Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Observational Properties of Thermal Emission from Relativistic Jets Embedded in AGN Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Soft X-ray flares are the main thermal signature of relativistic jets embedded in AGN disks.

desk verdict Systematic and useful forward model of thermal flares from jets in AGN disks, but the central prediction hangs on an unjustified 50/50 cocoon energy split that needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16390 v1 pith:RNOQYJBB submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.HE

Ken Chen , Zi-Gao Dai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords relativisticjetsAGNaccretiondisksjet-cocoondynamicsshockbreakoutemissionsoftX-rayflareselectromagneticcounterpartschoked
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

An active galactic nucleus (AGN) is dense enough that a relativistic jet launched inside its accretion disk stays shrouded in an opaque, pressurized cocoon until the jet head punches through the disk surface; only then can thermal radiation escape. This paper models the jet–cocoon system as three radiating components—the jet-head shock breakout, the disk cocoon, and the jet cocoon—and calculates what an observer would see for jets of different power, duration, and launch radius. The central result is that the most reliable electromagnetic counterpart is a soft X-ray flare lasting from roughly $10^2$ to $10^5$ seconds, often with a double-peaked light curve, while UV and optical flares follow only in the most powerful jets ($L_j \gtrsim 10^{48}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$) and persist for days to tens of days. If correct, these thermal flares provide a way to identify jets embedded in AGN disks—including choked jets that produce no other signal—and to tell them apart from ordinary AGN variability by their wavelength ordering and timing.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the jet–cocoon system: as the jet bores through the optically thick disk, shocked disk gas and shocked jet gas flow sideways from the jet head and form a two-part, radiation-dominated cocoon (a disk cocoon and a jet cocoon) that collimates the jet and stores its dissipated energy. Its evolution is fixed by three coupled equations—jet-head advance $dz_h/dt = \beta_h c$, cocoon energy injection $dE_c/dt = \eta_h L_j(1-\beta_h)$, and lateral expansion $dr_c/dt = \beta_c c$—with the head velocity set by ram-pressure balance and the cocoon pressure $P_c = E_c/3V_c$. The emission machinery is the radiation-mediated shock breakout formalism: the breakout condition $\tau_d(z_{\rm bre}) = 1/\beta_h$ fixes where light first escapes, and the escaping shell's luminosity, temperature, and duration are obtained from the standard diffusion and adiabatic-expansion relations for Newtonian shocks, relativistic pair-regulated shocks, cocoon breakout, and stratified jet-cocoon luminosity shells.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to compute the lateral photon-diffusion timescale across the cocoon, $t_{\rm diff} \simeq r_c \tau_{\rm lat}/c$, and compare it with the breakout time $t_{\rm bre}$: if $t_{\rm diff} < t_{\rm bre}$ for the fiducial $10^{46}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ case, photons leak before the jet head emerges and the predicted early soft X-ray flare shifts earlier and weakens. Observationally, for a jet-producing event in an AGN at $d_L \approx 300$ Mpc with $L_j \gtrsim 10^{48}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, the model requires a soft X-ray flare above the AGN background within $O(10^5)$ seconds; a null detection in that window would falsify the detectability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the thermal emission from a jet–cocoon system inside an AGN disk is not a single flash but a sequence with a definite hierarchy. Before the jet head reaches the height $z_{\rm bre}$ where the vertical optical depth satisfies $\tau_d(z_{\rm bre}) = 1/\beta_h$, photons are