Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 40 references

Debris streams from star-disk collisions set QPE flare duty cycles of ~10–20% independent of orbital period.

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

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

Tidal debris streams from star–disk collisions produce QPE-like flare durations and energetics with a near-constant ~10–20% duty cycle, favoring one observable flare per orbit.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-13 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid 3D hydro of tidally stretched debris streams that cleanly measures stream geometry and shocked energetics vs a/r_t; the ~10–20% duty-cycle claim is a reasonable but extrapolated proxy, not a full-stream light curve. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08823 v1 pith:NOERZFJO submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.HE

Star-Disk Collisions II: Debris Stream Dynamics and Implications for QPEs and Other Transients Near SMBHs

Philippe Z. Yao , Eliot Quataert , Yan-Fei Jiang , Itai Linial This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodic eruptionsstar-disk collisionsdebris streamstidal disruptionsupermassive black holesX-ray transientsstellar dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Quasi-periodic eruptions are soft X-ray flares that repeat every few hours to days and stay bright for a nearly constant fraction of that cycle. This paper argues that a star on a short orbit around a supermassive black hole repeatedly hits an accretion disk, strips gas that is stretched by tides into a long debris stream, and that the later collision of that stream with the disk powers the observed flares. Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations that include the black hole’s tides, disk rotation, and realistic orbital periods show that the stream is extended and asymmetric, that stream–disk shocks heat both stellar and disk gas, and that the duration of the shocked stellar mass tracks the time for the stream to cross the disk. That crossing time yields a duty cycle of order 10–20% that does not depend strongly on orbital period, matching the observed regularity. Shocked-debris energies are also consistent with QPE luminosities, and the simulations favor one clear flare per orbit except possibly at the shortest periods where disk and stellar shocks become comparable.

Core claim

After each star–disk encounter, stripped stellar debris leaves the Hill sphere and is sheared into an extended, asymmetric, roughly triaxial stream; the subsequent stream–disk collision shocks that debris (and some disk gas) to high specific energies. The time history of shocked stellar mass implies flare durations set by the stream–disk crossing time, producing a duty cycle of ~10–20% independent of orbital period and total energies consistent with observed QPE flares. The results favor one observable flare per stellar orbit except at the shortest periods, where shocked star and disk components can be comparable.

What carries the argument

The tidally stretched stellar debris stream (axes R1, R2, R3 set by orbital dynamics outside the Hill sphere): its long in-plane axis R1 sets the stream–disk collision duration t_dur ~ 2R1/v⋆, which becomes the proxy for flare duration and the constant duty cycle.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the time history of hydrodynamically shocked stellar mass, converted with a fixed radiative efficiency, as a faithful proxy for the soft X-ray flare light curve even though radiation transport and photon production are not simulated.

What would settle it

A high-resolution radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of the same stream–disk collision that produces a soft X-ray light-curve duration or radiated energy differing by more than a factor of a few from the hydro-only shocked-mass duty cycle would falsify the central mapping.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D Athena++ hydrodynamic simulations of repeated star–disk collisions around a 10^6 M_⊙ SMBH, including the black-hole tidal potential, disk Keplerian rotation, and orbital periods comparable to observed QPEs (a/r_t = 3.5, 5, 8). After each encounter, stripped stellar debris exits the Hill sphere and is sheared into an extended, asymmetric, roughly triaxial stream. Subsequent stream–disk collisions shock stellar debris (and some disk gas) to specific energies ≳ ½ v_⋆² and drive a wind-like outflow. The authors measure shocked stellar mass versus time and infer that flare durations track the stream–disk crossing time, yielding a roughly period-independent duty cycle of ∼10–20% and energetics consistent with QPE flares. They argue that one observable flare per orbit is favored except possibly at the shortest periods, where shocked disk and stellar components can become comparable, and discuss implications for QPE timing and related nuclear transients.

