Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 67 references

AGN star dynamics under the Influence of Outflow-Ambient Interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stars and stellar-mass black holes with sufficiently strong outflows can gain angular momentum from AGN disk gas and migrate outward, reversing standard dynamical friction.

desk verdict A solid proof-of-principle for anti-friction in AGN disks whose central astrophysical assumption is admittedly shaky; the sBH trap result is too under-resolved to carry the abstract's weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10524 v2 pith:SYDKL65N submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.GA

Muxin Liu , Lile Wang , Peng Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stellardynamicsactivegalacticnucleiwindsmasslossdynamicalfrictionanti-frictionstellar-massblackholesshearingboxsimulations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues from three-dimensional local shearing-box simulations that strong stellar outflows reverse the usual dynamical friction acting on objects embedded in active galactic nucleus (AGN) disks. In the fiducial case, an $8\,M_\odot$ star at about $5000$ Schwarzschild radii from a $10^8\,M_\odot$ black hole blows an isotropic wind, and the collision between that wind and the disk gas builds an overdense bow shock ahead of the star whose gravity accelerates the star forward instead of backward. The time-averaged azimuthal acceleration is $\langle a_y\rangle=0.24\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-2}}$, which through $\dot{r}_{\rm cir}\approx 2a_y/\Omega_0$ gives outward migration at $\langle\dot{r}_{\rm cir}\rangle\approx 2.4\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$; the same star without an outflow migrates inward. The effect is sensitive to the existence of a stable head-wind structure, which in turn depends on the outflow ram pressure balancing the ambient gas and on the disk's radial pressure gradient. A case study of a jet-launching stellar-mass black hole shows the same anti-friction can trap the black hole at an equilibrium radius, a zone where stellar-mass black holes might accumulate and merge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the head-wind (bow-shock) structure: the asymmetric density pattern formed where the stellar outflow's ram pressure meets the ambient gas streaming past the star. Its characteristic size is the standoff radius $R_0\approx[\dot{m} v_{\rm src}/(4\pi\rho_0||\mathbf{v}_g||^2)]^{1/2}$, the point where outflow and ambient ram pressures balance. The gravitational pull of the overdense bow shock on the star produces the positive azimuthal acceleration, and equation (10), $\dot{r}_{\rm cir}\approx 2 a_y/\Omega_0$, converts that acceleration into the orbital migration rate. Supporting machinery includes the local shearing-box hydrodynamics with a softened stellar potential and a spherical source region that continuously injects outflow, plus the pressure-gradient offset $x_p$ that sets the relative headwind speed between star and gas.