trapped and the system is invisible; at breakout, a thin radiation-mediated shell produces a short, hot flare in soft X-rays. The subsequent expansion of the radiation-dominated disk cocoon and the stratified jet cocoon generates longer-lived, cooler emission. The paper's quantitative claim is that soft X-ray flares are the most prominent observable signatures, with durations from $O(10^2)$ s to $O(10^5)$ s and occasional double-peaked morphology, whereas UV/optical flares are detectable only for jets with power $\gtrsim 10^{48}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and last from several days to tens of days; choked jets produce fainter emission that remains observable only when the jet is barely choked.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that photons remain trapped in the jet–cocoon system until shock breakout, with no sideways leakage from the laterally expanding cocoon, and that exactly half of the cocoon energy is assigned to the disk-cocoon component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A successful or barely choked jet inside an AGN disk should first appear as a soft X-ray flare that outshines the AGN background across most of the considered parameter space, making it the natural first trigger for electromagnetic-counterpart searches.
  • The model predicts occasional double-peaked soft X-ray flares whose first peak comes from the fast disk-cocoon breakout and the second from the Newtonian jet-cocoon component, so an observed double-peaked, homologically shaped X-ray flare would point to an AGN-embedded jet.
  • UV and optical flares should follow the X-ray flare by days to tens of days and require jet power $\gtrsim 10^{48}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, so candidate optical counterparts without a preceding X-ray or UV excess are disfavoured by this model.
  • Deeply choked jets produce weak or undetectable flares, while barely choked jets mimic successful-jet flares; hence the absence of any flare constrains the jet duration to be short compared with the breakout time.
  • Short gamma-ray burst jets embedded in disks around massive black holes are likely choked, and when barely choked their thermal flare may be the only electromagnetic signal of the event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the model explicitly neglects lateral photon leakage before breakout, one direct test is to compare the sideways photon-diffusion timescale of the cocoon with the breakout time; if leakage is fast, the soft X-ray flare should appear earlier and with lower peak luminosity than predicted.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted wavelength ordering (X-ray first, UV/optical days later) means that X-ray-triggered follow-up programs should uncover AGN-embedded jet events more effectively than optical-only transient surveys, which would see only the faint tail.
  • Editorial inference: the double-peaked X-ray morphology is tied to the two-cocoon geometry; if future observations of AGN transients show a homologous double-peaked shape with the right time separation, that would independently support the two-component cocoon picture, whereas a single smooth flare would challenge it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an analytic model of relativistic jets launched inside AGN accretion disks, following the jet-head propagation, cocoon formation, shock breakout, and choked-jet evolution, and then computes thermal emission from three components: the jet-head breakout shell, the disk cocoon, and the jet cocoon. It predicts that the most prominent observable signatures are soft X-ray flares lasting from roughly 10^2 s to 10^5 s, sometimes with double-peaked light curves, while UV/optical flares are detectable only for powerful jets and last from days to tens of days. The results are presented as a forward-modeling parameter study over SMBH mass, disk radius, disk density profile, jet power, and jet duration, with detectability assessments against specific X-ray, UV, and optical instruments.

