Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Stellar-mass black holes, not stars, explain quasi-periodic eruptions.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:59 UTC pith:YMMC2IJU

load-bearing objection Genuinely novel global simulations that make the star/sBH asymmetry case well, but the 'full QPE energy range' claim rests on an ad hoc normalization that the referee should push on. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2603.00226 v2 pith:YMMC2IJU submitted 2026-02-27 astro-ph.HE

Quasi-periodic Eruptions from Stellar-mass Black Holes Impacting Accretion Disks in Galactic Nuclei

Kun Liu , Shang-Fei Liu , Zhen Pan , Hongping Deng , Rongfeng Shen , Cong Yu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodic eruptionsstellar-mass black holesaccretion disksgalactic nucleihydrodynamic simulationsBondi-Hoyle accretiontidal disruption eventsX-ray transients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are recurring soft X-ray flares in galactic nuclei whose origin is debated. This paper uses global 3D hydrodynamic simulations to compare two proposed impactors crossing a tidal-disruption accretion disk: a solar-mass star and a ~100-solar-mass black hole. It finds that stellar impacts produce strongly one-sided ejecta—the forward outburst dominates by over an order of magnitude—so only one eruption per orbit should be visible, and several observed sources sit dangerously close to the tidal-disruption radius. A stellar-mass black hole, by contrast, gravitationally focuses and heats disk gas across a region extending from its Bondi radius to its Hill radius, producing nearly symmetric two-sided ejecta and, at low orbital inclination, enough energy to match the whole observed range of 10^44–10^48 erg. The paper's central proposal is an effective interaction radius R_eff = 0.5 (R_B R_H^2)^{1/3} that replaces the Bondi-only estimate and makes stellar-mass black holes viable without invoking intermediate-mass black holes.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the standard way of estimating the energy released when a stellar-mass black hole crosses an accretion disk—taking its Bondi radius as the shocked region—underestimates the interaction by a large margin. In global simulations that include the full gravitational potential of the central supermassive black hole, the effective radius over which the intruder gravitationally heats disk gas follows R_eff ≈ 0.5 (R_B^{1/3} R_H^{2/3}), an interpolation between the Bondi and Hill radii with the previously ignored Hill radius dominating. The measured ejecta masses and energies match this scaling, and the paper shows that an sBH of roughly 50–100 solar masses crossing a disk w

What carries the argument

The central object is an ad hoc effective interaction radius R_eff = 0.5 R_B^{1/3} R_H^{2/3}, where R_B is the Bondi radius (the scale at which the intruder's gravity overcomes the gas's thermal and kinetic energy) and R_H is the Hill radius (the scale at which the supermassive black hole's tidal gravity strips gas away). This radius quantifies the region over which a stellar-mass black hole gravitationally focuses, heats, and ejects disk gas during a crossing. It is validated and calibrated by global 3D meshless finite-mass hydrodynamic simulations that resolve the Bondi-to-Hill scales and measure the forward and backward ejecta masses and energies.

Load-bearing premise

The entire energy budget rests on treating the disk as an adiabatic polytropic gas with a fixed vertical scale height of one solar radius and no radiative cooling: if the shocked gas cools quickly in real tidal-disruption disks, the heated ejecta would be less massive and slower, and the calibrated effective radius—and with it the computed energies—would shrink.

