37. [45]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 117

    2021

  38. [46]

    2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Rezzolla, L. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. F. Haardt, V . Gorini, U. Moschella, A. Treves, & M. Colpi, V ol. 905, 1

    2016

  39. [47]

    Schmidt, W., Federrath, C., Hupp, M., Kern, S., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2009, A&A, 494, 127

    2009

  40. [48]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3540

    Serafinelli, R., Marinucci, A., De Rosa, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3540

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sesana, A., Barausse, E., Dotti, M., & Rossi, E. M. 2014, ApJ, 794, 104

    2014

  42. [50]

    M., Reynolds, C

    Sisk-Reynes, J. M., Reynolds, C. S., Matthews, J. H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.13949

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4

    2020

  44. [52]

    Y ., Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y ., Bourne, M. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3619

    2021

  45. [53]

    Y ., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y ., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M. A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4535

    2022

  46. [54]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50

    2010

  47. [55]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 150

    Temi, P., Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 150

    2022

  48. [56]

    R., Combes, F., Oonk, J

    Tremblay, G. R., Combes, F., Oonk, J. B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 13

    2018

  49. [57]

    R., Oonk, J

    Tremblay, G. R., Oonk, J. B. R., Combes, F., et al. 2016, Nature, 534, 218

    2016

  50. [58]

    2023, A&A, 673, A52 V olonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P

    Ubertosi, F., Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A52 V olonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079 V olonteri, M., Madau, P., Quataert, E., & Rees, M. J. 2005, ApJ, 620, 69

    2023

  51. [59]

    2023, A&A, 674, A102 Article number, page 18 of 22 O

    Wang, L., Tozzi, P., Yu, H., Gaspari, M., & Ettori, S. 2023, A&A, 674, A102 Article number, page 18 of 22 O. Piana et al.: SMBH spin evolution and jet-axis reorientation in chaotic cold accretion Appendix A: Profiles We show here the time evolution of the radial profiles of th...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.