Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Simulating ULXs and blazars as GRMHD accretion flows around a black hole

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that hard-state ultraluminous X-ray sources are magnetically arrested accretion flows around fast-spinning stellar-mass black holes, and that the FSRQ/BL Lac blazar dichotomy reflects SANE versus MAD magnetic states.

desk verdict GRMHD parameter study with a plausible qualitative story; the quantitative ULX/blazar matches are hand-calibrated, not predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03538 v1 pith:VDDPYXVQ submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.HE

Mayank Pathak , Banibrata Mukhopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords BlazarsUltraluminousX-raysourcesGRMHDsimulationsMagneticallyarresteddisksSANEaccretionBlackholespinRelativisticjetsdiskmagnetohydrodynamics
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

Hard-state ultraluminous X-ray sources have luminosities that appear super-Eddington for stellar-mass black holes, and blazars split into two luminosity classes whose origin is debated. This paper uses general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetised accretion flows to argue that both puzzles share one explanation: the magnetic state of the accretion flow and the spin of the central black hole. It claims that only a magnetically arrested disk around a fast-spinning stellar-mass black hole produces outflow power in the observed ULX range, and that flat-spectrum radio quasars correspond to standard (SANE) disks while BL Lac objects correspond to magnetically arrested (MAD) disks, with black hole spin setting the sub-classes. If correct, the same framework explains super-Eddington hard-state luminosities without intermediate-mass black holes and attributes the blazar dichotomy to magnetic saturation rather than viewing angle alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is 2.5-dimensional GRMHD simulation of a magnetised analytic equilibrium torus (a Fishbone-Moncrief torus) with two initial magnetic configurations: SANE, where weak fields evolve slowly and MRI turbulence transports angular momentum, and MAD, where the field saturates near the horizon and erupts quasi-periodically. The outflow power is computed as P(r) = [(Mdot - Edot)/Mdot(req)] Mdot_phy $c^{2}$, with a hand-set physical accretion rate Mdot_phy = 0.05 Mdot_Edd at r=10 for a 20 solar-mass black hole in the ULX case and 5e-5 Mdot_Edd for a 1e8 solar-mass black hole in the blazar case. This quantity, plus the magnetic stress components b^$\theta$ b^phi, b^r b^$\theta$, b^r b^phi, the angular-momentum ratio $\lambda$/lambda_k, and plasma-$\beta$ profiles, carries the identification of simulated flows with observed source classes.

What would settle it

Measure the accretion rate onto a candidate hard-state ULX with a dynamically determined stellar-mass black hole: if its luminosity stays in the 3e39 to 3e41 erg/s range while the inferred accretion rate is well below the assumed 0.05 Eddington, the scaling that puts simulated MAD powers in the ULX band fails. For the blazar side, a direct signature of magnetic state, such as plasma-beta measurements or magnetic-flux-saturation proxies from jet polarimetry, showing an FSRQ with MAD-like fields or a BL Lac with SANE-like MRI-dominated flow would break the claimed dichotomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed luminosity differences across two very different black-hole mass scales are governed by the same two parameters: whether the accretion flow reaches the magnetically arrested state, and how fast the black hole spins. In the stellar-mass case, the simulation with spin a=0.9375 in the MAD regime gives a time-averaged outflow power inside the observed ULX luminosity range (about 3e39 to 3e41 erg/s), while SANE runs and lower spins fall below it; this is taken as evidence that hard-state ULXs are magnetically arrested advective flows around rapidly spinning stellar-mass black holes, with no need for intermediate-mass black holes. In the supermassive case, after scaling the same simulation outputs to M=1e8 solar masses and a low advective accretion rate, SANE systems around slow-to-intermediate spins are identified with FSRQs, MAD systems around slow-to-fast spins with HSP-to-ISP BL Lacs, and fast-spinning SANE systems with LSP BL Lacs because of their FSRQ-like external-Compton component. The magnetic stress profiles, angular-momentum ratios, and plasma-beta profiles are used to show that FSRQs are disk-dominated, MRI-driven flows while BL Lacs are magnetically dominated, large-scale-field flows.