Significance. If the central predictions hold, the paper provides a useful multi-wavelength diagnostic for identifying electromagnetic counterparts of jets embedded in AGN disks, including a predicted precursor soft X-ray flare preceding longer UV/optical emission. The manuscript's strengths are its systematic analytic treatment of the jet-cocoon dynamics, explicit light-curve and temperature evolution laws for all three emission components, a parameter grid covering relevant AGN and jet properties, and concrete comparisons with instrument sensitivities. The main claims are, however, conditional on several unvalidated simplifications, the most important being the arbitrary 50/50 partition of cocoon energy between the disk and jet components, which directly controls the relative prominence of the X-ray and UV/optical emission and the double-peaked morphology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, after Eq. (23)] The assumption that 'half of the cocoon energy is allocated to its disk-component' is not derived from the jet-cocoon dynamics of Sec. 2 and is not supported by a reference or simulation. This partition directly sets the relative luminosities of the disk-cocoon component (responsible for the early soft X-ray peak and the late UV/optical emission) and the jet-cocoon component (responsible for the main soft X-ray flare), so the abstract's central claim that soft X-ray flares are the most prominent and sometimes double-peaked, and that UV/optical flares appear only for powerful jets, is a direct function of this unconstrained ratio. Please provide a physical justification for the 50/50 split or, failing that, a sensitivity study over the disk energy fraction (e.g., 0.2-0.8) showing how the light-curve morphology, durations, and detectability conclusions in Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 11 change.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (28)] The planar-to-spherical transition time tc,pla = tc,bre (Lc,bre/Lc,sph)^(3/4) is chosen to connect two analytic phases and is not derived from the cocoon geometry or from a radiation-hydrodynamics calculation. Since the spherical phase sets the late-time disk-cocoon emission that underlies the predicted UV/optical flares lasting days to tens of days, this matching condition is load-bearing for the multi-wavelength sequencing claim. Please either derive tc,pla from a physical criterion, benchmark Eq. (29) against a numerical light-curve calculation for a representative case, or restrict the claims to the breakout phase.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 9] Detectability is assessed by comparing the predicted fluxes to a steady AGN spectral-energy distribution and to instrument sensitivity limits, but the abstract and Sec. 5 claim the results can help 'distinguish thermal flares from AGN background variability.' AGN variability on the relevant timescales (hours to days) is not modeled or quantified; an AGN that flares in the soft X-ray band by even a factor of a few could mimic or hide the predicted precursor. Please add a simple variability model or explicitly state that the conclusions apply only to variability-quiet epochs, and soften the abstract claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'This thermal emission serves as a critical electromagnetic counterpart ... and provide insights' has a subject-verb agreement error; 'provide' should be 'provides'.
  2. [Eqs. (29), (32), and Appendix B] Several piecewise conditions contain a formatting typo: 't c,bre < t≤ tc,pla' should read 'tc,bre < t ≤ tc,pla', and the same issue appears in Eq. (32) and in the piecewise equations of Appendix B.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption states that 'the left and right panels assume a source luminosity distance of dL = 300 Mpc, while the middle panel assumes dL = 3 Gpc,' but the three panels are the 1 keV, 10 eV, and g-band light curves; if the distance is different for different bands, the flux comparison is not consistent across bands and should be clarified or corrected.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) is calibrated for 0.03 < βh < 0.4, but the paper applies it to cocoon velocities outside this range, e.g., βc ≈ 0.027 in Table 1, case 5, and βc ≈ 0.17 in case 8; the extrapolation should be justified or the affected temperature predictions should be flagged as uncertain.
  5. [Sec. 2.3] The statement 'we simplistically neglect photon leakage from the laterally expanding cocoon' flags a potentially important assumption; given that photon trapping is central to the model, please add a quantitative estimate of the lateral photon diffusion time relative to the breakout time for the Table 1 cases to show that the neglect is safe.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the model is a forward calculation from stated jet/disk/cocoon assumptions; the self-citations to Chen & Dai (2024) supply analytic breakout scalings rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Section 2 to Section 4. The jet dynamics (Eqs. 4-11) integrate prescribed jet power, duration, and Sirko-Goodman disk parameters to produce breakout time, cocoon radius/energy, and head/cocoon velocities. The emission sections then evaluate analytic breakout, disk-cocoon, jet-cocoon, and choked-cocoon formulas (Eqs. 16, 24, 29, 37-38, etc.), and the quoted band-specific durations and detectability are obtained by comparing those fluxes to an external quasar SED template (Shang et al. 2011) and instrument sensitivity limits. No parameter is fitted to the claimed X-ray/UV/optical light curves, and no output quantity is defined in terms of the claim it supports. The 50/50 cocoon energy partition in Sec. 3.2 is an explicit input assumption: altering it would change the light curves, but this is conditional modeling, not circularity, because the band structure and durations are not encoded in the partition alone. The self-citations to Chen & Dai (2024) for dbre (Eq. 12) and beta_cr (Sec. 3.3) are analytic expressions with stated assumptions; they are not fitted to this paper's predictions. Stated limitations (photon leakage neglect in Sec. 2.3, the 'overly simplistic' cocoon evolution in Sec. 3.2) are acknowledged simplifications, not hidden use of the conclusions. Accordingly, I find no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to an input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on published analytic jet-cocoon and shock breakout models, plus several choices made by the authors: a 50/50 disk/jet cocoon energy partition, fGammaBeta = 0.1, s = 1, fiducial disk parameters, and the assumption that photons are fully trapped until breakout. There are no invented entities. The largest unverified inputs are the energy partition and the neglect of lateral photon leakage, which directly set the predicted X-ray flare luminosity and double-peaked morphology.