What would settle it

Re-run the sBH-disk collision with a radiation-hydrodynamic scheme that allows the shocked gas to cool and radiate during the ~1 hour simulated interaction. If including cooling reduces the ejecta mass or expansion speed by a large factor, the claimed energy range of 10^44–10^48 erg and the R_eff calibration would not survive. Alternatively, a QPE source with a well-measured disk surface density whose flare energy requires an impactor above ~100 solar masses at any inclination would falsify the paper's central claim that no intermediate-mass black hole is needed.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Stellar-mass black holes of roughly 50–100 solar masses on low-inclination orbits become a viable explanation for QPEs such as GSN 069, without requiring intermediate-mass black holes.
  • The observed alternating long–short recurrence intervals and strong–weak flare contrasts can arise naturally from two mildly asymmetric impacts per orbit of an sBH, whereas the star model predicts only one detectable burst per orbit.
  • The sBH model predicts eruption durations spanning roughly an order of magnitude through its inclination-dependent interaction radius, matching the observed diversity of QPE durations.
  • Several short-period QPE sources lie within twice the tidal-disruption radius for a solar-mass star, so the star model faces a severe stability problem; the sBH model has no corresponding lifetime limit.
  • The formula R_eff ≈ 0.5 (R_B R_H^2)^{1/3}, if correct, boosts the predicted sBH-disk energy budget by orders of magnitude at low inclinations relative to the Bondi-only estimates used in earlier work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sBH picture is correct, QPEs become an electromagnetic tracer of stellar-mass black holes at galactic centers, potentially the same population that space-based gravitational-wave observatories aim to detect—a connection the paper raises but does not develop.
  • The R_eff scaling is an empirical fit from adiabatic runs; a testable extension is that faster radiative cooling of the shocked gas should shrink the effective radius and steepen the inclination dependence of flare energy.
  • The same gravitational-drag enhancement across Bondi-to-Hill scales may apply to other disk-embedded bodies, such as compact objects in AGN disks or planets in protoplanetary disks, where energy-budget estimates currently use only the Bondi or physical radius.
  • Because the paper fixes the vertical scale height and uses an adiabatic equation of state, a natural next step is to vary H and the cooling time; the claimed 10^44–10^48 erg range could then be refined into a sharper, source-specific prediction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses global 3D meshless finite-mass (MFM) simulations with GIZMO to compare stellar-mass black hole (sBH) and stellar impactors crossing TDE accretion disks around an SMBH, including the SMBH potential. It reports that stellar impacts produce strongly asymmetric, forward-dominated ejecta and face tidal stability problems, while 100 Msun sBH impacts produce nearly symmetric ejecta with energies that grow at low inclination. The paper introduces an ad hoc effective interaction radius R_eff ~ 0.5 R_B^{1/3} R_H^{2/3}, uses it in a semi-analytical model, and claims that sBH-disk collisions can power the full QPE energy range (10^44-10^48 erg) without invoking intermediate-mass black holes.

Significance. If the quantitative central claim holds, this is a potentially important contribution: the global setup including the SMBH potential is a genuine step beyond local box simulations, and the qualitative distinction between asymmetric stellar ejecta and quasi-symmetric sBH ejecta is directly relevant to the QPE debate. The paper is also commendably transparent that Eq. (10) is ad hoc and that radiative transfer is not included. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a dimensional normalization in Eq. (19) and on an empirical radius calibrated to only four sBH runs; the confirmation in Section 5.3 is therefore partly circular. The strengths are the qualitative simulation findings and the honest discussion of limitations; the weakness is the unanchored absolute energy scale in the semi-analytical model.