Load-bearing premise

The luminosity scale is fixed by hand-chosen physical accretion rates and black hole masses (0.05 Eddington for a 20 solar-mass ULX, 5e-5 Eddington for a 1e8 solar-mass blazar), so if the real accretion rates or masses differ from these choices, the claimed matches to observed luminosities weaken; a second load-bearing premise is that the axisymmetric 2.5D simulations exaggerate the MAD flux eruptions that drive the ULX outflow powers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hard-state ULXs should host rapidly spinning stellar-mass black holes, since in the simulations only a=0.9375 MAD flows reach the observed luminosity band while slower spins fall short.
  • ULX outflow power from MAD flows involves extraction of black hole rotational energy, so these sources are expected to launch powerful jets with efficiencies exceeding unity.
  • FSRQs and BL Lacs differ primarily by accretion-flow magnetic state rather than just viewing angle: FSRQs are MRI-turbulent, disk-dominated SANE flows, while BL Lacs are magnetically dominated MAD flows.
  • Within BL Lacs, the synchrotron-peak sequence from HSP to ISP is set by increasing black hole spin, with LSP BL Lacs sharing the FSRQ/SANE nature.
  • The same simulation setup applied at two mass scales implies that magnetic saturation, MAD versus SANE, is a universal organizing principle for black-hole accretion outflows from stellar-mass to supermassive systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the MAD/SANE distinction is the controlling variable, then hard-state ULXs and BL Lacs should share observational signatures of magnetic flux saturation, such as quasi-periodic flux-eruption variability in X-rays or radio and highly organized poloidal magnetic fields; this could be tested with long X-ray timing campaigns on a few hard-state ULXs.
  • The paper's assignment of LSP BL Lacs to fast-spinning SANE flows implies a continuum rather than a sharp dichotomy, so one might predict a population of borderline objects whose classification flips as their accretion rate or magnetic flux crosses the MAD threshold.
  • The scaling procedure suggests a testable extension: if a ULX's black hole mass and accretion rate are measured independently, the required spin can be predicted, and the framework could be falsified by a ULX whose inferred spin is too low.
  • Because the simulations are axisymmetric, a natural next step is to check in three dimensions whether the ULX-matching outflow power survives; if flux eruptions are weaker in 3D, the agreement may degrade, so the paper's strongest prediction is also its most fragile.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2.5-dimensional GRMHD simulations (BHAC code) of SANE and MAD accretion flows around black holes with spins a = 0, 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9375. The authors compute time-averaged radial profiles of accretion rate, outflow power, magnetic field, magnetic stresses, angular momentum, and plasma-β. They argue that a high-spin MAD system around a 20 M_sun black hole produces outflow power matching hard-state ULX luminosities, and that the FSRQ/BL Lac dichotomy can be understood as a SANE/MAD difference combined with a black hole spin ordering. The physical luminosity scale is set by hand-picked accretion rates: Eq. (6) multiplies the simulated dimensionless efficiency by Mdot_phy, chosen as 0.05 Mdot_Edd for ULXs (§3.3) and 5e-5 Mdot_Edd for blazars (§4), with the latter chosen to reproduce the debeamed luminosities of the same group's BL19 paper.