Significance. If the hydrodynamical results hold, the work supplies a concrete dynamical basis for the debris-stream–disk collision picture of QPEs and addresses a key observational regularity—the roughly constant ∼10–20% duty cycle—via stream geometry set by SMBH tides. Strengths include the first self-consistent 3D treatment of tidal stream evolution for this problem, the demonstration that stream axes R_i/r_H evolve nearly self-similarly across orbital separations (Fig. 4), mass-loss rates consistent with prior multi-collision scalings, and direct measurement of shocked specific-energy distributions (Figs. 5–6). The discussion of one versus two flares per orbit and of connections to longer-period repeating nuclear transients is falsifiable and useful for the community. The absence of radiation transport is acknowledged; the hydro results remain a valuable foundation for subsequent radiation-hydro work.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.4 and Fig. 7: The central duty-cycle claim is not measured on a full stream. The authors track only the post-peak Ṁ of stellar material with ϵ_tot > ½ v_⋆² (the trailing half R⁻₁), then multiply that interval by ∼3 because “R⁺₁ is roughly 2–3× the length of R⁻₁ without truncation (see Fig. 4)” and the leading half is artificially truncated when the disk is re-initialized. Fig. 4 shows 90%-mass axes of the untruncated stream, but there is no control Ṁ(t) for a full-stream collision under the same disk. The numerical factor that converts the measured half-stream duration into a full-orbit duty cycle (and thus the absolute ∼8–14% / ∼16–27% ranges quoted) is therefore an extrapolation. Please either (i) present a full-stream control or higher-resolution run that measures the full interaction, (ii) quantify how duty cycle and peak timing shift if R⁺₁/R⁻₁ or the density weighting along R₁ d
  2. §3.4–§3.5 and Abstract: Flare luminosity and energetics are inferred from hydrodynamically shocked mass with an assumed radiative efficiency ε_rad ∼ 0.1 converting ½ Ṁ v_⋆² into L (Fig. 7, right axes). The paper correctly notes that radiation transfer is absent and that the true light curve may be flatter than Ṁ(t). Nonetheless the Abstract and summary state that total shocked debris energy and duty cycle are “consistent with” QPE observations. Please tighten the language to match the body: report shocked mass/energy and hydrodynamical interaction timescales as the primary results, and present L and duty-cycle percentages as order-of-magnitude proxies contingent on radiative efficiency and on the truncation factor above. A short quantitative sensitivity statement (e.g., how the comparison to observed L_bol and duty cycle changes for ε_rad = 0.01–0.3) would make the claim load-bearing-saf
  3. §3.3, Fig. 5 (right panels), Table 2, and §4.3: The argument that shocked disk and stellar energetics become comparable at the shortest orbital period (ART3.5), and that this may allow two flares per orbit, rests on shocked-disk masses that the authors themselves flag as uncertain at the ≲50% level due to numerical diffusion of the moving disk. Because this comparison is used to interpret the long–short pattern in short-period sources (GSN 069, eRO-QPE2), please either improve the disk measurement (higher resolution / AMR / disk-frame diagnostics) or explicitly propagate the diffusion uncertainty into Table 2 and soften the two-flare discussion to a qualitative possibility rather than a favored explanation at short P_orb.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2 and Table 1: State explicitly how many collisions are discarded before the “3rd collision” analysis and whether mass-loss convergence was checked after including the tidal potential (beyond the 2D Yao et al. 2025 setup).
  2. Fig. 2–3: The shared colorbar is capped at disk midplane density; a second panel or contour of log(ρ/ρ_disk) would make the “denser than the disk” cylindrical region for ART3.5 easier to read.
  3. Eq. (7): Clarify that the prefactor 2.7 hr is normalized to the present simulations (including the factor-of-∼3 extrapolation) so that readers do not treat it as a purely analytic constant from Linial et al. (2025).
  4. §3.2: “radiation dominated” and T ∼ 10^5 K in the unshocked stream are stated from gas pressure and an implied radiation field; since the runs are pure hydro, a brief note that Prad is estimated post hoc (e.g., from T) would avoid confusion.
  5. Fig. 8: The diffusion surface τ ∼ c/v_⋆ is useful; specify the opacity law assumed for that integral.
  6. References: A few in-press / arXiv items (e.g., Arcodia et al. 2026, Linial et al. 2026) should be checked for final bibliographic details at proof stage.
  7. Typographical: “T able 1” spacing; occasional double spaces; “therightpanels” / “topandbottom” missing spaces in figure captions (likely PDF conversion artifacts).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: duty-cycle and energetics claims are measured from new 3D hydro simulations and compared to external QPE data; self-citations supply setup/analytics only.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§1 (Introduction) and §2 (Simulation Methods)]
    "Yao et al. (2025) investigated the hydrodynamic effects on the star of repeated star-disk encounters. ... Our initial calculations in Yao et al. (2025) did not include the black hole's tidal gravity, but we argued that its influence would lead to a tidally stretched debris stream that would dominate the radiation in star-disk QPE models. Linial et al. (2025) then developed this into an analytic model of QPE flares. The goal of this paper is to build on the debris-disk collision model proposed in Yao et al. (2025) and explored analytically in detail in Linial et al. (2025)."