major comments (5)
  1. [§1 vs §5.4/§6] The paper states in the Introduction that QPE flare energies are 10^40-10^42 erg, but the abstract, §5.4, and §6 base the central claim on a 'full QPE energy range (10^44-10^48 erg)'. These differ by four orders of magnitude. Since the claimed viability of sBH impacts depends on covering the observed energy range, this inconsistency must be resolved. If the two numbers refer to different quantities (e.g., emitted soft X-ray energy versus total energy budget), define them explicitly.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (19)] Eq. (19) is not derived from the simulations or from a standard gravitational-drag calculation. The R_sun^2 normalization is introduced as a 'characteristic normalization scale' because the physical scales fall between 0.03 and 10 R_sun. That is a dimensional choice, not a physical result: replacing R_sun^2 by R_eff^2, R_B R_H, or an integrated drag expression changes E_sBH by factors of order (R_eff/R_sun)^2, which across the explored parameter range can shift the claimed 10^44-10^48 erg interval substantially. Because this equation, rather than the simulation data, generates the central quantitative claim, the absolute energy scale is unanchored. Please derive the rate from a controlled calculation (e.g., a calibrated version of Eq. 6) or present the simulation kinetic energies with uncertainties as the primary evidence.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (10); Table 1] The empirical R_eff relation is explicitly ad hoc and is calibrated to only four sBH runs: two inclinations (π/10 and π/2) and three surface densities, all with m_sBH=100 Msun, M_SMBH=10^6 Msun, and H=1 Rsun. The same relation is then used in §5.3 to 'confirm' the simulation trends and to produce the full 10^44-10^48 erg range, so the confirmation is partly circular. No error bars or convergence tests are reported for the ejecta masses and energies in Table 1. Independent runs with different masses, scale heights, and inclinations, and a clear separation between calibration and validation, are needed before extrapolation to the observed QPE population.
  4. [§3, §5.4] The simulations use a polytropic gamma=4/3 disk with no radiative transfer, so shocked gas retains all thermal energy over the hour-long runs. The measured ejecta masses, expansion speeds, and hence the calibration of R_eff may change if radiative cooling is efficient in real TDE disks. The paper acknowledges this in §5.4 but does not quantify the effect on the energy budget. Since the central claim depends on these simulation-derived quantities, the magnitude of the cooling uncertainty should be estimated or bounded.
  5. [Table 1 vs §5.3] The simulation energies in Table 1 are estimated as (1/2) M_sh v_rel^2, whereas the semi-analytical model in §5.3 uses the gravitational energy rate in Eq. (19). The 'qualitative reproduction' of the simulation trend therefore compares two different energy definitions. The paper should state which energy channel is meant by 'burst energy' and should show that the semi-analytical model and the simulations measure the same quantity before using the model to extend the simulation results to the full QPE range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures] In §4.2, references to 'Fig. 2(a)' and 'Fig. 2(b)' appear to refer to Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 5(b); please correct the cross-references.
  2. [References] There are duplicated or incomplete entries (e.g., Chakraborty et al. 2025 appears twice; multiple Zhou et al. 2025 entries with abbreviated author lists) and some line breaks in the reference list should be cleaned up.
  3. [§1] The sentence 'flare energies of 10^40-10^42 erg' should be cross-checked with the later 10^44-10^48 claim; if they denote different quantities, define them explicitly.
  4. [§5.3] Eq. (15) uses v_k sin i for the residence time while Eq. (13) uses 2 v_k sin(i/2) for the relative velocity; the near-equality at low i is coincidental and the notation should state which velocity enters each step.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Quantitative 'confirmation' of the 10^44–10^48 erg range reduces to the ad hoc R_eff fit (Eq. 10) plus the R_sun-normalized energy rate (Eq. 19); the qualitative symmetry/Hill-radius claims remain independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.2 Eq. (10); Sec. 5.3 Eqs. (17)-(20); Sec. 6 Summary]
    "We propose the following empirical scaling of the effective radius R_eff ... R_eff ≃ 0.5 R_B^{1/3} R_H^{2/3}. This ad hoc relation is not rigorously derived from the simulations but serves as a guess ... reproducing the measured ejecta mass and energy budgets more accurately than the estimation with the Bondi radius. ... Our semi-analytical model, calibrated to simulations, confirms that sBH impacts can power the full QPE energy range (10^44-10^48 erg)."

    The effective radius R_eff, the key input of the semi-analytical model, is explicitly calibrated to the measured ejecta masses/energies of the same simulations that the model is then said to 'confirm'. The claimed full energy range is therefore a restatement of the fit plus an extrapolation, not an independent prediction. The independent content lies in the qualitative statements (Hill-radius dominance, near-symmetric ejecta), not in the quantitative energy-budget confirmation.

  2. other [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (19)]
    "where we adopt R_⊙^2 as a characteristic normalization scale to simplify the calculation of order-of-magnitude estimates of the gravitational pull effect. The choice is justified because the key physical length scales involved ... all fall within a range from ~0.03 R_⊙ to ~10 R_⊙ depending on the inclination and other parameters."