Significance. If the quantitative matches were genuine predictions, the paper would offer an attractive unification of two distinct astrophysical source classes under magnetized accretion. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses a standard, publicly available GRMHD code; it varies spin and magnetic state systematically; the dimensionless ordering of outflow power with spin and MAD/SANE state is a real simulation result; and the magnetic stress, angular momentum, and plasma-β profiles provide physically plausible support for the qualitative picture. However, the absolute luminosity claims are not derived from first principles: the accretion-rate normalizations in Eq. (6) are chosen specifically to place the simulated powers in the observed ranges, and the 2.5D setup is admitted to exaggerate the very MAD eruption events that drive the ULX match. The paper's value is therefore currently more as a consistency study of a prior model than as an independent confirmation or prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (6)] The absolute luminosity scale is imposed rather than derived. In Eq. (6), P(r) = [(Mdot - Edot)/Mdot(req)] Mdot_phy c^2, and in §3.3 the authors set Mdot_phy = 0.05 Mdot_Edd at r = 10 for M = 20 M_sun, with the explicit goal of scaling the MAD a = 0.9375 system into the ULX luminosity range. Since the equation is linear in Mdot_phy, the statement in §3.3 that 'only the MAD system with a = 0.9375 has outflow power in the observed ULX luminosity range' is a property of the chosen accretion-rate normalization, not an independent simulation result. A factor of two change in Mdot_phy (or in M) moves all curves vertically in Fig. 5 and can shift the MAD a = 0.9375 curve out of the shaded band. The same issue applies to §4, where Mdot_s = 5e-5 Mdot_Edd for M = 1e8 M_sun is chosen so that the simulated outflow power is 'equivalent to the debeamed luminosities calculated by BL19'; the FSRQ/BL Lac ordering in Fig. 8 is therefore calibrated to the same group's prior luminosity estimates. Please either derive Mdot_phy from independent physical constraints or clearly reframe the paper as a dimensionless efficiency study.
  2. [§3 (paragraph after Fig. 2) and §5] The ULX luminosity claim rests on time-averaged MAD outflow powers, but the authors state in §3 that flux eruption events are 'exaggerated in 2-dimensional simulations' and in §5 that axisymmetric runs 'fail to capture the effect of non-axisymmetric phenomena like turbulence, actual flux eruption events etc.' Despite this, the paper presents no error bars or variability measures for the time-averaged outflow powers in Fig. 5, and no 3D or literature comparison to quantify the exaggeration. Because the central ULX result is the absolute level of P(r) for MAD a = 0.9375, the admitted 2.5D artifact could be directly responsible for the match. Please quantify the variability (e.g., the standard deviation over the 15000-step averaging window, or a comparison with published 3D MAD efficiencies) before drawing quantitative conclusions.
  3. [§4, Fig. 8 and concluding paragraph] The mapping between simulated SANE/MAD states and observed FSRQ/BL Lac subclasses is not derived from simulated observables. The paper does not compute EC fractions, synchrotron peak frequencies, or spectral energy distributions; it assigns HEC/LEC FSRQs and HSP/ISP/LSP BL Lacs purely from the ordering of outflow power and the BL19 debeamed luminosities. For example, the claim that 'MAD systems with high spins (a = 0.9375) correspond to ISP BL Lacs' and that 'MAD system with a = 0.1 corresponds to HSP BL Lacs' is an interpretive leap that would require a radiative model to connect jet power to synchrotron peak location. The conclusion 'FSRQs can be explained as SANE systems...' is therefore overstated; the simulation results are consistent with this interpretation but do not uniquely establish it. Please soften the causal language or add a direct spectral comparison.
  4. [§3.4, Fig. 7] The claimed agreement of the simulated magnetic field strength (2 x 10^7 G for MAD a = 0.9375) with ULX19 is not an independent check, because the density scale (and hence the field strength in physical units) is set by the same Mdot_phy normalization used in Eq. (6). A code with the same dimensionless field configuration can be scaled to any physical field strength by changing Mdot_phy. The profile shape and the ordering of field strengths across spins and MAD/SANE are simulation outputs, but the absolute value quoted in §3.4 is an input-dependent conversion. Please state this explicitly or re-derive the field strength from a different constraint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, first paragraph] Typo: 'desribe' should be 'describe'.
  2. [§3.4, paragraph on energy flux] Typo: 'higher than the the magnitude' should be 'higher than the magnitude'.
  3. [§3.2] Missing space in 'req = 10because'; also the definition of req in §3.1 would benefit from a reference to the specific radius used in Fig. 4.
  4. [References] The reference 'Jianfu, Z., Xu, B., & Lu, J. 2014' appears to be a non-standard author listing; please verify the correct name formatting per the journal style.
  5. [§2, simulation parameters] A table summarizing the runs (spin, MAD/SANE, resolution, duration, req, and time-averaging window) would improve reproducibility and readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The absolute luminosity matches in the ULX and blazar sections are calibrated by hand-set accretion-rate scales, so those quantitative claims are partly imposed inputs rather than independent predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eq. (6) and Fig. 5]
    "we scale the accretion rate of the MAD flow with a = 0.9375 such that it has ˙Mphy = 0.05 ˙MEdd at r = 10 ... As evident from Fig. 5, only the MAD system with a = 0.9375 has outflow power in the observed ULX luminosity range."