What would settle it

Run the fiducial simulation with the mass-loss rate reduced by an order of magnitude (to about $3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$) or with mass loss suppressed by disk accretion; if the time-averaged azimuthal acceleration is no longer positive, the outward migration and the equilibrium trap do not survive. A complementary observational check is to search AGN disks for an excess population of outflow-launching stars or black-hole merger sites at the predicted equilibrium radius.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 'anti-friction' operates for outflowing stars in AGN disks: instead of a trailing overdense wake that drags the object back (ordinary dynamical friction), the star's wind creates a persistent overdense bow-shock structure ahead of the star, and the gravitational attraction of that structure accelerates the star forward. In the fiducial simulation, the star gains angular momentum from the disk gas at a time-averaged rate $\langle a_y\rangle=0.24\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-2}}$, which translates through $\dot{r}_{\rm cir}\approx 2 a_y/\Omega_0$ into outward migration at $\langle\dot{r}_{\rm cir}\rangle\approx 2.4\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. The mechanism is sensitive to the radial pressure gradient of the disk: a steeper gradient (parameterized by $x_p=45$ AU) strengthens the outward acceleration, while a vanishing gradient ($x_p=0$) destroys the head-wind structure and restores inward migration. Isotropic winds are not the only route: in a case study of a stellar-mass black hole with a $z$-axis jet, the disk's high inflow velocity bends the jet material into the trailing side, and the resulting anti-friction gives $\langle a_y\rangle\approx0.40\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-2}}$ and outward migration at $\approx1.83\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. Varying the black hole's orbital radius reveals equilibrium points where inward and outward migration balance, trapping the black hole in a zone between roughly 3808 and 4006 Schwarzschild radii.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism requires embedded stars to actually sustain strong outflows (mass-loss rates around $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ or more), a condition the paper itself notes is hard to meet and may be suppressed by disk accretion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Outflowing AGN stars can migrate outward instead of inward, so ordinary dynamical-friction capture is not the only possible fate for embedded stars.
  • The migration rate follows directly from the azimuthal acceleration through $\dot{r}_{\rm cir}\approx 2a_y/\Omega_0$; in the fiducial case it is $\approx2.4\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, comparable in magnitude to inward frictional migration.
  • Anti-friction works only inside a parameter window: both too-weak and too-strong outflows fail (the $80\,M_\odot$ case shows inward migration), and the radial pressure gradient must be strong enough to maintain the head-wind structure.
  • Jet outflows along the $x$, $y$, or $z$ axes in the non-accreting fiducial disk do not produce anti-friction; the accreting-disk case with a $z$-axis jet is the one that yields outward migration.
  • An initially inward-migrating jet-launching stellar-mass black hole can settle in a trapped zone near $3808$–$4006$ Schwarzschild radii where inward and outward migration cancel, potentially accumulating black holes and fostering binary mergers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Population models of stars and stellar-mass black holes in AGN disks should include a two-sided migration torque: the main qualitative change is that outflow-launching objects can be parked at pressure-gradient-dependent radii rather than always drifting inward.
  • The equilibrium zone implies a spatial signature: gravitational-wave mergers of stellar-mass black holes born in AGN disks could cluster in an annulus of the disk rather than near the supermassive black hole.
  • The same head-wind anti-friction could in principle act on other outflow-launching bodies embedded in disks, such as massive planets in protoplanetary disks, though the much lower gas density makes the required ram-pressure balance harder to reach.
  • Because the simulations do not model turbulence, the stability of the head-wind structure in a realistically magnetized disk is open; adding turbulence is the most direct extension and could either disrupt the bow shock or add stochastic migration kicks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 3D local shearing-box hydrodynamic simulations, performed with the GPU code Kratos, of a star or stellar-mass black hole with outflows embedded in the outer regions of an AGN disk. It considers isotropic winds and jet-like outflows, and varies the radial pressure-gradient offset xp, the adiabatic index gamma, and the background accretion flow. The central claim, developed in §3.1 and summarized in Table 2, is that the fiducial 8 Msun star with an isotropic super-Eddington outflow develops a positive time-averaged azimuthal acceleration, <ay> = 0.24 x 10^-8 km s^-2, which through Eq. (10), rdot_cir ~ 2 ay / Omega0, implies outward migration at about 2.4 km s^-1. This is attributed to an anti-friction head-wind structure, in contrast to the inward migration found in the no-outflow control. A jet case (BH-jet-z) is used to argue that an sBH with a z-directed jet can be trapped at an equilibrium radius in the range 3808-4006 Rsch. The paper explicitly acknowledges several caveats in §5.1 and §5.3, including the difficulty of sustaining the assumed super-Eddington mass-loss rates and the simplified treatment of stellar structure and disk thermodynamics.