    The absolute energy scale entering the derived E_sBH is set by this freely chosen 1/R_sun^2 normalization rather than by the simulated hydrodynamics or a standard gravitational-drag formula. Because E_sBH ∝ M_sBH R_eff/R_sun^2 by construction, replacing R_sun with R_eff changes the 'predicted' energies by factors (R_sun/R_eff)^2. The 10^44–10^48 erg range is thus partly an artifact of this input choice, so the quantitative confirmation is not independent of the model's own normalization.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine, independent numerical work: global 3D MFM simulations, the measured ejecta masses and energy asymmetries in Table 1, and the qualitative physical distinction between star-disk (asymmetric, wake-dominated) and sBH-disk (near-symmetric, Hill-radius-limited) impacts. These are not circular. The circularity concerns the quantitative central claim. Section 5.2 introduces R_eff as an 'ad hoc' empirical formula chosen to reproduce the measured ejecta mass and energy budgets; Section 5.3 then builds the semi-analytical model on this calibrated R_eff and the paper's Summary states that this 'calibrated to simulations' model 'confirms' the full 10^44–10^48 erg QPE range. That is a fitted input being presented as a confirming prediction. The separate Eq. (19) normalization by R_sun^2 is likewise a freely chosen scale that directly sets the absolute energy range. No load-bearing self-citation was found: the few self-references are to earlier methods/data or observational energy estimates and do not substitute for the derivation. The paper is transparent about the ad hoc nature and the lack of radiative transfer, which mitigates but does not remove the partial circularity of the quantitative confirmation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claim rests primarily on the fitted R_eff scaling and the order-of-magnitude energy model, plus several modeling assumptions about the disk and the neglect of radiative transfer. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Effective interaction radius R_eff = 0.5 R_B^{1/3} R_H^{2/3} = coefficient 0.5 and exponents 1/3, 2/3
    Eq. (10) is explicitly 'ad hoc' and 'not rigorously derived'; it is chosen to reproduce measured ejecta mass and energy from the simulations and then used as input to the semi-analytical model.
  • Gravitational energy normalization distance in Eq. (19) = 1 R_sun
    Equation (19) uses R_sun^2 as a characteristic scale for the gravitational pull; this is a hand-chosen order-of-magnitude normalization rather than a derived integral, and it directly sets the absolute scale of E_sBH.
  • Coulomb logarithm ln Lambda in Eq. (6) = 5
    Adopted from prior literature for the dynamical-friction energy estimate; it sets the normalization of the drag energy budget.
  • Disk surface density and scale height = Sigma = 10^4-10^6 g/cm^2; H = 1 R_sun
    The surface density range and fixed scale height are model inputs chosen for numerical convenience and consistency with TDE disk estimates; all simulation energies scale directly with these choices.
  • Ejecta energy estimator = E = 1/2 M_sh v_rel^2
    Table 1 energies are computed with this simple kinetic-energy estimate, ignoring thermal energy, radiation efficiency, and detailed light-curve effects.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The disk is a polytropic gamma=4/3 gas with no radiative cooling or radiative transfer.
    Section 3 states the polytropic EOS and that radiative transfer is not included; the paper acknowledges this may cause more pronounced expansion than in a realistic cooling environment.
  • domain assumption The disk has a Gaussian vertical profile with fixed scale height H=1 R_sun and remains in near-Keplerian motion outside the Hill sphere.
    Sections 3 and 5.3 assume this disk structure; the absolute energy budget depends on the surface density and scale height.
  • domain assumption The sBH is treated as a point mass and accretion onto it is neglected.
    Section 3 says accretion contributes negligibly to the overall energy budget; if accretion-powered output were significant, the energy estimates would change, and if gravitational-focusing is overestimated, the sBH scenario weakens.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical R_eff scaling transfers from the four simulated cases to the full observed QPE population and the claimed 1e44-1e48 erg range.
    Only i=18 and 90 degrees, three surface densities, one sBH mass, and one SMBH configuration are simulated; extrapolation to extreme energies is an unverified assumption.
  • domain assumption The observed QPE recurrence time can be identified with the orbital period or half-period for the stellar tidal-stability argument.
    Section 5.1 infers orbital radii from QPE periods under the assumption that only the forward flare is observable; if two flares are visible, the inferred radii change.
  • standard math Standard tidal-disruption-radius criteria for a 1 M_sun main-sequence star apply to the QPE hosts.
    Section 5.1 uses prior tidal-disruption results (Guillochon et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2013) to judge stellar survival; these criteria are external inputs.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18988 in / 12857 out tokens · 146703 ms · 2026-08-02T19:59:33.707605+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-periodic Eruptions from Stellar-mass Black Holes Impacting Accretion Disks in Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMMC2IJU