    Because Eq. (6) is linear in the chosen scale ˙Mphy, the absolute vertical position of every power profile in Fig. 5 is fixed by the adopted 0.05 ˙MEdd input, not determined by the simulation. The claim that only the MAD a = 0.9375 run intersects the observed ULX band is therefore a property of that chosen accretion-rate scale (and of the assumed 20 M⊙ mass); a different ˙Mphy would move a different spin/state into or out of the band. The dimensionless ratio (˙M−˙E)/˙M(req) is a genuine simulation output, but the absolute luminosity 'match' is an input assumption presented as confirmation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph introducing Fig. 8]
    "we choose the ˙Ms for our analysis to be 5 × 10−5 ˙MEdd with M = 10^8M⊙. This choice puts the accretion rate for all our MAD results in the advective regime and also scales the computed outflow power to be equivalent to the debeamed luminosities calculated by BL19."

    The simulation is normalized so that its output equals the BL19 debeamed luminosities; the later statements that the model explains the FSRQ/BL Lac dichotomy and that 'their debeamed luminosities calculated by BL19 also enable us to interpret their spectral behaviour' therefore compare the model to a target it was scaled to match. BL19 is prior work by the same group (Mondal & Mukhopadhyay 2019b), so the calibration target is not an external independent datum. The relative ordering of the curves (MAD vs SANE, spin ordering) remains a simulation output, but the absolute luminosity agreement is imposed by the chosen ˙Ms.

full rationale

The GRMHD simulations themselves (run with BHAC) are self-contained: the dimensionless outflow power, magnetic stresses, angular momentum profiles, and plasma-β profiles are genuine simulation outputs, and the relative ordering with spin and with MAD/SANE state is not forced by the normalization. The circularity is confined to the conversion from code units to physical luminosity. In Section 3.3, Eq. (6) multiplies the simulated dimensionless outflow power by a hand-set ˙Mphy = 0.05 ˙MEdd (with M = 20 M⊙ chosen following ULX19); because the expression is linear in ˙Mphy, the statement that only MAD a = 0.9375 falls in the observed ULX band is a consequence of that chosen scale. In Section 4, the blazar normalization is explicitly chosen so that the computed power 'is equivalent to the debeamed luminosities calculated by BL19,' a same-group paper; the later 'explanation' of the FSRQ/BL Lac dichotomy therefore compares the model to a target it was scaled to match. The paper also admits that 2.5D axisymmetry exaggerates MAD flux eruption events, which adds uncertainty to the MAD outflow powers central to the ULX claim, though this is a numerical limitation rather than circular reasoning. On balance, the central quantitative matches are partially constructed by the chosen accretion-rate inputs, while the qualitative physical content is independent; this warrants a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two hand-set accretion-rate normalizations (ULX: 0.05 Mdot_Edd; blazar: 5e-5 Mdot_Edd), the assumption that 2.5D ideal MHD captures the relevant outflow power, and an asserted but uncomputed relation between accretion rate and external Compton fraction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Mdot_phy (ULX accretion rate normalization) = 0.05 Mdot_Edd at r=10, M=20 Msun
    Chosen in Section 3.3 to convert code units to cgs; all ULX outflow powers scale linearly with it, so the match to observed ULX luminosities is partly imposed.
  • Mdot_s (blazar accretion rate normalization) = 5e-5 Mdot_Edd, M=1e8 Msun
    Chosen in Section 4 to put MAD results in the advective regime and to match BL19 debeamed luminosities; the classification ordering is then compared against the same scaled values.
  • req (inflow-outflow equilibrium radius) = 10 rg
    Selected after inspecting accretion rate profiles so all simulations are in equilibrium; used to normalize Mdot(req) in Eq. (6).
  • Initial plasma-beta = 100
    Sets the initial magnetic field strength in the torus; this choice affects the subsequent SANE or MAD evolution and the magnetic flux buildup.
  • b2/rho density floor maximum = 100
    Density is injected when b2/rho exceeds 100 to control numerical errors; this can modify accretion rates and outflow power near the black hole.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD and flux freezing hold in the accretion flow.
    Used throughout; in Section 3 the authors argue magnetic flux is frozen with matter, linking accretion rate and flux peaks.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric 2.5D evolution captures the outflow power relevant for ULXs and blazars.
    The simulations are 2.5D; authors note 2D exaggerates flux eruptions, yet MAD outflow powers are used for the ULX claim.
  • domain assumption Fishbone-Moncrief torus is a valid initial equilibrium for the accretion flow.
    Used as the initial density and angular momentum configuration in Section 2; standard for GRMHD disk simulations.
  • domain assumption Blandford-Znajek mechanism and MRI govern angular momentum transport and jet power.
    Used in Sections 3.3 and 4.1 to interpret stress components and the increase of outflow power with spin.
  • domain assumption M87 is a BL Lac and its accretion flow is MAD.
    Used in Section 4 to choose Mdot_s and to motivate the MAD interpretation for BL Lacs, citing EHT and modeling works.
  • ad hoc to paper Lower accretion rate implies fewer soft photons and hence lower external Compton fraction in FSRQs.
    This causal chain in Section 4 is asserted, not computed with radiative transfer; it is load-bearing for the FSRQ/BL Lac subclass mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating ULXs and blazars as GRMHD accretion flows around a black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VDDPYXVQ