    The premise that tidally stretched debris streams (rather than bare star-disk collisions) dominate QPE energetics and durations is justified primarily by overlapping-author prior work. The present paper's new simulations quantify that premise rather than derive it independently from first principles; the self-citation is therefore load-bearing for the interpretive framework, though not for the numerical measurements themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central results (stream geometry after tidal stretching, shocked stellar/disk mass and energy distributions, time history of shocked stellar mass as a flare-duration proxy, and the resulting ~10-20% duty cycle independent of P_orb) are obtained by direct measurement in new Athena++ runs that include the SMBH tidal potential, disk Keplerian rotation, and realistic orbital periods (Figs. 2-8, Tables 1-2, §3). These quantities are then compared to independent observational properties of QPEs (recurrence times, duty cycles, luminosities). Self-citations to Yao et al. (2025) supply the post-multiple-collision stellar initial profile and to Linial et al. (2025) supply the analytic Hill-sphere stream geometry used for comparison; neither is an algebraic identity that forces the present numerical outcomes, nor is a uniqueness theorem invoked to exclude alternatives. The ~3 multiplier that converts the measured post-peak Ṁ interval into a full-stream duration is an estimate taken from the same simulations' untruncated stream axes (Fig. 4), not a fit to QPE data or a definitional tautology. ε_rad ~ 0.1 is an explicit order-of-magnitude conversion, not a free parameter tuned to match observations. No fitted input is relabeled a prediction, and the one-versus-two-flares discussion rests on the simulated density contrast plus an external timing analysis (Arcodia et al. 2026). The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; residual methodological caveats (stream truncation, missing radiation transport) affect correctness risk, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

Central claims rest on ideal-hydro Athena++ runs with a pre-inflated polytropic star, a hand-chosen thicker Gaussian disk, three circular orbital separations, and a fixed radiative-efficiency conversion for luminosity proxies. No new particles or forces; the debris stream is a dynamical outcome. Free parameters and domain assumptions dominate the ledger; invented entities are minimal.

free parameters (6)
  • disk midplane density ρ_disk = 10^{-6} g cm^{-3}
    Fixed at 10^{-6} g cm^{-3} for all models (Table 1); sets ram pressure and shocked disk mass scale.
  • disk scale height H_disk = 5.6 R_⊙
    Set to ~5.6 R_⊙, ~4× thicker than prior 2D work, to reduce numerical diffusion of a moving disk on a log grid (§2).
  • radiative efficiency ε_rad for L proxy = ~0.1
    L = ½ ε_rad Ṁ v_⋆² with ε_rad ~ 0.1 used on Fig. 7 secondary axis to compare to QPE luminosities (§3.4–§3.5).
  • orbital separations a/r_t = 3.5, 5, 8
    Three discrete circular orbits (3.5, 5, 8) chosen to span observed QPE periods for 10^6 M_⊙ (Table 1).
  • initial stellar envelope after prior collisions = post-5-collision 2D average
    Spherically averaged bound-star profile taken from 2D multi-collision runs after 5 impacts rather than an unperturbed solar model (§2).
  • shock energy threshold ½ v_⋆² = ½ v_⋆² / 2 v_⋆² cuts
    Material classified as shocked if ε_tot > ½ v_⋆² and unbound if ε_tot,BH > 2 v_⋆² (Fig. 5 caption; §3.3).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal hydrodynamics (no magnetic fields, no explicit viscosity, no radiation transport) adequately captures mass stripping, stream geometry, and shock energetics for duty-cycle inference.
    Entire Athena++ setup is pure hydro (§2); radiation deferred to future work (§3.5, §4.2).
  • domain assumption Star is a γ=5/3 polytrope with gravity treated as a fixed central point mass for the thin envelope in the domain.
    §2 initial conditions and gravity treatment.
  • domain assumption Circular orbits and a fixed disk tilt θ_disk = arctan(r_disk/a_⋆) represent the essential collision geometry for QPE timing.
    §2.3; eccentricity effects deferred (§4.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Debris outside r_disk is artificially removed and the leading stream half is truncated when the disk is re-initialized each half-orbit.
    §2 and §3.4; total flare duration estimated as ~3× measured post-peak because R⁺₁ is truncated.
  • domain assumption Passive scalars cleanly separate star and disk material for shocked/unbound mass accounting.
    §2 methods; used throughout §3.3 and Table 2.
  • standard math Standard tidal/corotating potential with Coriolis update (Stone & Gardiner 2010) correctly evolves debris outside the Hill sphere.
    Eq. (1) and §2.1.
invented entities (1)
  • Debris-stream–disk collision as the primary QPE engine (vs pure star–disk hit) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide enough shocked mass, longer duration, and period-independent duty cycle to match QPE observations.
    Framework advanced from Yao et al. (2025) and Linial et al. (2025); not a new particle/force, but a postulated dominant emission channel whose radiative viability is not simulated here.