@misc{pith2026260300226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-periodic Eruptions from Stellar-mass Black Holes Impacting Accretion Disks in Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMMC2IJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.00226}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigate the origins of quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) in galactic nuclei using global three-dimensional meshless finite-mass (MFM) simulations. By modeling stellar and black-hole impactors traversing accretion disks under various inclinations and surface densities, we evaluate their consistency with the observed properties of QPEs. Stellar impacts produce highly asymmetric bipolar ejecta with forward outbursts dominating by over an order of magnitude in energy and luminosity due to the star blocking downstream flow and creating a low-density wake. This shock-compression mechanism often renders backward events unobservable, implying one detectable burst per orbit, and challenging the standard assumption of two bursts. It also fails to explain alternating long--short recurrence patterns and places several sources near or within twice the tidal disruption radius for solar-mass stars, raising severe stability concerns. Whereas a stellar-mass black hole (sBH) gravitationally focuses and heats disk gas over an effective interaction scale that extends beyond its Bondi radius $R_{\rm B}$ and is naturally bounded by its Hill radius $R_{\rm H}$ during an impact, yielding nearly symmetric ejecta with mild contrasts. This gravitational-drag mechanism generates higher energy budgets at low inclinations due to enhanced mass accumulation. We suggest an ad hoc effective interaction radius $ R_{\rm eff} \simeq 0.5\, R_{\rm B}^{1/3} R_{\rm H}^{2/3} $ to quantify this trend. Incorporating this effective radius substantially increases the energy that sBH-disk collisions can produce compared to previous Bondi-only estimates, improving the viability of stellar-mass black holes as the impactors for a wide range of observed QPE energies and properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00226 by Cong Yu, Hongping Deng, Kun Liu, Rongfeng Shen, Shang-Fei Liu, Zhen Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of an extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) system, where a stellar-mass black hole (sBH) moves along a low-inclination orbit and penetrates an optically thick accretion disk with a relative velocity below the local Keplerian speed. During each orbital period, the sBH impacts the disk twice, exciting nearly symmetric ejecta in the vertical directions. The ejecta subsequently expand an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Upper panel: Energy budget estimated with the Linial’s model for a surface density of 106 g cm−2 . The blue solid and red dashed curves correspond to shocked regions of radius RB and 2RB. The gray dotted line indicates the minimum energy budget observed for GSN 069, ≃ 7×1045 erg (G. Miniutti et al. 2023; W. Guo & R.-F. Shen 2026). Lower panel: Duration time as a function of inclination. The blue curve show… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Global simulation of a full accretion disk impacted by an EMRI. The color scale shows the absolute velocity perturbation |∆v|/c relative to the unperturbed disk. Regions outside of the Hill sphere remain essentially unaffected by the intruder. The white box outlines the simulation domain we adopted in our production runs. This sector has a radial width of ∼ 0.2 AU, and spans an azimuthal angle correspondin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vertical slices through the disk along the azimuthal direction showing the density distribution and velocity field. Arrow lengths are not to scale. (a) The bow shock is generated by a star-disk collision, and downstream material fills the low– density cavity left by the star’s passage, producing backward ejecta; (b) The perturbation induced by the sBH-disk interaction, exhibiting a bow-shock-like structure… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Projected density plot for three simulations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density projection snapshots for simulations with reduced disk surface densities, compared with the reference case bh i18 sigma1e6. These runs investigate black hole impacts on accretion disks with lower surface densities of 105 and 104 g cm−2 , while all other parameters are kept identical to those in the reference simulation. the outer layers reach ∼ 2.4 vrel forward and ∼ 1.7 vrel backward, a far milder… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figure showing the relationship between the cir￾cular orbital radius and the tidal radius for a 1 M⊙ star as the impactor. According to the simulation results, in most cases only the brighter of the two eruptions is observable, so the observed QPE period effectively corresponds to the star’s orbital period (Torb = TQPE). ficulty for the star-disk model. A solar-mass main￾sequence star is expected to be ful… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Comparison of Bondi and Hill radii under different impactor masses and orbital inclinations, for a central black hole mass MBH = 1.05 × 106 M⊙ and a semi-major axis a = 1.62 AU (≈ 160 Rg). Effective radii i = π/10 and i = π/2 are shown for reference; (b) Face-on view of the |∆v| distribution from the bh i18 sigma1e6 simulation at the moment when the black hole passes through the disk mid-plane. The whi… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. QPEs from Warped Disk Collisions with EMRIs: Brightness-Recurrence Diagram and Gravitational-Wave Follow-up