Significance. If the central simulation result were robust, the paper would establish a qualitatively new dynamical channel in AGN disks: outflow-driven anti-friction that reverses dynamical friction and promotes outward migration of embedded stars, with potential implications for sBH retention, binary formation, and GW progenitor scenarios. The paper has clear strengths: the local shearing-box model is well posed, the no-outflow control is a natural benchmark, the code is documented, the parameter choices are transparent, and the authors are explicit about modeling limitations. However, the astrophysical significance is currently limited by three interconnected gaps: the fiducial mass-loss rate is disfavored by the authors' own §5.1 discussion; the MASS model, which lies in the plausible high-mass range, yields the opposite sign of migration; and no convergence tests or error estimates are presented for the reported accelerations. The anti-friction mechanism itself is physically plausible in the idealized setup, but the paper as written does not yet demonstrate that the outward-migration effect operates for realistic AGN star parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (8); Table 1; §5.1] The fiducial model assumes mdot ~ 3 x 10^-3 Msun/yr for an 8 Msun star, justified by the super-Eddington scaling of Eq. (8). The authors themselves state in §5.1 that sustained super-Eddington mass loss is difficult, that continuum-driven rates above ~10^-3 Msun/yr require masses above 40-60 Msun, and that recent radiative-hydrodynamic simulations find such mass loss suppressed by accretion at ~0.01 Msun/yr (Chen et al. 2024, 2025). The FID-anti run therefore computes positive <ay> for a parameter combination that §5.1 indicates is not realized by an 8 Msun AGN star. Because the outward-migration claim rests on this run, the manuscript needs either a revised fiducial setup using a viable outflow rate for 8 Msun, or an explicit reframing of the result as an idealized proof-of-concept whose domain of applicability is separately established.
  2. [Table 2; §3.1, MASS model] The MASS-anti run, with an 80 Msun star and vsrc = 2 x 10^8 cm/s, is the one model whose mass lies in the range that could plausibly sustain a strong outflow, yet it gives <ay> = -0.30 x 10^-8 km s^-2, i.e., inward migration. This is not a small quantitative change; it reverses the sign of the central effect. Taken together with the fiducial result, the sign of migration is not robust across the tested parameter space, and the paper currently provides no demonstrated case of anti-friction-driven outward migration for a progenitor that can realistically supply the assumed outflow. I ask the authors to map the sign of <ay> in the (mdot, vsrc, mass) parameter space and to identify a region with outward migration that is compatible with viable mass-loss rates.
  3. [§4; Table 2; Table 3; Figure 15] The sBH trapping claim rests on the BH-jet-z simulation, but its runtime is reported inconsistently: Table 2 footnotes give tevo = 0.1 P, while Table 3 states tevo = 3 P. A duration of 0.1 orbital periods is too short to define a converged time-averaged acceleration or to support a migration picture. In addition, the equilibrium trap range 3808-4006 Rsch in Figure 15 is inferred from a sparse scan (roughly seven values of r0) with no error bars, no resolution study, and no discussion of how the averaging interval or interpolation affects the zero crossings. The trapped-zone conclusion is therefore not yet supported by the presented evidence.
  4. [§3.1; Table 1; Figure 5; Figure 2] The FID-fric control, which sets the baseline sign of dynamical friction, is run in a smaller and differently shaped box (Lx,Ly,Lz = 50,100,150 AU) than the FID-anti model (75,150,75 AU), even though the text says all other parameters are unchanged. The friction/anti-friction comparison is therefore not strictly controlled, and no resolution or box-size convergence study is presented for any model. Moreover, the tabulated <ay> values are single numbers without uncertainties; the time series in Figure 2 show substantial fluctuations around the means, and without error bars or convergence tests it is not possible to assess whether a reported positive or negative <ay> of order 10^-9 km s^-2 is statistically significant.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The displayed definition of xp appears corrupted: it reads 'xp = -∂xp/(2qΩ0^2ρ)' which is dimensionally inconsistent; it should presumably involve the radial pressure gradient ∂p/∂x.
  2. [§4] The text states that the time-averaged acceleration is '≈ 0.40 km s^-2', but Table 2 uses units of 10^-8 km s^-2; please correct the units for consistency.
  3. [Table 2] The footnote legend using '+' and '-' to denote anti-friction and friction cases is not defined in the table header; please add a clear legend.
  4. [Fig. 11 caption] The caption says 'Both models consider the scenario with stellar outflow', but the figure shows three JET models; please correct the wording.
  5. [Eq. (7)] The heating ratio η uses R0 before R0 has been defined; please define the standoff radius before or within Eq. (7).
  6. [Global] There are several typographical issues, including 'there are several several caveats' and 'procedcures'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central outward-migration result is a simulation output converted by a standard Gauss relation, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain doing the work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that outflows can reverse dynamical friction and drive outward migration, is obtained from 3D shearing-box simulations in which the azimuthal acceleration ay is measured directly (Fig. 2, Table 2). Eq. (10), dot r_cir approximately equals 2 ay / Omega0, is the standard Gauss planetary relation in the shearing-box approximation; it neither contains the sign nor the magnitude of the result. The fiducial mass-loss rate is an input chosen from super-Eddington scaling (Eq. 8), not fitted to produce a positive ay, and the no-outflow control (FID-fric) produces the opposite sign, showing that the outcome is not imposed by construction. The equilibrium-trapping picture in Sec. 4 is read from a parameter scan over r0 (Fig. 15), not derived from an equation that already encodes the trap. The paper's own Sec. 5.1 caveat, that sustained super-Eddington mass loss at the modeled rates is astrophysically difficult for 8 Msun stars, is a plausibility limitation and not a circularity: the simulation chain from assumed outflow to measured acceleration is still self-contained. Citations to prior anti-friction work (Gruzinov et al. 2020; Li et al. 2020; Wang & Li 2022) are used as background and for the standoff-radius estimate, but the present demonstration does not rely on those papers for the sign of ay; that sign is a fresh simulation result. Hence no step reduces to its own inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation depends on five hand-chosen model parameters (outflow rate, launch velocity, pressure offset, adiabatic index, accretion velocity) and on four domain assumptions about the shearing-box representation, fixed source treatment, disk thermodynamics, and the super-Eddington scaling. No fitted parameters are used to force the sign of the acceleration; the sign is an emergent simulation outcome.