free parameters (7)
  • Disk-cocoon energy fraction = 0.5 (assumed)
    Sec. 3.2: 'We assume half of the cocoon energy is allocated to its disk-component.' This sets the normalization of the disk-cocoon light curve and is not derived from first principles.
  • Jet-cocoon energy fraction per logarithmic velocity fGammaBeta = 0.1
    Sec. 3.3, following Nakar & Piran (2017); sets mass, diffusion radius, and luminosity of the jet-cocoon component.
  • Jet-cocoon energy distribution slope s = 1
    Sec. 3.3: dE/dlog(beta) = fGammaBeta Ecj and m(>v) proportional to v^{-(s+1)} with s ~ 1; controls temporal decay slopes of jet-cocoon emission.
  • Relativistic breakout shell temperatures = T'_h = 200 keV; T'_th = 50 keV
    Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A, from Nakar & Sari (2012); set emitted energy and observed temperature of relativistic jet-head breakout.
  • Initial jet Lorentz factor and opening angle = Gamma_j = 100, theta_j = 0.17 rad
    Sec. 2.2: 'with initial parameters Gamma_j = 100 and theta_j = 0.17'; used in all representative cases and parameter-space maps.
  • Fiducial AGN disk parameters = alpha = 0.1, Mdot = 0.1 M_Edd, kappa = 0.34 cm2/g
    Sec. 2.1: adopted Sirko & Goodman (2003) model; sets density and height, hence breakout times and flare durations.
  • Comptonization temperature thresholds = beta_h thresholds 0.03 and 0.4
    Sec. 3.1: fitting-formula boundaries from Sapir et al. (2013) and Nakar & Sari (2012) used to choose between thermal, Comptonized, and pair-regulated breakout temperatures.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption One-zone vertical hydrostatic equilibrium density profiles for AGN disks
    Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(2): uniform, isothermal, and polytropic profiles; central results use these to set ambient density and optical depth.
  • domain assumption Sirko & Goodman (2003) disk model describes inner regions R <= 10^5 Rg
    Sec. 2.1: 'we focus on disk regions where R <= 10^5 Rg. The Sirko & Goodman (2003) model is employed.'
  • domain assumption Jets are launched at the disk midplane and propagate perpendicular to the disk plane
    Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 5: simplified geometry is acknowledged; it affects breakout depth and cocoon energy.
  • standard math Jet-cocoon dynamics follow Bromberg et al. (2011) analytic model
    Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (4)-(11): ram-pressure balance, collimation, cocoon pressure; the cited literature reports agreement with simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper Cocoon is radiation-pressure dominated and photons are trapped until shock breakout
    Sec. 2.3: 'we simplistically neglect photon leakage from the laterally expanding cocoon.' This acknowledged simplification defines the onset of observable emission.
  • standard math Thermal emission from radiation-mediated shocks obeys Nakar & Sari (2010, 2012) and Nakar & Piran (2017) scalings
    Secs. 3.1-3.3: breakout luminosity, Comptonized temperatures, jet-cocoon diffusion and acceleration formulas are taken from these published models.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk-cocoon evolution can be modeled as independent with planar-to-spherical connection at Eq. (28)
    Sec. 3.2: 'Although overly simplistic, we independently investigate the evolution of cocoon' and connect phases without a simulation-validated interpolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational Properties of Thermal Emission from Relativistic Jets Embedded in AGN Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNOQYJBB

@misc{pith2026250516390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational Properties of Thermal Emission from Relativistic Jets Embedded in AGN Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNOQYJBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16390}
}
read the original abstract

Relativistic jets can be produced within the accretion disk of an active galactic nucleus (AGN), leading to distinct thermal emission as they propagate through a dense disk environment. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of dynamical evolution of jets embedded in an AGN disk and their associated observational properties, focusing on scenarios in which jets either successfully break out of the disk or become choked. By modeling the jet-cocoon system propagation, we calculate the thermal emission contributions from the jet-head shock breakout, disk cocoon, and jet cocoon components. Our results reveal that soft X-ray flares are the most prominent observable signatures, with duration ranging from O(10^2) s to O(10^5) s, occasionally exhibiting double-peaked light curves, whereas UV/optical flares are detectable only for powerful jets, persisting for several days to tens of days. This thermal emission serves as a critical electromagnetic counterpart to jet-producing events and provide insights into jet dynamics and AGN disk properties. Our findings highlight the importance of multi-wavelength follow-up observations to establish a diagnostic paradigm for candidate electromagnetic counterpart identification to AGN-embedded events and to distinguish thermal flares from AGN background variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16390 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vertical optical depth and photosphere height measured from the mid-plane of AGN disk. M is the mass of supermassive black hole (SMBH) in units of M⊙, α is the viscosity parameter (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973), and R is the radius of AGN disk on scale of gravitational radius Rg = GM/c2 . The mass inflow rate of AGN disk is in units of the Eddington limit accretion rate, M˙ Edd = LEdd/ηc2 , where η = 0.1 and LEdd = 4πGMmp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic description of the jet propagation in the AGN disk. (a) Depending on the duration of the central engine, a jet can either successfully penetrate the disk or become choked. Prior to engine cut-off and before the jet’s tail catching up with its head, both successful and choked jet system exhibit similar structure: a jet-body enveloped by a two-component cocoon. (b) For the successful jet, the ram pressure ex… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of system parameters in illustrative jet-cocoon systems. The blue, yellow, green, and magenta lines represent the propagation dynamics of a 1046 erg s−1 jet embedded at the mid-plane of an AGN disk with a uniform density profile, as well as jet with higher power of 1050 erg s−1 or different density profiles. The endpoint of each line indicates the time of jet breakout. depth. The jet-head velocity varies s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Properties of the jet head at shock breakout. The left and middle panels respectively depict the width of the shock breakout shell (in units of the disk height Hd) and the Lorentz factor of the jet head at breakout, assuming a uniform disk density profile. The right pa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time for shock breakout of the embedded-jet, assuming its launch at the midplane of AGN disk, in units of s. The parameters are identical to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Minimum active duration of the center engine for jet breakout, in units of s. The parameters are identical to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of bolometric luminosity and temperature for thermal emissions in cases 1, 2, 3, and 4, varying SMBH mass, jet location, and jet power. For thermal emissions, the contributions from the jet-head breakout component, the disk-cocoon component, and the jet-c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Light curves in soft X-ray (1 keV), UV (10 eV), and optical (g-band) band for various cases. The red and blue dotted lines in each panel represent the typical luminosity of radio-loud and radio-quiet AGN with MSMBH = 107M⊙ in these bands, which are calculated by adopti…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Disk-cocoon and jet-cocoon contributions to the specific-band radiation in case 4. The purple and orange lines represent the bolometric luminosity of the disk-cocoon emission and jet-cocoon emission, respectively. The blue, golden, and green lines depict the overall l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Duration of the observable flares in X-ray (first row), UV (second row), and optical (last row) bands produced by jets with varying powers embedded within different radius of AGN disks with central SMBH mass of 107M⊙ (first column), 108M⊙ (second column), and 109M⊙ (l…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The evolution of bolometric luminosity for thermal emissions from the disk-cocoon and jet-cocoon components in cases 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as the corresponding light curves in the X-ray, UV, and optical bands. The blue, orange, and green dotted lines illustrate t…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Using gravitational waves and multi-messenger Astronomy to reverse-engineer the properties of galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper proposes that AGN-driven binary black hole merger rates, masses and spins can be used to infer the properties of AGN accretion disks and nuclear star clusters across cosmic time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017, , 119, 161101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017, , 848, L12. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  4. [4]

    D., Abraham, S., et al.\ 2020, , 125, 101102

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al.\ 2020, , 125, 101102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  5. [5]

    D.\ 1982, , 253, 785

    Arnett, W. D.\ 1982, , 253, 785. doi:10.1086/159681

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  6. [6]

    Begelman, M. C. & Cioffi, D. F.\ 1989, , 345, L21. doi:10.1086/185542

    doi:10.1086/185542 1989

  7. [7]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.8185

    Bellm, E.\ 2014, The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, 27. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.8185

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.8185 2014

  8. [8]

    M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2016, , 819, 2, L17

    Bellovary, J. M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2016, , 819, 2, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l17 2016