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A warped-disk EMRI collision model reproduces QPE patterns in GSN 069 via a new Brightness-Recurrence Diagram and predicts possible LISA detection for a retrograde stellar-mass black hole secondary.

  2. Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals in Light of Quasi-periodic Eruptions: Milli-Hertz Gravitational Wave Background

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    QPE observations yield EMRI rates of 2.88e-6 (stellar) and 6.07e-6 (black hole) per galaxy per year, with only black hole EMRIs potentially exceeding LISA sensitivity in the 1-10 mHz band.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

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

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

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec9b 2025

  4. [4]

    2026, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241

    Baldini, P., et al. 2026, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558241

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558241 2026

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  6. [7]

    2025, Astrophys

    Chakraborty, J., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 2025

  7. [8]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16776

    Chakraborty, J., et al. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16776

    arXiv 2026

  8. [9]

    2024, A&A, 691, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348635

    Chashkina, A., Bromberg, O., Levinson, A., & Nakar, E. 2024, A&A, 691, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348635

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348635 2024

  9. [10]

    J., Fuerst, S

    Dai, L. J., Fuerst, S. V., & Blandford, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16038.x

    arXiv 2010

  10. [11]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09578

    Deng, H. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09578

    arXiv 2025

  11. [12]

    F., & Bai, X.-N

    Deng, H., Mayer, L., Latter, H., Hopkins, P. F., & Bai, X.-N. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 26

    2019

  12. [13]

    A., Nixon, C

    Evans, P. A., Nixon, C. J., Campana, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y 2023

  13. [14]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 2023

  14. [15]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037610 2020

  15. [16]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/74 2011

  16. [17]

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

    Guo, W., & Shen, R.-F. 2026, ApJ, 998, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3562 Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025a, Nature Astronomy, 9, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9 Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, L., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., Chakraborty, J., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16304

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16304 2026

  17. [18]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  18. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    Huang, X., Linial, I., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2025, ApJ, 993, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae07ca 2025

  19. [20]

    B., Igumenshchev, I

    Ivanov, P. B., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Novikov, I. D. 1998, ApJ, 507, 131, doi: 10.1086/306324

    work page doi:10.1086/306324 1998

  20. [21]

    2025, Astrophys

    Jiang, N., & Pan, Z. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 983, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc456

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc456 2025

  21. [22]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1894 2023

  22. [23]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020 2020

  23. [24]

    H., & Linial, I

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb6 2022

  24. [25]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b 2023

  25. [26]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, ApJL, 963, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2464