@misc{pith2026250203538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating ULXs and blazars as GRMHD accretion flows around a black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VDDPYXVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03538}
}
read the original abstract

General relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations have been instrumental in our understanding of high energy astrophysical phenomena over the past two decades. Their robustness and modularity make them a great tool for understanding the dynamics of various astrophysical objects. In this paper we have used GRMHD simulations to understand the accretion flows of ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) and blazars. ULXs are enigmatic sources which exhibit very high luminosities (super-Eddington for stellar mass black holes) even in their low-hard state. Numerical steady state calculations have shown that this behaviour can be explained by considering ULXs to be highly magnetised advective accretion sources around stellar-mass black holes. Our simulation confirms that such an accretion flow can indeed produce the high luminosities observed in ULXs. Further to continue towards the supermassive black holes, we have also modeled blazars and have used our simulation results to explain the apparent dichotomy in the two blazar classes: flat spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) and BL Lacertae (BL Lacs). Our results show that FSRQ and BL Lacs show different spectral characteristics due to a difference in their magnetic field characteristics. The different categories of FSRQs and BL Lacs have also been explained by the interplay between the spin, magnetic field and accretion rate of the central supermassive black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithmic density contours at various time for SANE evolution with magnetic field streamlines for different spins of the black hole. For movie of density contour time evolution, follow: https://youtu.be/6SXBTk5ePes and eventually again the fields build up. This cycle re￾peats throughout the evolution of the system, irrespec￾tive of the black hole spin. This effect is exaggerated in 2-dimensional simulations, as th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Logarithmic density contours at various time for MAD evolution with magnetic field streamlines for different spins of the black hole. For movie of density contour time evolution, follow: https://youtu.be/PCy37oTpykk This further shows the magnetically dominated nature of MAD simulations. To study the dynamics of the accretion flow, we con￾sider the following quantities (Narayan et al. 2022): 1. M˙ (r) = − R √ −gρurd… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The time evolutions of accretion rate and magnetic flux measured at the black hole event horizon for SANE and MAD simulations. The results are then time-averaged over the last 15000 time-steps for all the simulations. For a quantity ‘q’, its disk-average is thus given by (McKinney et al. 2012) < q >disk= R q √ −gρdθdϕ R √ −gρdθdϕ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accretion rate profiles for SANE and MAD sim￾ulations. used in the following section to quantify the outflow power. 3.3. Outflow power calculation The time evolution of various system parameters is governed by the stress energy tensor of the system. The net outflow pow…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Outflow power profiles for SANE and MAD simulations. Shaded region indicates the observed ULX luminosity range. The average outflow power from the inflow-outflow equilibrium region is mentioned in the legend. systems. For intermediate to low spinning black holes, howev…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the magnetic energy flux with the matter energy flux. have a low outflow power due to lower mass accretion rate (Fig. 4a) and lower energy flux (Fig. 6a). The MAD systems also have consistently higher magnetic fields than their SANE counterparts, which ex…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FSRQ and BL Lac power profiles. choose the M˙ s for our analysis to be 5×10−5M˙ Edd with M = 108M⊙. This choice puts the accretion rate for all our MAD results in the advective regime and also scales the computed outflow power to be equivalent to the debeamed luminosit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MAD and SANE magnetic field stresses. to their intrinsic magnetic properties. The correspond￾ing EC and synchrotron peak characteristics can be at￾tributed to the spin of the central supermassive black hole. 4.1. Magnetic field stresses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SANE and MAD angular momentum profiles. ϕ-component of the three-angular velocity in the ZAMO (zero angular momentum observer) frame. λ/λk for SANE systems is higher than MAD for all black hole spins considered. Moreover, for SANE sys￾tems, the λ/λk values approach 1 …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plasma-β profiles for all the simulations consid￾ered. than 1 almost throughout the inflow-outflow equilib￾rium region. For SANE flows, however, the plasma-β is more than 1. This shows that SANE flows are prone to MRI induced turbulence, leading to angular momentum tr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum signatures in black hole accretion: Pair production in dynamical magnetic fields