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    & Tchekhovskoy, A.\ 2016, , 456, 1739

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

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., et al.\ 2011, , 740, 100. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/63

    Budnik, R., Katz, B., Sagiv, A., et al.\ 2010, , 725, 63. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/63

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al.\ 2005, , 120, 165. doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Frail, D

    Cenko, S. B., Frail, D. A., Harrison, F. A., et al.\ 2010, , 711, 641. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/641

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    C., & Vinko, J.\ 2012, , 746, 121

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J.\ 2012, , 746, 121. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc45f

    Chen, K., Ren, J., & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2023, , 948, 136. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc45f

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2024, , 961, 206

    Chen, K. & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2024, , 961, 206. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    & Lin, D

    Chen, Y.-X. & Lin, D. N. C.\ 2024, , 967, 88. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c3a

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dd4

    Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, Y.-F., Goodman, J., et al.\ 2024, , 974, 1, 106. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dd4

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Roth, N., et al.\ 2018, , 859, L20

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., et al.\ 2018, , 859, L20. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Delfavero, V., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2410.18815. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.18815

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dittmann, A. J. & Cantiello, M.\ 2025, , 979, 2, 245. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9e92

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2184

    Eisenberg, M., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E.\ 2022, , 517, 582. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2184

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf237

    Epstein-Martin, M., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2025, , 537, 3396. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf237

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Caban, F., et al.\ 2020, , 499, 2608

    Fabj, G., Nasim, S. S., Caban, F., et al.\ 2020, , 499, 2608. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3004

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Cantiello, M., et al.\ 2025, , 981, 16

    Fabj, G., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., et al.\ 2025, , 981, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada896

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    J.\ 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, by Juhan Frank and Andrew King and Derek Raine, pp

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J.\ 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, by Juhan Frank and Andrew King and Derek Raine, pp. 398. ISBN 0521620538. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, February 2002., 398

    2002

  19. [27]

    A., Bonnerot, C., et al.\ 2024, , 530, 3689

    Gangardt, D., Trani, A. A., Bonnerot, C., et al.\ 2024, , 530, 3689. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1117

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    & Stone, N

    Gilbaum, S. & Stone, N. C.\ 2022, , 928, 191. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ded

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    B., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 3320

    Gottlieb, O., Bromberg, O., Singh, C. B., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 3320. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2567

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Bromberg, O.\ 2021, , 500, 3511. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al.\ 2020, , 124, 251102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 99. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1957

    Grishin, E., Bobrick, A., Hirai, R., et al.\ 2021, , 507, 156. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1957

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    C.\ 2024, , 530, 2, 2114

    Grishin, E., Gilbaum, S., & Stone, N. C.\ 2024, , 530, 2, 2114. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae828

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    & Ioka, K.\ 2021, , 500, 627

    Hamidani, H. & Ioka, K.\ 2021, , 500, 627. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3276

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty760

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

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d54

    Huang, B.-Q., Liu, T., Li, X.-Y., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 67. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d54

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Nakar, E., & Piran, T.\ 2019, , 489, 2844

    Irwin, C. M., Nakar, E., & Piran, T.\ 2019, , 489, 2844. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2268

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    & Gr \"o bner, M.\ 2024, , 529, 883

    Ishibashi, W. & Gr \"o bner, M.\ 2024, , 529, 883. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae569

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al.\ 2001, , 365, L1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    2001 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Dittmann, A

    Jermyn, A. S., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., et al.\ 2021, , 914, 105. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfb67

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    Johnson, M. H. & McKee, C. F.\ 1971, , 3, 858. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.858

    1971 doi

  35. [44]

    D., Perna, R., Lazzati, D., et al.\ 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 23

    Kang, H. D., Perna, R., Lazzati, D., et al.\ 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 23. doi:10.33232/001c.131902

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    R., et al.\ 2024, , 972, 101

    Kathirgamaraju, A., Li, H., Ryan, B. R., et al.\ 2024, , 972, 101. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a3

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S.\ 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks --- Towards a New Paradigm ---, 549 pages, including 12 Chapters, 9 Appendices, ISBN 978-4-87698-740-5, Kyoto University Press (Kyoto, Japan), 2008