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2464 2024

  26. [27]

    D., & Quataert, E

    Linial, I., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10096

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10096 2025

  27. [28]

    Liu, S.-F., Guillochon, J., Lin, D. N. C., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 762, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/37

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/37 2013

  28. [29]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2203 2023

  29. [30]

    K., & Dai, L

    Lui, L., Torres-Orjuela, A., Chowdhury, R. K., & Dai, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.07961, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.07961

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.07961 2025

  30. [31]

    D., Stone, N

    Metzger, B. D., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2022, ApJ, 926, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ee1 16

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ee1 2022

  31. [32]

    2023, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    Miniutti, G., Giustini, M., Arcodia, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244512 2023

  32. [33]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

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

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

  33. [34]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6 2024

  34. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2023, ApJ, 952, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd180

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd180 2023

  35. [36]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    Pan, X., Li, S.-L., Cao, X., Miniutti, G., & Gu, M. 2022, ApJL, 928, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5faf 2022

  36. [37]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22465

    Pan, Z., & Lai, D. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [38]

    Repeated Partial Tidal Disruptions and Quasi-Periodic Eruptions in SwJ023017.0+283603

    Pasham, D., Coughlin, E., Nixon, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05948

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.05948 2024

  38. [39]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdc25 2021

  39. [40]

    2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 ´Sniegowska, M., Grz¸ edzielski, M., Czerny, B., & Janiuk, A

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 ´Sniegowska, M., Grz¸ edzielski, M., Czerny, B., & Janiuk, A. 2023, A&A, 672, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243828 Sukov´ a, P., Zajaˇ cek, M., Witzany, V., & Karas, V. 2021, ApJ, 917, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05c6

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012

  40. [41]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    Sun, L., Shu, X., & Wang, T. 2013, ApJ, 768, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/167 2013

  41. [42]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2616 2023

  42. [43]

    2016, A&A, 589, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527629 Tsz-Lok Lam, A., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J

    Thun, D., Kuiper, R., Schmidt, F., & Kley, W. 2016, A&A, 589, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527629 Tsz-Lok Lam, A., Shibata, M., Kawaguchi, K., & Pelle, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17016, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.17016 2016

  43. [44]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb74d 2025

  44. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6

    Wang, M., Yin, J., Ma, Y., & Wu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 933, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e6 2022

  45. [46]

    Wevers, T., & French, K. D. 2024, ApJL, 969, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5725

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5725 2024

  46. [47]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243143 2022

  47. [48]

    2025, Astrophys

    Wu, M., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 988, L77, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf229

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf229 2025

  48. [49]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac31aa 2021

  49. [50]

    2025, Astrophys

    Xiong, Y., Jiang, N., Pan, Z., Hao, L., & Li, Z. 2025, Astrophys. J., 989, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2d7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade2d7 2025

  50. [51]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8911 2025

  51. [52]

    Zalamea, I., Menou, K., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L25, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00930.x

    arXiv 2010

  52. [53]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 244

    Zhang, M., Zhang, W., Deng, H., Guo, H., & Sun, J. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 244

    2025

  53. [54]

    Y., Wang, Y

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142519 2022

  54. [55]

    2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    Zhou, C., Huang, L., Guo, K., Li, Y.-P., & Pan, Z. 2024a, PhRvD, 109, 103031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103031

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103031

  55. [56]

    2025, Mon

    Zhou, C., Pan, Z., Jiang, N., & Zhao, W. 2025, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 543, 1816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1580

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1580 2025

  56. [57]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2

    Zhou, C., Zeng, Y., & Pan, Z. 2025, ApJ, 985, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcee2 2025

  57. [58]

    2024b, PhRvD, 110, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019

    Zhou, C., Zhong, B., Zeng, Y., Huang, L., & Pan, Z. 2024b, PhRvD, 110, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083019

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.083019

  58. [59]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae19ea

    Zhu, J., Jiang, N., Wang, Y., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae19ea

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae19ea 2025