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper applies Schwinger pair production to toy magnetic field pulses in magnetically arrested disks and predicts detectable 1-3000 MHz synchrotron flux, but internal inconsistencies invalidate the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/30 2010

  2. [2]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    work page arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J

    Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3790

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3790 2022

  4. [4]

    2010, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries, ed

    Belloni, T. 2010, States and Transitions in Black Hole Binaries, ed. T. Belloni (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 53–84, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8_3 2010

  5. [5]

    2002, ApJ, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290

    Belloni, T., Psaltis, D., & van der Klis, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 392, doi: 10.1086/340290

    doi:10.1086/340290 2002

  6. [6]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  7. [7]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 Błażejowski, M., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Madejski, G. M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 107, doi: 10.1086/317791

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  8. [8]

    Chakrabarti, S., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1995, ApJ, 455, 623, doi: 10.1086/176610

    doi:10.1086/176610 1995

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97 de Jong, S., Beckmann, V., Soldi, S., Tramacere, A., &

    Chatterjee, K., & Narayan, R. 2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97 de Jong, S., Beckmann, V., Soldi, S., Tramacere, A., &

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv927 Del Santo, M., Malzac, J., Belmont, R., Bouchet, L., & De

    Gros, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv927 Del Santo, M., Malzac, J., Belmont, R., Bouchet, L., & De

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts574

    Cesare, G. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts574

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    D., & Schlickeiser, R

    Dermer, C. D., & Schlickeiser, R. 1993, ApJ, 416, 458, doi: 10.1086/173251

    1993 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1512 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2006, ARA&A, 44, 323, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092519

    Fabbiano, G. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 323, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092519

    2006 arXiv

  8. [16]

    G., & Moncrief, V

    Fishbone, L. G., & Moncrief, V. 1976, ApJ, 207, 962, doi: 10.1086/154565

    1976 doi

  9. [17]

    F., McKinney, J

    Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, 444, doi: 10.1086/374594

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/143

    Jianfu, Z., Xu, B., & Lu, J. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/143

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    Maraschi, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    2012

  13. [21]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2019a, MNRAS, 482, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly165 —

    Mondal, T., & Mukhopadhyay, B. 2019a, MNRAS, 482, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly165 —. 2019b, MNRAS, 486, 3465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1062 —. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1161

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2002, ApJ, 581, 427, doi: 10.1086/344227

    Mukhopadhyay, B. 2002, ApJ, 581, 427, doi: 10.1086/344227

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285 14

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285 14

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    Porth, O., Olivares, H., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    Porth, O., Chatterjee, K., Narayan, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab29fd

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C

    Ressler, S. M., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., & Gammie, C. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx364

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Rohoza, V., Paik, M., Lalakos, A., et al. 2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 20, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 116.35

    2023

  22. [30]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  23. [31]

    Madejski, G. M. 2009, ApJ, 704, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/38

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Roberts, T

    Sutton, A. D., Roberts, T. P., & Middleton, M. J. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1419

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  26. [34]

    I., Hartig, G

    Tsvetanov, Z. I., Hartig, G. F., Ford, H. C., et al. 1998, ApJL, 493, L83, doi: 10.1086/311139

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Pjanka, P., Sikora, M., & Stawarz, Ł

    Zdziarski, A. A., Pjanka, P., Sikora, M., & Stawarz, Ł. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1009

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.