reviewed 2026-07-13 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Star-Disk Collisions II: Debris Stream Dynamics and Implications for QPEs and Other Transients Near SMBHs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOERZFJO

@misc{pith2026260708823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Star-Disk Collisions II: Debris Stream Dynamics and Implications for QPEs and Other Transients Near SMBHs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOERZFJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08823}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are repeating soft X-ray nuclear transients with recurrence times of hours-days and flare duty cycles of $\sim$10-20%. Many aspects of QPEs can be modeled as a stellar-mass orbiter that intersects an accretion disk producing a shocked debris cloud and a flare of radiation. We present three-dimensional Athena++ hydrodynamic simulations of star-disk interactions around a $10^{6}\,M_\odot$ supermassive black hole, including the black hole's tidal potential, the disk's Keplerian rotation, and orbital periods similar to those observed. After each disk encounter, freshly stripped stellar debris exits the Hill sphere to form an extended, asymmetric, roughly triaxial stream. Subsequent stream-disk collisions shock both stellar debris and disk gas to high specific energies and drive a wind-like outflow. At larger orbital periods the shocked stellar debris dominates the high specific energy debris, while at shorter orbital periods the shocked disk energy can be similar. From the shocked stellar mass measured in the simulations over time, we infer flare durations set by the time it takes the stellar debris stream to collide with the disk, consistent with the observed constant duty cycle of $\sim$10-20%, independent of orbital period. The total shocked debris energy is consistent with QPE flare energetics. Our results favor one observable flare per stellar orbit except perhaps at the shortest orbital periods where the shocked star and disk energetics can be similar. Variations in the stream's center of mass relative to the star, the stream density, and other properties can produce diverse changes in the time of the flare's peak relative to the time of the star-disk collision. We discuss the implications of our results for QPE timing and for other transients in galactic nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08823 by Eliot Quataert, Itai Linial, Philippe Z. Yao, Yan-Fei Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) 3D simulation rendering of shocked disk produced in a star-debris-disk collision, also showing the coordinate system referenced in §2 where y ′ points in the direction of the black hole and the disk moves toward the star along the −x ′ direction (b) Schematic illustration of the main physical ingredients in our simulation setup for modeling QPEs as a stellar companion to an SMBH repeatedly colliding wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Density contours of ART3.5 (left), ART5 (center), and ART8 (right) for a θ-slice in the orbital plane (r−ϕ) showing the tidally stretched stellar debris stream roughly half an orbit after the previous disk collision. The inset plots show r < 10R⊙, where the size of the Hill sphere is shown via the dashed line. The debris stream evolves to cover a much larger volume for larger a/rt, but can be significantly… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stream density, pressure, temperature, sound speed, radiation-to-gas-pressure ratio profiles, and integrated exterior mass as a function of r along the longest debris stream dimension (R1) for ART3.5 (green), ART5 (blue), and ART8 (orange) after the puffy star experiences 3 disk collisions under tidal gravity (the same snapshot, immediately before the next collision, as the one shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the 3 pairs of stellar debris stream axes that trace the 90% mass length along each direction, normalized by the size of the Hill sphere rH. + and − axes are parallel to each other and extend from the star in two op￾posite directions. R1 and R2 are in the orbital plane, where the former is the longest axis and sets the collision duration. The debris stream evolution is nearly independent of a/… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy distribution of stellar debris in the frame of the star (left) and the frame of the black hole (center ) and disk material in the frame of the disk (right) before (lighter shade) and after (darker shade) a collision for ART3.5 (top), ART5 (middle), and ART8 (bottom). The stellar debris has a typical energy set by the stellar escape velocity vesc,⋆, whereas shocked star and disk material have specifi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Amount of star and disk material unbound from the black hole for ART3.5 (left), ART5 (center), and ART8 (right). The unbound mass from the star is also plotted as a ratio (gray dashed lines for the right x-axes) to the amount of shocked stellar material (ϵtot > 1 2 v 2 ⋆). Shocked disk mass is not plotted due to uncertainties arising from numerical diffusion. 3.4. Flare Duration from Shocked Debris Stream … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Shocked stellar debris mass over time for ART3.5 (top), ART5 (middle), and ART8 (bottom). On the right axes, an estimate of the bolometric luminosity is converted from M˙ assuming radiative efficiency ϵrad ∼ 0.1. Only the post-peak duration is taken into account since the pre￾collision stream is truncated artificially in our simulations; we estimate the total flare duration to be three times the post-peak … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: From left to right, density, temperature, and radial velocity contours of a simulation snapshot for ART5. The two hemispheres are the same data mirrored and plotted linearly (top) and logarithmically (bottom) in radius r to resolve both large- and small-scale structures, respectively. The dashed line indicates the same spatial region within r < 10R⊙ in each plot. The right column shows the radial velocity … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b