    2008

  38. [47]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/781

    Katz, B., Budnik, R., & Waxman, E.\ 2010, , 716, 781. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/781

    2010 doi

  39. [48]

    & Most, E

    Kim, Y. & Most, E. R.\ 2024, arXiv:2409.12359. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.12359

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al.\ 2021, arXiv:2111.15608

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac98ad

    Lazzati, D., Soares, G., & Perna, R.\ 2022, , 938, L18. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac98ad

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    Lei, L., Zhu, Q.-F., Kong, X., et al.\ 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    & Nakar, E.\ 2020, , 866, 1

    Levinson, A. & Nakar, E.\ 2020, , 866, 1. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.04.003

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    L., Zhang, B., et al.\ 2008, , 675, 528

    Liang, E.-W., Racusin, J. L., Zhang, B., et al.\ 2008, , 675, 528. doi:10.1086/524701

    2008 doi

  45. [54]

    A., Allison, J., et al.\ 2009, arXiv:0912.0201

    LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al.\ 2009, arXiv:0912.0201. doi:10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2009 doi arXiv

  46. [56]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., et al.\ 2012, , 425, 460. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    2012

  47. [57]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., O'Shaugnessy, R., et al.\ 2020, , 494, 1203. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa740

    2020 doi

  48. [58]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., & O'Shaughnessy, R.\ 2020, , 498, 4088. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2681

    2020 doi

  49. [59]

    J., Lazzati, D., & Begelman, M

    Morsony, B. J., Lazzati, D., & Begelman, M. C.\ 2007, , 665, 569. doi:10.1086/519483

    2007 doi

  50. [60]

    doi:10.1086/497296

    Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R.\ 2005, , 635, 516. doi:10.1086/497296

    2005 doi

  51. [61]

    & Sari, R.\ 2010, , 725, 904

    Nakar, E. & Sari, R.\ 2010, , 725, 904. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    2010 doi

  52. [62]

    & Sari, R.\ 2012, , 747, 88

    Nakar, E. & Sari, R.\ 2012, , 747, 88. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/88

    2012 doi

  53. [63]

    & Piro, A

    Nakar, E. & Piro, A. L.\ 2014, , 788, 193. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/193

    2014 doi

  54. [64]

    & Piran, T.\ 2017, , 834, 28

    Nakar, E. & Piran, T.\ 2017, , 834, 28. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

    2017 doi

  55. [65]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3640

    Pais, M., Piran, T., & Nakar, E.\ 2023, , 519, 1941. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3640

    2023 doi

  56. [66]

    & Sari, R.\ 2006, , 643, 416

    Pan, M. & Sari, R.\ 2006, , 643, 416. doi:10.1086/502958

    2006 doi

  57. [67]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd319

    Perna, R., Lazzati, D., & Cantiello, M.\ 2021, , 906, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd319

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4

    Perna, R., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2021, , 915, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4

    2021 doi

  59. [69]

    L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y.\ 2021, , 909, 209

    Piro, A. L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y.\ 2021, , 909, 209. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b1

    2021 doi

  60. [70]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/15

    Qin, Y., Liang, E.-W., Liang, Y.-F., et al.\ 2013, , 763, 15. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/15

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad816

    Ray, M., Lazzati, D., & Perna, R.\ 2023, , 521, 4233. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad816

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    C., Bom, C

    Rodr \' guez-Ram \' rez, J. C., Bom, C. R., Fraga, B., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 6076. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3575

    2024 doi

  63. [73]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.12086

    Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., & Kocsis, B.\ 2024, arXiv:2412.12086. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.12086

    2024 doi

  64. [74]

    O., et al.\ 2014, , 147, 79

    Sagiv, I., Gal-Yam, A., Ofek, E. O., et al.\ 2014, , 147, 79. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/79

    2014 doi

  65. [76]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/79

    Sapir, N., Katz, B., & Waxman, E.\ 2013, , 774, 79. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/79

    2013 doi

  66. [77]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A.\ 1973, , 24, 337

    1973

  67. [78]