free parameters (5)
  • Stellar mass loss rate ⌂ṁ = 3 × 10^-3 M_sun yr^-1 (fiducial and BH-jet-z), varying implicitly in MASS model
    Chosen to represent a super-Eddington wind; sets the ram-pressure balance standoff radius R0 = [⌂ṁ v_src / (4π ρ0 ||v_g||^2)]^{1/2} that controls whether the head-wind structure forms.
  • Outflow launch velocity v_src = 8 × 10^7 cm s^-1 (fiducial), 2 × 10^8 cm s^-1 (MASS), 1 × 10^8 cm s^-1 (BH-jet-z)
    Together with ⌂ṁ sets the outflow ram pressure and the size of the cleared cavity.
  • Pressure-gradient offset x_p = 90 AU (fiducial), 45 AU (PG-45), 0 AU (PG-0)
    Controls the headwind speed of ambient gas relative to the star; anti-friction fails at x_p = 0.
  • Adiabatic index γ = 5/3 (fiducial), 4/3 (GAMMA)
    Thermodynamic response of disk gas to outflow; changing it weakens but does not eliminate anti-friction.
  • Accretion velocity v_acc = 0 (fiducial), 10^6 cm s^-1 (ACCD and BH-jet-z)
    Prescribed radial inflow that in the BH-jet-z model confines the z-jet to the trailing side, enabling anti-friction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The local shearing box approximation is valid: the box (75-200 AU) is much smaller than the orbital radius r0 ≈ 5000 R_sch ≈ 10^4 AU (Hawley et al. 1995).
    In §2.1 the equations of motion are written in a co-rotating Cartesian frame; all results are local and assumed representative of the global disk.
  • domain assumption The star is a fixed source particle with a prescribed, steady outflow; its orbit and mass do not evolve during the simulation (§2.1, §5.3).
    This 'adiabatic orbital evolution' approximation means the measured acceleration is instantaneous and migration rates are inferred, not self-consistently evolved.
  • domain assumption The disk gas is locally isothermal with γ = 5/3 (or 4/3), in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium, with negligible self-gravity and outflow heating small compared with radiative cooling (η ≈ 10% in Eq. 7).
    These are used to set the initial density profile (Eq. 5) and the equilibrium flow (Eq. 6); turbulence and MRI are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Super-Eddington mass loss follows ⌂ṁ = L_Edd / v_esc^2 (Paxton et al. 2011), with the escape-velocity scaling applied to an 8 M_sun star.
    The paper itself notes in §5.1 that such rates require >40-60 M_sun stars and may be suppressed by accretion, so this scaling is the most fragile external input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGN star dynamics under the Influence of Outflow-Ambient Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SYDKL65N

@misc{pith2026250510524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGN star dynamics under the Influence of Outflow-Ambient Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SYDKL65N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10524}
}
read the original abstract