    Arcodia, R., Baldini, P., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b 2025

  4. [4]

    2026, ApJ, 1003, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6078

    Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Chakraborty, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6078

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6078 2026

  5. [5]

    2026, A&A, 706, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241

    Baldini, P., Rau, A., Merloni, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 2026

  6. [6]

    Medvedev, P. S. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 30, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf686

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf686 2025

  7. [7]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 2025

  9. [9]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 2023

  10. [10]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 2020

  11. [11]

    2026, ApJL, 1000, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae524b

    Guo, H., Yan, Z., Li, Y.-P., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae524b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae524b 2026

  12. [12]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3562 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al

    Guo, W., & Shen, R.-F. 2026, ApJ, 998, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3562 Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3562 2026

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11231, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11231

    Huang, X., Linial, I., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11231, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11231

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11231 2025

  14. [14]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9231

    Jiang, Y.-F. 2022, ApJS, 263, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9231

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9231 2022

  15. [15]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1894 2023

  16. [16]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    Kosec, P., Kara, E., Brenneman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9249 2025

  17. [17]

    H., & Linial, I

    Krolik, J. H., & Linial, I. 2022, ApJ, 941, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb6 2022

  18. [18]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b —. 2024, ApJ, 973, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad639e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b 2023

  19. [19]

    Delayed Radio Flares in Tidal Disruption Events from Star-Disk Collision Outflows

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.28928, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.28928

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28928 2026

  20. [20]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, ApJ, 991, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa0e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa0e 2025

  21. [21]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    Linial, I., & Quataert, E. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3470 2024

  22. [22]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3d 2023

  23. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2203 2023

  24. [24]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x 2019

  25. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21456

    Mummery, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21456

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21456 2025

  26. [26]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02181, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02181

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.02181 2024

  27. [27]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d 2021

  28. [28]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346440 2023

  29. [29]

    Raj, A., & Nixon, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc25

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdc25 2021

  30. [30]

    M., & Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2010, ApJS, 189, 142, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/142

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/142 2010

  31. [31]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b 2020

  32. [32]

    C., & Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2281 Sukov´ a, P., Zajaˇ cek, M., Witzany, V., & Karas, V. 2021, ApJ, 917, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c6

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2281 2016

  33. [33]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    Tagawa, H., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2616

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2616 2023

  34. [34]

    Vurm, I., Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, ApJ, 983, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d 15

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d 2025

  35. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26561, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26561

    Wang, Y., Wang, T., Huang, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26561, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26561

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26561 2025

  36. [36]

    2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    Arcodia, R. 2022, A&A, 659, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243143

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243143 2022

  37. [37]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., He, J., & Shu, X. 2021, ApJL, 921, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa 2021

  38. [38]

    Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C

    Yao, P. Z., Quataert, E., Jiang, Y.-F., Lu, W., & White, C. J. 2025, ApJ, 978, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911 2025

  39. [39]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y., Ravi, V., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf216 2023

  40. [40]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Zhao, Z. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Zou, Y. C., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, A&A, 661, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142519

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142519 2022

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 13, 2026.