    S., Wills, B

    Shang, Z., Brotherton, M. S., Wills, B. J., et al.\ 2011, , 196, 2. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/2

    2011 doi

  68. [79]

    & Goodman, J.\ 2003, , 341, 501

    Sirko, E. & Goodman, J.\ 2003, , 341, 501. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    2003

  69. [80]

    M., & Maeda, K.\ 2024, , 76, 863

    Suzuki, A., Irwin, C. M., & Maeda, K.\ 2024, , 76, 863. doi:10.1093/pasj/psae055

    2024 doi

  70. [81]

    doi:10.1086/160082

    Svensson, R.\ 1982, , 258, 335. doi:10.1086/160082

    1982 doi

  71. [82]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/209.2.175

    Svensson, R.\ 1984, , 209, 175. doi:10.1093/mnras/209.2.175

    1984 doi

  72. [83]

    J., & Rees, M

    Syer, D., Clarke, C. J., & Rees, M. J.\ 1991, , 250, 505. doi:10.1093/mnras/250.3.505

    1991 doi

  73. [84]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B.\ 2020, , 898, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    2020 doi

  74. [85]

    S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2022, , 927, 41

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2022, , 927, 41. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac45f8

    2022 doi

  75. [86]

    S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 946, L3

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 946, L3. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc103

    2023 doi

  76. [87]

    S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 13

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 13. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4bb

    2023 doi

  77. [88]

    S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 21

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 21. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b

    2024 doi

  78. [89]

    C., Matzner, C

    Tan, J. C., Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F.\ 2001, , 551, 946. doi:10.1086/320245

    2001 doi

  79. [90]

    A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N.\ 2005, , 630, 167

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N.\ 2005, , 630, 167. doi:10.1086/431923

    2005 doi

  80. [91]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3401

    Urrutia, G., De Colle, F., & L \'o pez-C \'a mara, D.\ 2023, , 518, 5145. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3401

    2023 doi

  81. [92]

    C., et al.\ 2021, , 911, L14

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., et al.\ 2021, , 911, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abee81

    2021 doi

  82. [93]

    C., et al.\ 2021, , 916, L17

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., et al.\ 2021, , 916, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46

    2021 doi

  83. [94]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1968

    Wang, Y.-H., Lazzati, D., & Perna, R.\ 2022, , 516, 5935. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1968

    2022 doi

  84. [95]

    A.\ 1976, , 32, 233

    Weaver, T. A.\ 1976, , 32, 233. doi:10.1086/190398

    1976 doi

  85. [96]

    C., Tananbaum, H

    Weisskopf, M. C., Tananbaum, H. D., Van Speybroeck, L. P., et al.\ 2000, , 4012, 2. doi:10.1117/12.391545

    2000 doi

  86. [97]

    E.\ 1993, , 405, 273

    Woosley, S. E.\ 1993, , 405, 273. doi:10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  87. [98]

    Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S.\ 2006, , 44, 507. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    2006 arXiv

  88. [99]

    Wu, Y., Chen, Y.-X., & Lin, D. N. C.\ 2024, , 528, 1, L127. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad183

    2024 doi

  89. [100]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.19570

    Xue, L., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2504.19570. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.19570

    2025 doi

  90. [101]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V., et al.\ 2019, , 123, 181101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    2019 doi

  91. [102]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al.\ 2019, , 876, 122. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3

    2019 doi

  92. [103]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c0b

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

    2022 doi

  93. [104]

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0\_151-1

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., et al.\ 2022, Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 86. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0\_151-1

    2022 doi

  94. [105]

    ISBN: 978-1-139-22653-0

    Zhang, B.\ 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts by Bing Zhang. ISBN: 978-1-139-22653-0. Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2018. doi:10.1017/9781139226530

    2018 doi

  95. [106]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8139

    Zhang, H.-H., Zhu, J.-P., & Yu, Y.-W.\ 2024, , 976, 63. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8139

    2024 doi

  96. [107]

    doi:10.1007/s10686-022-09856-7

    Zhang, Y.-N., Li, C., Xu, D., et al.\ 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 3, 1053. doi:10.1007/s10686-022-09856-7

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.