Stars with outflows interacting with ambient gas experience accelerations arising from the gravitational feedback induced by the interaction structure. In this work, three-dimensional (3D) local shearing box simulations are performed to investigate the dynamical evolution of a star with outflows embedded in the outer regions of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk. Two types of stellar wind are considered: isotropic winds and axisymmetric jets, along with variations in the radial pressure gradient profile. The results show that anti-friction enables AGN stars to acquire angular momentum from the ambient gas, resulting in outward migration away from the disk center. The formation and stability of the head-wind structure, which is crucial for maintaining anti-friction, are sensitive to both the strength of the stellar outflow and the radial pressure gradient of the disk gas. Once the head-wind structure is disrupted, the anti-friction effect ceases to operate effectively. A case study is also presented, focusing on a stellar-mass black hole (sBH) in an AGN disk. It is shown that jet material launched along the z-axis is confined to the trailing side of the object's motion by high gas inflow velocities, thereby activating anti-friction and inducing outward migration. If such an sBH migrates inward initially, the interplay between inward and outward migration may trap it at an equilibrium radius, potentially facilitating the formation and merger of black hole binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gas density ρ in the z = 0 plane (i.e., the orbital plane; left column) and the x = 0 plane (right column) at the tevo = 15 P snapshot of the fiducial model. The star is located at the origin, with color indicating gas density and black velocity streamlines representing the gas flow pattern. The white dashed circle indicates the characteristic standoff distance, R0 ≈ [ ˙mvsrc/(4πρ0 ||vg||2 )]1/2 , where the total pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The acceleration experienced by the star in the FID-anti and FID-fric models. The red, blue, and orange lines represent the acceleration components in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. Solid and dashed lines correspond to the FID-anti model, while the dotted lines represent the FID-fric model. The grey and black dash-dot lines represent the GAMMA-anti and MASS-anti models. The solid lines depict the instanta… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The mass accretion rate per area at x = −Lx. The red and blue lines correspond to the FID-anti and FID-fric models, respectively. The solid lines depict the in￾stantaneous m˙ area, while the dashed lines represent the mean values averaged over 15 orbital periods. tion,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gas density ρ in the z = 0 plane (i.e., the orbital plane) at tevo = 15 P for the PG-45 (left panel) and PG-0 (right panel) models. The white dashed circle indicates the characteristic standoff distance R0. Given that massive stars tend to yield higher mass￾loss rates,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The acceleration experienced by the star in the PG-45 (upper panel) and PG-0 (lower panel) models. Both models include scenarios with and without stellar outflows. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 tevo ( yr ) −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ˙marea ( 10 − 6 g s −1 cm…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The star’s y-direction acceleration (upper panel) and the mass accretion rate per area at x = −Lx (lower panel) of JET-x, JET-y, and JET-z models. Both models consider the scenario with stellar outflow. other parameters identical to the fiducial model. This case is he…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Gas density ρ in the x = 0 plane at tevo = 0.1 P for the BH-jet-z models. 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 r0 ( Rsch ) −0.06 −0.04 −0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 a y ( 10 − 8 km s − 2 ) balance point 1 balance point 2 balance point 3 γ = 5/3 γ = 4/3 trapped zon…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time-averaged azimuthal acceleration of the sBH in the BH-jet-z models for different values of r0. 5.1. Impacts of the Anti-friction on AGN Star Dynamical Evolution Stars embedded within gaseous disks can excite spi￾ral density waves, and the resulting net torque from…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Armitage, P. J. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 195, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 2011

  2. [2]

    Artymowicz, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Wampler, E. J. 1993, ApJ, 409, 592, doi: 10.1086/172690

    doi:10.1086/172690 1993

  3. [3]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 —. 2003, in Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics, ed. E. Falgarone & T. Passot, Vol. 614, 329–348, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0203353

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0203353 1998

  4. [4]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & Márka, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 2017

  5. [5]

    S., & Lin, D

    Cantiello, M., Jermyn, A. S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2021, ApJ, 910, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdf4f Carrillo-Santamaría, J., López-Cámara, D., De Colle, F., Moreno Méndez, E., & Sánchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf905

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdf4f 2021

  6. [6]

    Chakrabarti, S. K. 1993, ApJ, 411, 610, doi: 10.1086/172863

    doi:10.1086/172863 1993

  7. [7]

    1942, ApJ, 95, 489, doi: 10.1086/144420

    Chandrasekhar, S., & von Neumann, J. 1942, ApJ, 95, 489, doi: 10.1086/144420

    doi:10.1086/144420 1942

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd0a

    Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, Y.-F., & Goodman, J. 2025, ApJ, 987, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd0a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd0a 2025

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, Y.-F., Goodman, J., & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, ApJ, 974, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dd4 16

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, Y.-F., Goodman, J., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023, ApJ, 948, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc023

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Goldberg, J

    Cheng, S. J., Goldberg, J. A., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    1991, Ap&SS, 181, 313, doi: 10.1007/BF00639097

    Demircan, O., & Kahraman, G. 1991, Ap&SS, 181, 313, doi: 10.1007/BF00639097

    1991 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad749

    Derdzinski, A., & Mayer, L. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad749

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    J., & Miller, M

    Dittmann, A. J., & Miller, M. C. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa463

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Stone, J

    Dong, R., Rafikov, R. R., Stone, J. M., & Petrovich, C. 2011, ApJ, 741, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/56

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    2004, NewAR, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    Edgar, R. 2004, NewAR, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Caban, F., et al

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

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    Goodman, J., & Tan, J. C. 2004, ApJ, 608, 108, doi: 10.1086/386360

    2004 doi

  11. [20]

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

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Gruzinov, A., Levin, Y., & Matzner, C. D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa013

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 440, 742, doi: 10.1086/175311

    1995 doi

  14. [23]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  15. [24]

    1990, ApJ, 351, 632, doi: 10.1086/168501

    Hubeny, I. 1990, ApJ, 351, 632, doi: 10.1086/168501

    1990 doi

  16. [25]

    2004, ApJ, 602, 595, doi: 10.1086/381159

    Janiuk, A., Czerny, B., Siemiginowska, A., & Szczerba, R. 2004, ApJ, 602, 595, doi: 10.1086/381159

    2004 doi

  17. [26]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Blaes, O. 2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/45

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Goodman, J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/45

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    M., & Gammie, C

    Johnson, B. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2003, ApJ, 597, 131, doi: 10.1086/378392

    2003 doi

  20. [29]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/51

    Just, A., Yurin, D., Makukov, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/51

    2012 doi

  21. [30]

    F., Meiron, Y., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al

    Kennedy, G. F., Meiron, Y., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw908

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    2011, PhRvD, 84, 024032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024032

    Kocsis, B., Yunes, N., & Loeb, A. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 024032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024032

    2011 doi

  23. [32]

    I., & Syunyaev, R

    Kolykhalov, P. I., & Syunyaev, R. A. 1980, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 6, 357

    1980

  24. [33]

    2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0307084

    Levin, Y. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0307084

    2003 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2577 —

    Li, R., & Lai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2577 —. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1117 —. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae504

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    D., & Armitage, P

    Li, X., Chang, P., Levin, Y., Matzner, C. D., & Armitage, P. J. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa900

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    Lin, D. N. C., & Papaloizou, J. 1979a, MNRAS, 186, 799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/186.4.799 —. 1979b, MNRAS, 188, 191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/188.2.191 —. 1986, ApJ, 309, 846, doi: 10.1086/164653

    1986 doi

  28. [37]

    Liu, M., Wang, L., Fu, X., & Ho, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 978, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad91a9

    2025 doi

  29. [38]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    1969 doi

  30. [39]

    MacLeod, M., & Lin, D. N. C. 2020, ApJ, 889, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64db

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    Masset, F. S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2271

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    S., & Papaloizou, J

    Masset, F. S., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2003, ApJ, 588, 494, doi: 10.1086/373892

    2003 doi

  33. [42]

    W., Chang, P., Murray, N

    Murray, D. W., Chang, P., Murray, N. W., & Pittman, J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1316, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2796

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    P., Gressel, O., & Umurhan, O

    Nelson, R. P., Gressel, O., & Umurhan, O. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1475

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    Ostriker, E. C. 1999, ApJ, 513, 252, doi: 10.1086/306858

    1999 doi

  36. [45]

    P., & Shaviv, N

    Owocki, S. P., & Shaviv, N. J. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 384, Eta Carinae and the Supernova Impostors, ed. K. Davidson & R. M. Humphreys, 275, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2275-4_12

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    P., Townsend, R

    Owocki, S. P., Townsend, R. H. D., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2251

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    1978, AcA, 28, 91

    Paczynski, B. 1978, AcA, 28, 91

    1978

  39. [48]

    2021, PhRvD, 104, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063007

    Pan, Z., Lyu, Z., & Yang, H. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063007

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103018

    Pan, Z., & Yang, H. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103018

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 4224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty459

    Panamarev, T., Shukirgaliyev, B., Meiron, Y., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty459

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acce3b

    Peng, P., & Chen, X. 2023, ApJ, 950, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acce3b

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16070, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16070

    Peng, P., Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., & Chen, X. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16070, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16070

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    Peterson, B. M. 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei Sánchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2020, ApJ, 897, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b2d

    1997 doi

  46. [55]

    1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    1963 doi

  47. [56]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 17

    1973

  48. [57]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1986, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects

    1986

  49. [58]

    Shlosman, I., & Begelman, M. C. 1987, Nature, 329, 810, doi: 10.1038/329810a0

    1987 doi

  50. [59]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

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

    2003

  51. [60]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

    M., & Gardiner, T

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

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    J., & Rees, M

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

    1991 doi

  54. [63]

    A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

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

    2005 doi

  55. [64]

    C., & Du, P

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., & Du, P. 2021, ApJL, 911, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee81

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbdb6

    Wang, L. 2025, ApJS, 277, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbdb6

    2025 doi

  57. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ce6

    Wang, L., & Li, X. 2022, ApJ, 932, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ce6

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    Wang, Y., Zhu, Z., & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae321

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    Ward, W. R. 1986, Icarus, 67, 164, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90182-X

    1986 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.